Change Your Image
mrforgetful
Reviews
Captain Abu Raed (2007)
a few steps from greatness
I had the privilege of seeing Captain Abu Raed at Ohio State (Matalqa's alma mater) with the director present. It was moving to hear the stories of the children actors and their struggles thus far in life. Matalqa also commented about how religion and terror and anything else you usually associate with the middle east is absent in this movie, which is one of the first reactions I got by the end of the movie. It's nice to see a movie not trying to plug in some political statement where it's not needed.
Captain Abu Raed had a great premise, with an aging janitor pretending to be a pilot and telling neighborhood kids about his "grand adventures." The cinematography was wonderful, and the music added emotional depth. The acting was convincing overall, with the leads impressively not being too impressive (they acted like ordinary people). My biggest complaint is the pacing. It felt like there were two halves of the movie that were completely different from each other, like the second half was almost a sequel to the first. This gave the movie a somewhat uneven feeling, but overall I'd say it didn't substantially take away from the finished product. There were some subplots that I would've liked further developed, but that would probably have added to the unevenness.
Overall, a good first film, maybe a few steps from greatness, and I look forward to Amin Matalqa's future endeavors.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Quite possibly the best of the series
It's quite amazing to see the direction the Harry Potter franchise has come since the cheery, yet unyieldingly faithful Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. Although liberties have been taken with the text, with things shifted around or deleted altogether (with the source material over 900 pages, I hardly think anyone's complaining), the latest installment of the Harry Potter series offers some of the most entrancing moments of the year.
In Order of the Phoenix, Harry's world becomes decidedly more violent and vulnerable. Nothing seems as secure as it did before. This is a sign of two things: a changing world, and all the joys of growing up. Both are developed very well. In fact, I'd go as far as saying Harry enjoyed more character development in this movie than in at least two of the other movies combined. We also get to see brief glimpses of development in other characters including Ginny Weasley, Sirius Black, and Professor Snape.
It's hard to come by such an outstanding cast as what was mustered for this movie. Not only are all the veterans showing their mettle, but the newly christened actors of tomorrow are keeping up with them. The three child leads, though not so child anymore, are expectedly improving with age, but I think the improvement was most evident in this movie. New additions to the cast were all wisely made, especially Imelda Staunton as Professor Umbridge, who stole scenes as the school's new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher.
Wise decisions were made all around, but as always there are little things missing here and there that could have made the movie even greater. One of my favorite things about the movie, however, is how it keeps referring to the previous movies. With all the movies differing from each other so much, it was nice to see the filmmakers taking some initiative and trying to wrap them together to make the story feel a little less uneven and bring some continuity to the franchise.
Hardcore fans of the book will probably be disappointed, but I think, with a few changes, this is about the best you could hope for. Any faults are no means on the actors or production crew, who all do an outstanding job, but on those whose decision it lies to make these movies continuously shorter than the previous one.
Happy Feet (2006)
I'm confused. Here's why.
So I'm going to this movie called Happy Feet, and all I know about it is that its about a penguin that can tap dance and it features the voice talent of Robin Williams. Now how could anybody, with that given information, not have high hopes? Actually my hopes weren't all that high, but I still really wanted to see it.
As I left the theater, I had no choice but to scratch my head. Hard. What was it exactly that I just saw? On one hand, it was one of the most beautifully animated movies I've ever seen. On the other hand, what exactly was this movie about? I mean seriously, it had like nine themes it was trying to explore, each offering their own moral. One minute, we're talking about a penguin trying to find his voice(literally)in a communisitic society of antarctic poultry, then all of the sudden we're addressing environmental issues via a gang of albatross..es (albatrossi?). And if that wasn't enough, I felt a definite vibe of "screw you conservative religious people"..ism with the elder penguins kind of being jerks about everything.
Whatever the message was, it was about as subtle as the kool aid drink busting down a wall. *OH YEAHHHHHHHHHH IM THE MESSAGE!!!! BUT I Don't KNOW WHAT I AM!!!!!!* On a more serious note, I am just going to go ahead and say I did not like this movie. The plot was, on all accounts, not original at all. Not even a little bit. There were no villains, even though they introduced like three potential ones. I was really hoping for some original music, since no one makes musical cartoons anymore, but alas, I was stuck with an hour and a half music video for a half dozen r&b artists featuring penguins. There were about 5 too many dance/musical sequences, and they really didn't further the story. The way it went was that they'd have a sequence of music and dance, then the penguins would stop and take a breather, agree on a time and place for the next day, then go on with the story.
Robin Williams was funny. Way funnier than he was in Robots. If he wasn't in this movie, I would not have liked it at all.
After all that's said and done, I still like penguins, and I still like Robin Williams. This movie was not bad enough to ruin my taste for either of those things, but I'm waiting for the next Lion King.
Troy (2004)
Lets make epic stories not so epic
An apparent trend in the year 2004 was to demystify popular stories and make them more down to earth. This ended up working pretty well in King Arthur, which claimed to use historical accuracy and fact as a storysetter, but as far as Troy goes, the end result was quite disappointing.
If you are unfamiliar with the Iliad, there is interaction between the gods as well as mortals. Everyone and everything is incorporated into this massive battle for power and glory, but started by love. There are heroes on both sides of the battle, and the reader is meant to cheer for both sides and witness the pain and destruction of dramatic battle.
However...
Wolfgang Peterson decided not to incorporate the gods at all into the story, instead focusing on the human characters. Not that they aren't interesting or anything, but the story has so much more to offer. Getting rid of the gods and their endless drama with each other really downsized the scope of the situation. To put it in perspective, lets say they tried to do the same thing with Lord of the Rings. The movie would be more to the tune of "yeah there's like 12 orcs coming over here. Maybe we should shoot them or something." Meanwhile, the ringwraiths would really be the brazillian soccer team in disguise and the rohirrim would slide down the hill in their rocking horses. Oh yeah, and the whole Trojan war deal was shortened from 10 years to a couple days.
The whole tone of the story just seemed downplayed. Odysseus said little of his homeland of Ithaca, Ajax played about as important of a part as an eating utensil, and there was no urgency or indecisiveness about Achilles' situation. They mention his little prophecy, which is kind of an important deal, once, and really don't come back to it at all. It should have been one of the main themes of the story. And remember how there should be like 2000 Myrmidans? You know, like the best warriors in the world that turn the tide of the battle? There's like 40 of them. And the greeks most desperate hour, when they must resort to building a wall out of their now unneeded ships to shield them from the Trojans, is nonexistent in this particular motion feature event.
Besides for restraining the grandeur of the original story, the movie itself stands on its own I guess. The sets are nice, the acting was good for the most part (except for a horribly miscast Brad Pitt as the brooding and effectively emo Achilles). Orlando Bloom is perfectly wimpy and stupid, and Eric Bana is genuinely heroic and the all around good guy as Troy's Hector. And there were some nicely choreographed sword fights. The script lacked a little but there weren't any lines that immediately struck me as just godawful.
If you're just interesting in a swords and sandal epic, then watch this and you shouldn't be disappointed. Don't expect a Gladiator. If you're expecting Homer's Iliad at its greatest splendor and epicity (is that a word? it is now...), then watch something else. Just recreate the battle with dinosaurs on your bedroom floor. It'd be more spectacular.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
hmmmmm...
Whenever you have a book where most of the action and suspense is the characters thinking through things and placing thoughts together, a big giant gorilla should jump out of a bush with a sign saying "this will stay better as a book". Then the Ape of Literary Adaptions, as he is so called by his fellow primate friends, will disappear and make sure another wildly successful novel doesn't turn into a bad movie.
This movie had so much going for it that one might have considered the overwhelming obstacles of a literay adaption such as this trivial. Director: Ron Howard. Writer: same as Beautiful Mind. Cast: Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina. AND its based on a great book written by Dan Brown. Alas, the movie just does not and really cannot live up to its literary ancestor.
The excitement in the novel The Da Vinci Code lied not in intricate car chases, rousing fight sequences, or stupeyfingly impossible stuntwork, it lied in the mind. Puzzling pieces of information and history together to come to a satisfying conclusion was the power behind the novel. Well, all that putting together pieces business comes from the head, unless the characters think out loud, which is pretty much all they did in this movie. It turns out to be quite boring. Tom Hanks himself looks pretty bored with it. I could have sworn I heard him whisper "someone give me a flippin volleyball. We'll claim it has something to do with the sacred feminine."
Honestly, the only thing keeping me interesting was the cast. They're all good actors. Ian Mckellen was good as always. Paul Bettany should have been given more to do. Audrey Tautou is hot. I couldn't understand a word she said, but she kept me interested just the same.
Do yourself a favor. Read the book. Don't watch this boring movie.
Superman Returns (2006)
what the world needs
In an era when movie makers are bent on reinventing and reimagining their superheroes and stories to match the tastes they themselves invented, there's one director out there who keeps true to the original content, and his name is Bryan Singer.
Right from the beginning of the movie, with John Williams' original score triumphantly playing over the decidedly old fashioned opening credits, it's clear that Singer had no intention of changing the universe that the original Superman movies created. Sometimes reinvention is a good thing, if a universe or character gets stale. Such was the excuse for Batman Begins, with the franchise needing a fresh makeover after the disastrous last 2 installments directed by Joel Schumacher. But if you keep changing the universe in which a character that you're supposed to sympathize and connect with dwells, it tampers with the continuity of the franchise and you have to keep reconnecting with the character and its universe. That wasn't a problem in Superman Returns, because the director chose to make it a nonissue.
There's no revenge driven plot, no gritty fight scenes meant to portray a darker side of the hero. There's just an old-fashioned values driven story, something that's become something of a rarity as of late. Although it's a feeling of something from the past, it almost feels refreshingly new.
Brandon Routh does a very good Superman, very reminiscent of Christopher Reeves' interpretation. Kevin Spacey shines as Lex Luthor. Personally, I enjoyed his performance better than Gene Hackman's in the original.
This was the feel good movie of the summer for me. In a superhero movie, you want the audience to leave the theater wishing that they could be a part of the universe of their hero, or that the hero could come be a part of theirs. I definitely felt that way after watching it. Because they didn't reinvent everything, I didn't feel like I had to reacquaint myself with Superman. He'd been gone for 5 years, much like the franchise has been gone for several, and the world missed him. I certainly look forward to his return.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
mixed bag
Like any other viewer anticipating the sequel of one of their favorite movies, I entered the midnight showing of POTC:DMC with high hopes. And why shouldn't I? The first in the series was such a delightful combination of swashbuckling action, crisp comic relief, and rousing musical cues.
With that said, the sequel tries to top all those but save for the action part, fails. While including some new jokes, the movie's humor becomes too dependent on references to the first film. For instance, there were about 3 too many "rum" jokes. By now, the jokes have become stale and no fun anymore. The timing of the comic relief is another issue. Comic relief works best when its "relief" from the drama and action happening in the story....hence the term. It's entirely too prominent in some areas and loses its effect when it should heighten the entertainment value of the film.
Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbossa was a far better villain than Davy Jones, who was horribly underdeveloped and had no personality. He was just...there. "I'm mean because I have a squid for a head." He was cool to look at, but didn't say too many interesting things, unlike Barbossa whose banter with Jack Sparrow was one of the highlights of the first film.
Speaking of the main character, I was trying to explain to a friend why I didn't appreciate this movie as much as the first. It's simply because in the first one, no one expected Captain Jack Sparrow to be the instantly memorable icon that he is now, and now that the mystery of the character is solved, and now that we've seen what he can do, it seems like there's nothing new he can tell us. He can say some funny lines, stretch his face to the limits, but there's not much Johnny Depp can do to further his character's charm.
There were some improvements over the first movie. It has more of a "pirate-y" feel. The special effects look decidedly less hokey than the first, and the effects with the Kraken are particularly impressive. There are also some extremely inventive sword fight scenes, including one involving a giant wheel.
With too many subplots, the story becomes tangled until you wish the movie had more forward direction. You finally get to the end, which includes and extremely out of character decision by one of the main characters, an abrupt finale, and a major cliffhanger. It sets up for a spectacular 3rd installment, but hopefully next time there will be less subplots, leaving room for the expertly timed wit and story progression that was so masterfully handled in the first movie.
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Shrek meets Tim Burton
In the dark, muddy streets of french-occupied Germany, cheer is lost and the constant presence of napoleon's soldiers strikes fear into locals' hearts. In come two soaked and tired wanderers, desperately seeking an inn. Here starts the tale of The Brothers Grimm, brimming of tasty special effects and intricate set pieces. Here also ends the extent of creative wizardry in this movie. The Brothers Grimm is about two con artists, bros Jacob and Will Grimm (played rather well by Heath Ledger and Matt Damon). They travel Europe creating enchanted monsters and evil witches and demand a fee to vanquish them for good. What starts as a promising concept is lost in a confusing mesh of unoriginal plot details. This is one of those movies that involve so many details that one is constantly having to remind themselves who is what and why they are doing whatever they are doing. In the meantime, store somewhere in your brain where they are and why they are there and where they are going with this. By the end of the movie, you've just confused yourself enough to enjoy the rather light-hearted ending scene. Somewhat similar to the popular Shrek series, the movie takes bits and pieces of popular fairy tales and puzzles them together to create a seemingly new story. What worked in Shrek, however, is that it was more of a parody then a re-imagining, and didn't take itself too seriously. With the Brothers Grimm, there are too many fairy tales to follow and few of them are developed enough to figure out how much they really had to do with the story. Add on almost Burton-esquire (but also very good)set pieces, and you've got a very dark mix of children's stories. The Brothers Grimm is not without its merits, though. Terry Gilliam has created a vision that is a triumph in set design and art direction. The movie looks very good. The special effects are also quite spectacular. Never overbearing or impractical, they serve the story very well and are tastily done (my favorite is the shattering of the witch queen). The two leads are entertaining, but would have been more so with a better script. I enjoyed seeing an almost unrecognizable Heath Ledger in a role different than anything I've seen him in. The counterparts reminded me almost of the voices of Kenneth Branagh and Kevin Kline in The Road to El Dorado. Peter Stormare is fun to watch as well, even with his ever-confusing change of accent. Complete with walking trees, wolf people, and an unexplained mud monster thing, there is plenty of imagination in this movie but not enough glue to hold it together. The movie could have been much funnier too. I wonder if a revised script and simplified plot would have made this a much better movie. Actually I don't wonder, I'm pretty sure.
Boogeyman (2005)
Watch out, its a doorknob!
Giving reviews for bad movies is so much more fun than good movies. That's why i chose to review this one.
I saw this movie with a bunch of friends. I usually don't see many scary movies, but I decided to just go anyway and have fun. Well, we had fun, but it was because we ended up making fun of this movie like Mystery Science Theater 3000, which if it was still around, it could totally take this movie and make an episode out of this.
This movie was hardly scary at all. It follows this 20 something who saw the boogeyman as a child and returns to his old home to do something that I can't quite remember. But alas, it isn't important. Mostly the movie is just him freaking himself out, while the camera zooms in on random objects. The cameraman must have had an obsessive love for doorknobs because pretty much every close up was on one.
The boogeyman himself isn't that scary either, and I get paranoid about stuff. Granted, i wouldn't want him to show up at my house, but I wouldn't want Ben Affleck to show up at my house either.
This movie is just plain bad and whoever conceived it should get a wet willie. Actually, no. The movie critics who claimed that "this movie was soooo scary" should get one. Batman Begins is creepier than this movie. Avoid this mess of a non thriller and go watch 7th Heaven. The same guy is in there.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Relations with the wookies I have
Like the first two prequels, this movie features an embarrassing screenplay uttered by everything between small furry aliens to large droids. Some nice samples are "good relations with the wookies I have", "no its because I'm soooo in love with you" and "NOOOOOOOO!!!" Now this is where Revenge of the Sith is different and decidedly much better than the first two prequels. Instead of just continuing on the constant path of terrible dialogue and plot, ROTS features probably about 1 1/2 good scenes for every terrible line or moment. That extra half scene is what makes this movie so much better. It seems that for every hollow or badly-directed scene is another 1 1/2 surprisingly effective and emotional scenes.
I thought overall the acting was much better in this film, specifically Ewan McGregor. I wasn't a huge fan of him in the other SW movies, but I though he was outstanding in ROTS. He made it easy to tell where his character was going in relation to when you see Alec Guinness for the first time in A New Hope. He also looked like he was having a lot of fun. And at the end, after Obi Wan and Anakin's final duel, he was what made that scene more powerful (what could have made the scene even more powerful is if the other 2 movies didn't suck so much).
Another good performance was by Ian McDirmid as Chancellor Palpatine. You could tell that the character was less eager to hide his evil ways now and was getting ready to uncover his plan that would ultimately lead to the Galactic Civil War in the old trilogy.
Now there are possible plot holes, but it really depends on how powerful you believe the force to be. Because if jedi can feel if other jedi are dying and what other people are thinking, shouldn't have they been able to uncover a conspiracy to kill all the jedi??? I'm really not sure, maybe the dark side of the force clouded their minds. There are other kinda dumb scenes too. When Anakin decides to choke Padme at the end, isn't she the entire reason why he went to the dark side, to save her? You could argue that he was completely under the influence of the dark side by then, but then as soon as he gets into his Vader suit, hes like "wheres padme?" But like I said, for every bad scene is 1 1/2 good ones. The opening space battle, while not as exciting as the one in ROTJ, is very fun and when Obi Wan and Anakin get into the command ship, it feels very like the old movies. The Jedi extermination scene is very emotional, and throughout the movie there are several parallels that exist between this movie and circumstances in the old movies.
John William's music is as good as ever. I can't say I liked the music in Attack of the Clones, mostly because I didn't really like the one new theme (across the stars) but in this movie he adds several that are very good.
So overall, Revenge of the Sith is not a great movie. It is merely a very good movie. But a very good movie is.....very good, which can't be said for the last 2 prequels, which makes ROTS that much sweeter.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
so long and thanks for all the fish.........YESSSSS!!!!
Being a huge fan of the Douglas Adams' fantastic Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, I couldn't wait to go see this movie. I grabbed my girlfriend and we went to the local movie theater and sat in the theater. From the opening credits, we just started laughing and enjoyed probably the most entertaining 2 hours or so since Pirates of the Caribbean.
Granted, I'd wager that movies like this is an acquired taste, but if you enjoy monty python-esquire humor, coupled with aliens created by jim henson's creature shop and eye popping special effects, this is right up your alley.
The acting is all great. Martin Freeman is excellent as Arthur Dent, and Sam Rockwell is hilarious as Zaphod Beeblebrox. Mos Def wouldn't have been my first choice as Ford Prefect, but then again I have no idea who else I'd cast so he does a pretty decent job and is nothing to complain about. Alan Rickman is perfect as the voice of Marvin the Paranoid Android.
Now it'd be wrong for me to say that this movie is exactly like the book. In fact, it is quite different from the book. But that's OK, because for those of you that have read it, you know that when you think about it there's really not a whole lot to it story wise, and much of it is just explanations from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or stretched out conversations between the characters. So naturally, the filmmakers had to add some substance to the story to make it into a movie. This really isn't a bad thing at all, because it gives more insight to this wildly imaginative galaxy that Adams' has created for us. And it is still insanely entertaining. Don't worry, the best parts of the book are included.
I do have to say that the end is a bit........meh, but not so bad that it ruins the whole movie. It's just could have used something else.
So since seeing the movie, my girlfriend has decided to read the books now because she enjoyed it so much. And everyone I know who's seen it has been humming the infectious "so long and thanks for all the fish" song. You will too if you see this movie. For pure random and quirky fun, go see this movie. Now. Right now. Why are you still reading this?!?!
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
If you insult a hippogriff, it will kick you
Gone is Chris Columbus and so enters Alfonso Cuaron. Strike up the band, paint a banner, and the parade will be here in a few minutes.
I have nothing against Columbus (haha thats where i live), but from the way chamber of secrets was going, it looked like the franchise was going to get a little stale. So gone are the bright colors and blockbuster soundtrack and cheap special effects of the first two movies and in comes the new artsy, darker look of Prizoner of Azkaban.
Cuaron wasted no time in changing things to suit his needs however. Gone are the gentle rolling hills surrounding Hogwarts and in place of them are more extreme mountains. Hagrid's hut is down a hill that was nonexistent in the other movies, and the castle now includes a courtyard, a giant clock, and a large elevated walkway that leads to seemingly no where. These changes aren't necessarily bad, but they hurt the continuity of the series. Also, the entire tone of the movie is different, as the kids grow older and more mature.
At first viewing, I didn't really like this movie as much as the other ones, mostly Sorceror's Stone. But when I thought about it, and as I read the 6th book, I realized that Harry's world isn't always a bright and colorful world with a blockbuster soundtrack and cheap special effects. So in a way, this movie provides a nice transition between the first books of the series and the later more darker ones, at least for the movies.
Personally, I loved the new sound of the soundtrack. John Williams remains as fresh as ever and the medieval styled music is very good and appropriate, combined with the old themes.
Some things are sorely missed though. One thing in particular, is Richard Harris as Dumbledore. Michael Gambon is by no means a bad actor, but him as Dumbledore wearing a beanie just doesn't work. Richard Harris' dumbledore had that warmth and authority that perfectly caught the essence of the character portrayed in the books. There's nothing they can do about it, but I think Ian McKellen would have been a better choice, or maybe even Patrick Stewart.
The only thing that makes this movie a little subordinate to the Sorceror's Stone is the end, which i thought lacked a little substance and could have been better given how the book ended. There were just a few little things that it could have added to make it that much more powerful, but they decided to make the movie that much shorter. Still, this is a very good movie and I eagerly anticipate the next movie. Mischief managed.
Gladiator (2000)
Gladiator rocks my socks
For fear of somehow being misunderstood, I wanted to make something quite clear before I get started: this movie is awesome.
Yes this movie has spectacular special effects, yes this movie has amazing battle sequences, and yes this movie has a riveting soundtrack. But that's only the beginning of how incredible this movie is. The problem is that most historical epics would be happy to stop at that and be like "oh, well at least he's wearing sandals and we have cool fight scenes." Nuh uh not here.
Gladiator features an amazing cast. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible as Commodus, and makes a fairly obscure historical figure very 3 dimensional: Commodus is one of the greatest baddies in recent memory. Richard Harris is outstanding as Marcus Aurelius, and everybody else does a great job as well. Last but not least, is Russell Crowe. This guy can act. And what is amazing is that he's awesome in this movie but he's even better in other movies. He's not just a one note guy. He's such a good actor that he can say scarcely anything for about 20 minutes in a movie and still get people to understand what he's doing/thinking (as there is a point in this movie which is similar).
The script is also excellent. As far as sword and sandals epics go, most are content with articulate set pieces and large scale battle scenes (huzzah!) but lack sorely in a decent screenplay soaked with character development (hissss...) Gladiator is not this way. Instead of merely trying to work around battle scenes and try to uncover a plot, it works the other way around, and the battle sequences must work around the story line. So not only is Gladiator an able action flick, but it is also an ancient political thriller.
Now that I've got that out of the way, let me go back to the battle scenes, because they are just amazing. A combined effort of superb editing, heart-pounding musical cues, and great cinematography create several amazing sequences. Especially the scenes in the Colossium. I still sit there and think "holy crap, how did they do that?" Any movie lover should watch Gladiator. There is a reason it won 5 academy awards. It's not just a testosterone-pumped action flick, but a quite intelligent story and does not insult your mind.
The Ladykillers (2004)
Could have been much better
What happened?!?!?! The Coen brothers should be walking in squares scratching their heads trying to figure out whyyyyyyy this movie is the way it is. I mean, it's all there: Tom Hanks, unique soundtrack, intriguing story, interesting dialogue. So why did this movie suck??? Well I could point out a few reasons. First off, they hired Marlon Wayans, who elected to interject a swear word every other 5 seconds. Now I'm not much for censorship, but the language in this movie kinda gets ridiculous to the point of being distracting. And Wayans, along with the other characters in the Professor's (Hanks) little posse, are incredibly stereotypical and not at all original or fresh. And they're unfunny to a spectacular degree. Ryan Hurst's Lump is the most boring stupid person I've ever seen in my life. I don't think it's entirely his fault, but he was just a big disappointment. JK Simmons was OK as the token "person with health problems", but IBS is pretty dumb, and was used too much and was kind of a downer considering this is a Coen brother movie.
So remember at the top when i said intriguing story? Well it is, but by the end it is completely put in the shredder, burnt to a crisp, then the ashes are inhaled by a drug addicted sloth. I hated the end. I don't know whose fault it was, and whether or not that is what happened in the old movie as well, but it was just a complete downer. I felt like I'd wasted my time watching this movie, like everything was going to end sweet but then it didn't. I just watched the credits thinking "wow.....i can't decide who wasted their time more: me or tom hanks and team stereotype." The one excellent thing about this movie is the soundtrack. The gospel-blues-who knows exactly that plays throughout the movie creates the only energy in this movie. Sometimes it makes this movie feel better than it actually is. The soundtrack even rivals O, Brother Where Art Thou, which is my favorite Coen brother movie.
Tom Hanks was good as usual, but him and the music is about the only reason to watch this. I'm not sure how it compares to the original, but seeing that it has Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers, I'd guess that it is better than this version and should be watched instead. If you're looking for a movie with Tom Hanks in it, just rent Toy Story and be done with it.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Jim Carrey is a genius
This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen in my life. Jim Carrey has that rare talent to do hardly anything at all, and make you crack up. He excels in this movie at doing that.
For those who hated this movie, I have 2 things to say. Firstly, if you are some kind of Christmas movie purist who wanted this movie to be like the old animated movie, why did you go to this movie?!?! You knew it wasn't going to be that way because Jim Carrey is in it. Secondly, if you don't like Jim Carrey, don't see this movie, because he is the main star and about 98% of the funny things in this movie is him doing something zany. I'd like to see the original screenplay of this film and see how much Jim Carrey actually said in it and how much he just made up on the spot because I don't think Ron Howard would have been like "oh, you should definitely bite this wine bottle". It's those kind of things that makes this movie so hilarious though.
One thing that no one can deny is the excellence of the production. The costumes and make-up are completely original and the set design insanely seusslike. If Dr. Seuss saw this movie and hated it (which i wouldn't deny would happen), he'd still adore the Whoville set and everything. It is awesome.
I have such a good time watching this movie and sometimes I don't wait until the holiday season to watch this. And after seeing it who knows how many times, I still laugh at Jim Carrey's funny antics as the Grinch. At times is performance is reminiscent of his Tony Clifton in Man on the Moon. He talks with his gut sticking out and his lips projected to the side.
This movie is the perfect way to get into the holiday spirit or just to have a good laugh. Like the book and original cartoon or not, there's no denying that the real purpose of this movie was to entertain and not to copy. Given that the movie is much longer than the half hour original, you should probably figure out that it's not supposed to be exactly like it, and should therefore stop trying to compare them.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
A curious rendition of an old song
I really didn't know what to expect when I paid for my ticket to see this movie. I KNEW that it would be nothing like the old movie, and much more like the book. Alas, I was correct. But therein lies the problem. While the classic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory dwells less on the book and more from the excellent adapted screenplay, the new one stays almost entirely on the book source. What's the problem with this? It's a children's book. There's not a whole lot to it. Just like in the book, most of the lines go to Willy Wonka or Charlie, and sometimes Grandpa. Only occasionally do the other characters say something interesting. The kids are interesting enough, especially Augustus Gloop, who I liked enormously better in this one than the old (haha get it, enormous...). But anyway, the parents just pretty much follow their kids and don't offer much enthusiasm for anything. In the old version, the parents were just as interesting and diverse as the snotty kids they brought to the factory, adding humor and substance to the story. Not so in here.
Johnny Depp was very interesting as Willy Wonka. Not quite as inviting as Gene Wilder (who did an excellent job in the original), but very unique. Like the rest of the movie, he's more like the description the book offers than in the original. I think I would have liked him better if he had better things to say.
That goes for pretty much the entire movie. The set design and everything were as they should be, but the script is what fell behind and dragged these marvelous actors with it. The movie would have hummed with magic and whimsy and been much funnier if the screenwriters had stepped aside from the book at times and allowed some creativity to enter their brain flow.
The oompa loompas are much better in the old one. nuff said about that.
So basically, the old one is better. It may not be fair to judge the two movies, since Tim Burton didn't try to imitate the old one, but overall Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is just a better movie. I'm still a Burton fan, and this movie is by all means infinitely better than his last "reimagining" (planet of the apes). Watch this movie if you've wanted to, just don't buy a bag of high hopes at the concessions.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Not terrible, but mediocre in almost every way
Kingdom of Heaven is not an altogether horrible film, actually there is quite a lot to praise. The costumes and sets are all very well done, the music is nice, and the acting is serviceable. Well, thats about it. Everything else is mediocre compared to greater historical epics like Gladiator and Braveheart. The movie starts out in Europe where Orlando Bloom's character, Balian, has just lost his family and is understandably moody about it. Then Liam Neeson shows up and tells him that he is his father and that he should join him in his merry quest to Jerusalem. Well some stuff happens and Balian comes along. After some more stuff happens, including a confusing boat scene where Balian's ship sinks but he's washed up on shore miles away for some reason, he finally makes it to Jerusalem. (pardon my fast forwarding to more important matters) It is at Jerusalem that Balian somehow becomes an expert tactician and a cunning warrior. Having seen only a 5 minute lesson on swordplay from Liam Neeson earlier in the film, this is one of the bigger things that makes this movie unbelievable. So throughout the movie we meet some interesting characters. Unfortunately, all but one are under-developed and not seen enough on screen. The one exception is King Baldwin, voiced by Edward Norton. I found it a nice twist that amongst all the greedy nobles and battle-hardened warriors, the strongest character in the movie is a leper king who must wear a mask constantly. So naturally, the best character dies prematurely. Other interesting characters, including Hospitaler (Prisoner of Azkaban's David Thewlis) and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons)are easily likable but aren't seen enough to make them memorable. So by the end of the movie, there's only been one real battle and it was kind of a bummer because it was pretty dumb. Pretty much all of the characters have died except Orlando Bloom, and meanwhile a massive Islamic army who's been marching along throughout the whole movie is nearing the city. By now, it really doesn't matter who wins or not because it's hard to care. There's no one to really root for. All the cool characters are gone and we're left with Balian and a bunch of citizens including a whiny priest. But the battle starts, and you just watch it seemingly cut and pasted from return of the king (i'll allow some room for historical accuracy. its very possible that the battle could have looked like that, but still...). To sum up, Kingdom of Heaven is too long, underdeveloped, and lacks a certain vibe of energy that makes Gladiator so exceptional. Not to mention Russell Crowe. I was really disappointed because Ridley Scott was the director and his Gladiator is one of my favorite movies ever. So all in all, watch if you're craving a new swords and sandals epic, but if you're happy with what you've got on your DVD rack, stick with that.