Change Your Image
germanman
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Thin, thin, thin..... its a $3 rental at best. Wait for the DVD
Of Episodes 1,2, and 3, Ep3-RotS is clearly the weakest. The entire point of the film is to connect the dots from where things stood at the end of Episode 2 to where things go to Episode 4. We know there are certain points we have to pass through to get there, and Lucas makes sure the boxes are checked off. In fact, that is one of the weaknesses of latter part of the film as the dialog and story pretty much disappear entirely as the final sequence of events happen in rapid succession as we need to get to where Lucas wants it to be.
There are many small pieces in this film that could have been used to tell a really good and engaging story, but the connection was never really there. Palpatine was well done, given the space within which the character was allowed to maneuver. Anakin's slide to the dark side was, however, totally unbelievable. Set off by weak motivation, trivial events and an unexplained weakness in character and behavior one would never buy from a Jedi.
Its a mediocre film at best. Its a shame that George and company could not do more with it.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
A hacked job - a sequence of scenes that tell no story.
From the beginning, I felt as though I'd come in 5 minutes into the start of the film; as if I'd missed some beginning section, thought I was there from the previews on. This film never got to telling a subset of the story of described in book 3, but rather was a collection of scenes depicting parts of the book, but never evolved into a coherent plot-line that one could follow or feel. I'd read the book; all the books, in fact. That did not help and so I feel those movie goers who had not read, but mearly came for a good film were even more confused and disappointed.
Clearly, there was too much material to cover in the 2hours 20-something minutes of the film (does that count the last 10 minutes which is all credits?). As to be expected, some of the story had to be left out for the sake of brevity. However, this, being my favorite of the books, resulted in my least favorite of the films. And its not even related to the new, leather-cap wearing Dumbledore, whom I could get to like, despite the drastic change in appearance that was not necessary. No, its either the direction, but surely the editing or production thats too blame.
For one, the scenes didn't seem to flow into a store that brought the viewer in. Then, the look of Hogwarts was totally different than the previous films. Sorry, when you are part of a series, you MUST stick to those things that have been established in previous films. Hagrids house is not down a rocky slope from the school and the whole thing is not on a mountain side as depicted... at least not from the previous films. To that I say BOO! Bad job on all responsible. Thanks for ruining a promising and wonderful world. Get off your high 'my artistic vision' horse and do the damn series the way the fans and the previous films and the books have set it up. No one gives a 'wormtails'-arse what your artistic vision of the story is. Really, we don't.
Where did all of these 'standing stones' come from? Nothing of the sort was ever mentioned in the books, neither was Lupin having a mustache. If there had been a mustache - Rowling WOULD have mentioned it. Which, by the way makes me wonder, what the hell was J.K. doing other than making sure the director and producers didn't bugger up the film?
In stead of wasting time on a needlessly long bus sequence and pointless whomping willow vs bird encounters, they could have spent more time telling vital story elements. A few mentions of Hermione showing up to class in the middle of it all doesn't cut it for setting the stage to her actions. Snape making 'one' mention about the 'potions' Lupin should have been taking..., if thats it, you chould have left that out since the director/producer didn't bother to develop the whole Snape-Lupin-Potion situation at all.
The film felt rushed and cramped. Knowing the story, I barely could follow the events. For those not readers of the book, I feel pity for what is surely total confusion.
If there is extra footage on the floor, I pray they do put it into an extended version for DVD ala Lord of the Rings.
Learn your lessons and don't fudge up the next film, "Goblet of Fire", which is to already be shot and I'm expecting in the editing process now.
If this is the vision of the current director, I say, bring back Chris Columbus as soon as possible.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
Hits the mark it was aiming at - thus 4/5
The film is flashy and entertaining on a very simplistic level - just like the videogame it is based upon. Why do people go see and then review movies they know from the start they will not like? If the genre is not your thing - stay away from the movie - don't go and the complain to everyone how you hated it. If you don't like the videogame, this is not the movie for you. If you like a traditional hero-archvillian simple plot with figures aimed at the male audience aged 13-30, then its a very entertaining film. Its fun to watch and for that reason it succeeds. Its not supposed to be a drama or supsense-thriller and if thats what you folks are comparing it to, you need to have your heads examined.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Excellent film for the family (over 8 yrs old)
Disney got one right finally. A great pirate film with interesting characters all around that seem to have real depth. Plot twist, good action and interesting characters. We need more pirate films for sure. A must see on the big screen. The effects of the cursed pirates was very well done - kudos to the CGI folks. The mix of a small bit of scary (enough for the adults and good for the older children) and sufficient humor to go with the beautiful scenery and smashing action made for a superb viewing experience.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Terminator on the cheap. A rental at best.
The very beginning gives you a clue - there is no theme music, no fancy intro, nothing - straight into the film. At that point, it recycles a lot from the previous movies, though in fairness, trying to be funny. It was cute - but, well, it was not that funny.
The script for the play was likely the first draft on a napking of the treatment. Very thin, probably a few pages long. The story, very linear and predictable. While the new terminator is sexy-scary, we are never in actual fear for the lives of our heros or the success of thier mission. The ending twist was nice, but too late to save the film.
There was not any 'wow' in new special effects or action sequences like there was seeing T2 - so there was some dissapointment there. More like Terminator 2.01, without the good story.
Arnolds work is ok, but thin. Too much reused from other films.
Reign of Fire (2002)
Indeed, the only thing worse than dragons is americans.
The premise is enjoyable, the effects are great, and the action is OK. Too bad they had to put a brigade of john-wayne-esque american heros in the film to ruin it. It was actually going along quite well until those loud-mouthed boneheads appeared. Problems with the general plot (of how, dragons that dissappeared because thier food was exhausted, managed to stay alive below London for millions of years - and come awake the instant a human touched them... and then only one male exists on the planet) can be distracting. Far worse, the M.M. character - not sure if its the screenplay or the acting that did that - though the screenplay should be blamed for putting them in there to begin with.
Its a good enough to occupy a couple hours of time.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Very good film for fans and readers - may not stand on its own
I will approach this review in 2 stages: first to address the film and then to address some of the other reviews which I read before and after viewing the film.
For those who love Harry Potter, have read the books and/or like the first film, this is a good film. It is not as good as the first filme - I suspect, more due to the editing - the scenes sometimes jump in the storyline and missing information (which is in the book and not in the film) does not guide the viewer to full comprehension of the situation. However, it is very entertaining and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the Harry Potter saga or has children of at least age 8. It is NOT a film for children of ages under 6 - but then in the USA, that makes little difference as I frequently see parents taking thier 10 year olds to see R rated films with violence, rated for 17 year old audiences.
A for the other reviewers - some of those reviewers have no business seeing the film in the first place. This film is targeted at the audience that the books are targeted at: children aged 7-14 or so. Do not expect this film to be on par with a 'lord of the rings' - if you are expecting this, well, then you are an idiot, plain and simple; use your brain. The story follows the books. The children read the books, then they watch the films and the plot MUST follow that of the books. The film-makers cannot deviate from the plot lines in the books - so for those who think the plot is not up to their standards - too bad, make your own movie. If they changed the plot to make it a more 'hollywood' exciting film, then they would seriously dissapoint and offend the primary audience, the children who have read the books. Many things from the books are missing - and those things may help the flow of the plot a bit - but then the film could be 15 minutes longer still. Some complain about the length- the film is NOT too long - in fact, it may be a few minutes short. It needs to be that long to tell the story. If you are an adult that went to see the movie for the hell of it - stop going to these films and why did you go in the first place. I don't go to disney animations for the same reason - I KNOW I will hate them from the outset and save myself the waste of time. Do not go to a movie that is destined to dissapoint you and then go and complain about the film being crap in some review - your standards are NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE. For some reviewers, I think the material of the film offended them - get over it and get off of your high horse; we have no need for narrow minded twits in this world.
The film is an enjoyable adaptation of a fine piece of fantasy fiction from a childrens/young adult author. That is what one should expect when going to see this film and it delivers. It does well enough to apeal to this 34 year old adult with several university degrees and it will likewise appeal to an 8 year old. It is a good story and a step in a sequence of at least 5 films, we hope (to match the 5 books). This film is NOT a sequel to the first film, it is a film adaptation of the second book, and there is a difference.
All on its own, this film is not as good as the ticket sales will seem to suggest. However, to those who watch the first film, to those young at heart, or those who have read the books, it is a very good film and worth the price of admission.
The Day After (1983)
A good film - critics are missing the point.
I first saw the film as a high school student attending a Department of Defense school in Germany in the early 1980's. The film was shown in school and it scared the bejeeezus out of me and many of my fellow students. We were dealing with Red Army Faction terrorism, car bombs, bomb threats at school and only a few hundred miles from the border to East Germany. The concepts were quite accurate: if the eastern bloc came over the border, then the ONLY NATO response could be to fight a delayed retreat, blowing up roads and bridges as the US and Nato forces were pushed back and most of Germany would have fallen to the Eastern Bloc before any offensive action could have been taken. The scenario leading to the nuclear attacks are quite real and plausible.
The critics say the film was not graphic enough (they prefer things like Threads) or too graphic (prefering more subtile films like Testament ). There is no need to be totally graphic and accurate in portraying the events. Yes, we know it would be worse. But the goal is not to gross everyone out. We want younger audiences to see the film too - and that would never happen with something like theads. Likewise, a mored emotional but action lacking film would not draw in the audiences. The purpose was to 'get the point accross' and I think it did that very successfully - bad acting, flubbed lines, stock footage and all. It showed enough of the circumstances surrounding the events for those who had some education in things could recognize issues and say,"Yes thats right" while not being overly graphic so that only adults could see it.
If you want to see an action movie about nuclear war or you want to see a touchy-feely emotional treatment of the losses due to war - this film is not for you. The purpose of this film is to show what nuclear war may be like (in a very superficial way) and to remind everyone that it must NEVER happen again. Back in the early 1980's with the Soviets under a rotating leadership of old hardliners and the US with Ronny talking smack - the threat was very real and the reality check this film delivers was needed. It doesn't play as well in the year 2002 - but you must remember when a film was made when you see it.