Excellent dark adventure
The criticisms of this film are inevitable, and not entirely incorrect. But for me, Solomon Kane rises above the usual formula in numerous ways.
First, the character: much darker and more conflicted than your average action hero. Second, a story that gives that character time to breathe and grow, instead of becoming lost in a morass of action sequences and CG effects. Third, a gritty, uncluttered, near-monochromatic look that's perfectly suited to the character and story, and frequently a sheer wonder to behold. The visuals are evocative of great fantasy artists like Frank Frazetta and Jeff Jones; there are numerous shots in this film I'd happily hang on my wall.
Of course, Kane himself is the film's dominant image - and it is a memorable one. But Kane not only looks striking in the flat hat and dark cloak, he has the dour personality to match. And a fighting style that for once fits the mood, and suggests a human adventurer with limited abilities, as opposed to the usual samurai-ninja superhero.
IS this truly "Robert E. Howard's" Solomon Kane? Y'know what - I don't care. Howard didn't write a lot of Kane stories, and although I did read them years ago, they left very little impression on my memory. What's more, I have nothing against films that are happy to be 'inspired by' literary works, without slavishly transferring every word to the screen. What Solomon Kane, the movie, DOES get right is the SPIRIT of Robert E. Howard's work - the dark vision, the creepy situations, the sense of a man struggling against forces only dimly understood and much larger than himself.
The slow pacing? This is the film's BEST point. Early on, the film focuses on Kane's personality, and his relationships with others. It sets a mood. Too many action films are in too much of a hurry to get to the action. Solomon Kane doesn't cater to the ADD-addled audience, and if that's a mistake it falls in the area of marketing, not creativity. I particularly liked the ending... instead of lingering endlessly over the climactic fight, the film just gets on with the story.
Solomon Kane isn't exactly a classic, but it has an appealing simplicity and an inner strength that bigger-budget spectaculars could learn from. I guess a sequel is too much to hope for at this point, but I'll definitely be looking forward to Michael J. Bassett's next creation, whatever it may be.
Category: Biography, Drama
Year: 1999
GMPN Rating: 9/10
Just Great Film-making......Period
Not always, but usually a Michael Mann-directed film means good things for movie buffs, and this is no exception.
Tremendous acting highlights this movie about a behind-the-scenes look at a "60 Minutes" story of a man who blows the whistle on a tobacco company. Al Pacino, as the TV show producer "Lowell Bergman," Russell Crowe as the whistle-blower and tobacco scientist "Dr. Jeffrey Wiegand," and Christopher Plummer as "Mike Wallace" all are riveting in their performances. They are intense characters, as are many of the supporting characters in this involving film.
There is little action in here but a ton of tension in the first hour of this long (158 min.) film. The story held my interest even when the tension left, thanks to the acting, the great cinematography, involving music score....well, just about everything. It's simply a well-done movie, similar to Mann's "Heat," except without the violence.
The only negative was the obvious Liberal bias, but that's not surprising being it's about "60 Minutes." I wasn't surprised when Ken Starr got a cheap shot, for example. This film bias could have been a lot more blatant so I'm not complaining. Obviously, they went a overboard in their stand against the tobacco industry, repeating the same damaging scenes over and over. However, I appreciated they didn't shrink from pointing out how the network was covering its own behind even though it was hurting its most successful program.
Photographer Dante Spinelli did an incredible job making this look fantastic despite the fact that there was no great scenery or exotic sets. As mentioned, this is just great film-making. What else can you say?
Category: Action, Drama
Year: 2008
GMPN Rating: 7/10
Good movie, but a bit forgettable
I have really liked Leonardo DiCaprio's films since he came back from his hiatus (esp Blood Diamond). However, this one was quite forgettable. I enjoyed the movie when I was in the theater and left thinking "Huh. That was pretty good". But the week after someone asked what movie I saw and I couldn't remember. It reminded me a lot of "The Kingdom" actually (the feel, not the details). It was a very well made film, dialog and script were good, just nothing really stood out and grabbed me. Leo was the shine, he is such a talented actor and I was happy to see him in a great role. I just wish the plot had something fantastic in it to make it into a great film.
Nothing new here, but so good that it mostly makes up for that
In the last several years we've seen more than a dozen movies about people becoming infected by a virus who then turn on and kill those around them. '28 Days Later' is one of the most popular and also one of the best. Sure the concept was nothing new, but the film was made with enough style and had such strong talent involved that it ended better than just another by-the-numbers outbreak movie. It was a hit and unsurprisingly was followed by a slew of clones, many of which are not really worth your time. One of the earliest examples of this is the 1973 film 'The Crazies' by George Romero, which too spawned a few imitations. Well now with all these popular titles getting remade someone decided this film too was ready for the redux treatment, and though it features little to nothing audiences haven't already seen, it, like '28 Days Later,' is a film made with care and the result is a great time at the movies.
Pros: Though the characters are pretty thin, the actors give strong performances and add some depth to their roles. A pretty good score that keeps one on edge. Perfectly paced, starting slow and then letting loose the rest of the time. Gorgeous photography and country scenery. Some good scary moments. Also some pretty suspenseful sequences. Faithful enough to the original to please fans, while standing on it's own enough that it's not a simple rehash. Some humor here and there to keep things from getting deadly serious.
Cons: If you've seen one virus outbreak movie you've seen them all. Pretty predictable. Doesn't really give us a chance to breath once the pace picks up. Plot wears thin after the characters and premise are established.
Final thoughts: Movie buffs complain that there aren't enough original movies being made in Hollywood, and they're right. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep pushing for that, but I don't think we should dismiss every film simply because of it's lack of originality. If it's made by people with a lot of talent who always work hard to try and make a good film then it could be worth seeing. This one here is one heck of a good time at the movies, better than most remakes really. Give it a whirl.
Don't miss the point of this film like so many appear to ....
I didn't have much of a clue about what this film was about when i watched it - other than is starred the iconic Samuel L Jackson and Carrie Ann Moss - and it was a 'Hollywood' film.
Only this Isn't a 'Hollywood' film. Unlike the usual formulaic production line fare that Hollywood usually cranks out - THIS film stands apart. It doesn't follow the same formula which so many do to get bums on seats. There isn't even a romantic sub-plot. (Which i found VERY refreshing!) Simply put this film attempts to explore moral boundaries ... Our own just as much as those of our on-screen protagonists. Unlike many people that watch this film I didn't come away feeling id been exposed to some 'liberal' or 'NWO' propaganda. Those reviewers seem to be suffering from a 21st century dose of 'reds under the beds' ...
The setting of the film could be ANYWHERE - the fact that its in America with a Muslim 'villain' is merely a reflection of its intended audience and social environment. The point of the film is: Is torture justifiable? How do you balance the morality of torture against its real world 'benefits'... ? The premise is: A man has planted nuclear bombs in 3 American cities. He is in custody and the US security services need to extract the locations of the bombs within 72 hours. So they begin to torture the man.
So how far do you go? Can you trust the information revealed? Who is 'good' and who is 'evil'? I don't want to spoil the film so will say there are many more variables which are featured ...
Some people have complained about the 'gore'. Personally i didn't find it 'gorey'. Especially with the likes of the SAW films out there! There are some sequences which involve 'blood' etc but these are well executed, brief and far from gratuitous. Much of the torture off camera as its the moral implications which are there to make you feel uncomfortable - not the visual ones.
This isn't a traditionally 'enjoyable' or 'entertaining' film. However i was captivated from the opening scene and was intrigued throughout. Its well acted, well scripted and well considered.
Its a shame that many people will not take away what they could and should from this film - but that is a reflection of then - not a reflection of Unthinkable!
Doesn't beat the classic, but comes out a better remake than most recent ones
Let me start by clarifying two things: 1) I'm a huge fan of horror Universal monster movies and the original Wolfman is a must see to me 2) I'm 18 so this review is not biased by age
The horror genre in particular suffers an overflow of remakes, reboots, etc today. Once in a while is okay, but there's far too many at once. This is nowhere near as bad as some (looking at you especially House on a Haunted Hill and Wicker Man) but this still didn't quite hit the mark. I wanted to see originality as long as it made sense and there were some interesting ideas here. There's also some pretty good scenes as well. The problem is that it's crippled by certain problems.
Let's start with the good things: Rick Baker was already loved for his effects in werewolf movies like An American Werewolf in London, and Wolf, as well as other movies where even if the movie's bad like Planet of the Apes, his work is excellent and kudos for getting him back. Baker clearly has respect for make-up legend Jack Pierce and the make-up is fantastic. I'm not a fan of CGI and I'm glad the movie cut itself down a bit although it did include it in some scenes. But Baker's work clearly shows.
Hugo Weaving was great and while Anthony Hopkins had a rougher start, he still did rather well. His character is harder than Rain's portrayal but in some ways it works. Certainly more than it did for his portrayal of Van Helsing in my eyes. The settings were fantastic. There's a lot of 19th century buildings that look gorgeous and act as a perfect contrast to the dark and creepy woods.
Now for the bad: The build-up in many scenes was rather limited. The asylum scene was okay, but many scenes could have built the tension better.
The acting from del Toro and Blunt was rather unemotional. I found Gwen Conliffe to be more supportive in this version, but Blunt's emotions were limited. She's a beautiful woman however no doubt. del Toro looks a bit like Lon Chaney Jr. and does well in the make-up, but the Larry side is bland. He's just not able to play it as tragically as Chaney. What's more while some complained that Chaney being Claude Rains son was absurd I can sooner believe in werewolves than the idea del Toro and Hopkins are kin.
Another flaw is the limited screen time of Maleva the old gypsy a key character in the original. She's okay in this, but given little to do which really ticks me off.
A big factor is the werewolf itself. In movies like the original Wolfman and Mummy there was a silent dread. The monsters showed their great power by intimidation alone and the idea they can kill you and go wild but prefer to stalk and plan. Both remakes made them more open to their power. The original's felt scarier without it, but the remakes make it work in their own way a bit.
I found this did better with the horror side than the emotional side. If Talbot was played as dramatically as in the original I think this might have done better. As a whole it's alright. Not too bad, but I can't say as memorable as the original.
Strong visuals, weak plot.
The Book of Eli has the potential to be a great film or complete rubbish depending on your expectations of what is to come. If you are looking for a film with some deeper meaning then I would not recommend it. However, if you are looking for a film with beautiful cinematography, solid acting and a little bit of fun action then you will be pleased.
The key in watching the film is to not buy into the plot too much, which is where the viewer is going to be disappointed. The ending is a little far fetched and I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Although I honestly don't see a particularly good ending for the basic premise of the film.
If you are able to put the silliness with the story behind you, the film is wonderfully done. There is great camera work with interesting angles and framing; the set showcases the contrast between the stark light of the sun and the shadows where humankind is hiding; and the acting makes you want to buy into the characters and their conflicts.
I would recommend seeing the film, just don't get too involved with the story. Instead concentrate on the acting and the scene.
The way movies -should- be made.
Read this review carefully, please.
First off, Snatch is an amazing movie in every sense of the word. There are very few movies made where the director obviously did not let one FRAME onto the screen without a reason, and Snatch is one of them. Nothing happens onscreen without it having an effect on the plot.
By now you know the plot, or plots. We follow a diamond-heist and the various characters trying to get theirs, at the same time following participants in an illegal boxing ring. The incredible part of the movie is how every scene ties in with the rest somehow, every character connects with the rest at least once.
There are complaints that the movie is confusing, or muddled. There are a lot of things that they don't tell you (such as what the dog has to do with anything, but he's a VERY important character), and that's a good thing. Too many movies force feed the audience its plot points (Think The Ring vs. Ringu, did we need the "How long could you survive down there all alone?" line?). Rather, we just watch occurrences, and have to piece together what ties everything together, the plot weaves together beautifully.
The cinematography and performances are fantastic as well. Even the soundtrack is perfect. The camera style during the fight scenes (slowdown/stop/go) makes it difficult to stop watching, the sound effects fit in quietly in the background without being overwhelming. And it will be IMPOSSIBLE to watch this movie without repeating many of the lines around your friends. I found myself saying "Zee Germans" and things like "It's not like he's a set of car keys, now is it?" quite a bit. Naturally, Brad Pitt's pikey is one of the most outlandish I've ever seen.
Summary: watch the movie, and don't expect to be TOLD everything, expect to have to pay
Fantastic film, such a great surprise!
There is a new gang of Russian mobsters in London planning to create a real estate goldmine lead by Uri(Karl Roden). But they need the help of Lenny(Wilkinson) to get permission so he lends him his "lucky painting" this in turn disappears bringing Stella the accountant(Newton) and the Wild Bunch(Elba,Butler,Hardy) into the Fray. Amongst all this Is Rockstar Johnny Quid and his Agents(Kebbell,Piven,Bridges). Get ready for another multi stranded cockney Ritchie film.
First of all, so you know, I have been long anticipating this film (I mean who wouldn't just for the cast alone?) so didn't go in with low expectations, they were high and this film still managed to surpass them. Lets start with the aforementioned cast... they are all absolutely fantastic but they are aided by beautifully written characters. Gerard Butler(One Two) and Idris Elba(Mumbles) have more chemistry on screen than most Hollywood romcom leading couples. They snap and crack off each other like they've done it for years. In fact the entire "Wild Bunch" as they are known in the film provide some of its best moments, from a visceral heist scene with some unstoppable Russian heavies(which oozes style) to a hilarious running sub-plot about Bob's(Tom hardy) sexual orientation. Matt King also provides a great turn as the Wild Bunch's in house drug dealer Cookie, he also turns in one of the movies best scenes, an eerie narration on heroine addiction. Wilkinson is firing on all cylinders in a role that could have just been his Carmine Falcone with a cockney accent but manages to be much more as well as pretty scary. But it is Mark Strong who comes up trumps in this storyline, his portrayal of Archie the right hand man is probably the most rounded character in the film, full of humour and wit and with an undeniable likability he steals much of the scenes he appears in. And now on to Toby Kebbell as junkie Rockstar Johnny Quid, this is a role that if the academy were a little less narrow-minded they would consider supporting actor nod. He is scum, but his character is such that he is witty and somewhat of a poet/philosopher, fantastically written and Kebbell plays it brilliant. You are never sure what hes going to do next, I guarantee he will take you by surprise.
And now onto the man of the moment, Ritchie. There was a lot of scepticism about this film considering how badly his past two films did critically and commercially. But what is clear from this is that instead of going the safe root and doing a film that will please all he has once again done his own thing the way he wanted to do it and the result is a fantastic piece of film-making.
I really hope RocknRolla makes the money it deserves and gets a wider release in America, it is a film that needs to be seen. Its funny, clever, visually stunning and is a perfect example of a man doing things his own way and not succumbing to the pressures of the media. Well
Category: Crime, Drama
Year: 2005
GMPN Rating: 9/10
A brilliant movie
I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 2001 GMPN Review
Category: Adventure, Fantasy
Year: 2001
GMPN Rating: 8/10
Valiant, successful attempt to bring the magic to life
We live in a world where economics is hard. This forces practical limitations when making a movie. Time and money are sadly finite, cinema owners need to be pleased as well as fans and computer animation ain't perfect. Given these limitations, this film is about as close to human perfection as it is possible to achieve. However, it's extremely clear what an immense challenge it is to turn Philosopher's Stone from book to film.
Two and a half hours is not long to explore a wonderful, magical world. Furthermore, the directors have bowed to the inevitable temptation to show us things that cannot be communicated so effectively in a book. The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint in places.
It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book rather than to the letter of it. There are omissions and there are changes. The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the story really well; indeed, there are places where the story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in the book. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the world.
The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book; no belly laughs, but a lot of smiles. Some punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are funny remain the same. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's nothing to cringe about.
The voice acting is almost uniformly brilliant. However, there are occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders shot, to do so. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a little short. The blame here must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do too quickly, not on the actors themselves.
Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate, judged against the highest of targets set by the book's clear emotion descriptions.
Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down pat. His strongest expressions are the bemusement that must be inherent at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery that Harry shows in his achievements. Emma Watson possibly slightly overplays Hermione, but does so in a fully endearing fashion. There's one scene which gives her too little chance to truly express panic; otherwise her performance needs no changes.
Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years, hitting Ron's lines perfectly. Tom Felton makes a stylish Draco; Matt Lewis' Neville character suffers from the acceleration, so the finale does come as a slight characterisation shock.
The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather than proactive pranksters; Chris Rankin imbues Percy with genuine authority. Sean Biggerstaff shines; his Oliver Wood is likeable and an ideal Quidditch team captain.
Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is the single dominant adult character, with maximum laughs extracted at every step. The movie changes strongly exaggerate one side of Hagrid's nature, though; probably inevitable considering how much plot exposition his character has.
David Bradley has a vicious Argus Filch; John Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat, giving a wonderful introduction to the Wizarding World. The professors are uniformly excellent, though Richard Harris' Dumbledore comes off as disappointingly flat until the end.
The most ambitious point of the movie is the computer generated imagery. The stills are wonderful, but the fastest animation is restricted by the limitations of real-world technology. The book makes extremely stringent demands of the CGI; sometimes their overall effect in the movie is merely good rather than insanely great. Some of the magic spells and effects look awesome; others don't capture the imagination nearly so much.
The world cannot yet completely convincingly animate human beings doing inhuman things, which serves as a clear reminder that you need fictional magic to make the impossible possible. The Quidditch scene is the most demanding of them all; while the sequence is action-packed and good-looking, disappointingly, it's not a total success. Perhaps some of the scenes would have been better with more conventional special effects? (For instance, the lower-tech-looking Sorting Hat scene is one of the most delightful of them all.)
The set looks gorgeous. However, it may not stand up to detailed analysis. It's fairly obvious that things are shot in many disparate locations, rather than one big Hogwarts School near Hogsmeade.
The score is absolutely wonderful. The soundtrack may rely too heavily on The Famous Bit, but it's clear that the balance and mixture of things in the finished movie are exactly right.
The feel of the whole movie is everything fans could have hoped for. The dialogue is intensely measured, the colouring is suitably epic, the selection of what to leave in is really tightly considered. You get chills in your spine at the right places; you feel the triumphs as all-encompassing endorphin highs. It's clear that the production have thought long, hard and lovingly. They are true fans of the story, they are the right people for the job, it all bodes very well for the second film.
So it could never have been the film that the hyper-literalists were hoping for, then, but it is as good as the practicalities of the real world could possibly permit. Don't expect miracles and you'll love it. I look forward to watching it again and again.
8/10 at the very least. A really satisfactory film!
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 2007 GMPN Review
Category: Adventure, Fantasy
Year: 2007
GMPN Rating: 8/10
Separate the film from the book, and you will be impressed
I actually was lucky enough to see this at a sneak preview on Monday. The "experience" was lousy, but the film was good...IF you take it as a separate entity from the series of books. If you separate the film from the book, you won't be disappointed.
For the negative...there were, of course, MANY things that were omitted from the film. As a huge fan of the books, I still must be realistic. I knew there would be a lot of information left out. There were a few things that I felt could have made the story richer if they had been included, but I won't go into detail so I don't give away any of the film's changes. There were a few changes that made me frown at times, but as the story played out, it did make the film flow well. One of their worst casting decisions, Michael Gambon, was actually tolerable in this one, for the most part. I am NOT a fan of his portrayal of Dumbledore, but I guess he worked for this film simply because, for the majority of the story, he is supposed to be acting somewhat aloof towards Harry. That worked for him. I miss the subtlety that Richard Harris brought to that role, and, while he wasn't dreadful in this one, I still believe that there are countless other well known actors in the UK that could have done this role better justice. There wasn't enough Molly or Hagrid for me though. I love both of those characters.
On a positive note, the special effects were very well done. The thestrals were marvelous--eerie, but strangely peaceful creatures. Evanna Lynch could not have been more spot on as Luna. Her voice, mannerisms and demeanor were amazing. My only complaint about her was that she wasn't on screen enough. :o) Imelda Staunton, as Umbridge, and Helena Bonham Carter, as Bella, have to be two of the BEST casting decisions that they have with regard to these films. They were SO incredible. I was actually quite impressed with Dan, Rupert and Emma as well. They have come quite far in their acting abilities. They have finally achieved the art of saying a lot without necessarily opening their mouths. The scene in the common room following the kiss between Harry and Cho was hysterical. Kreacher and Grawp were great additions to the films. Fred and George's exit was very well done, albeit slightly different. The film, if taken by itself, was really good. Unfortunately, it's a lot different from the book. But, as I'm doing a film review and not a comparison, I'll give it 8 out of 10, because I was highly entertained.
Our "sneak preview" was interrupted in the middle due to a problem with the film, and I think we still missed some of it. We lined up 3 hours before the movie was supposed to begin, it started late, it was interrupted in the middle for over 30 minutes, we were wanded for metal and electronics every time we went in or out...I think we'll just wait until opening week next time. It's crowded, but a lot less trouble.
We are actually going to see it again.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 2009 GMPN Review
Category: Adventure, Fantasy
Year: 2009
GMPN Rating: 5/10
This segment of HP will disappoint all who read the novel. The Burrow burns down during x-mas break due to Bellatrix and Fenrir (who is never described as a werewolf) perhaps for the lack of action at the end of the movie...the Dursleys are completely cut from the movie, meaning when Dumbledore picks Harry up for the summer it's at the train station for some apparent reason...The Ginny/Dean/Harry dichotomy is skewed, there was no break up between Ginny and Dean and Harry is clearly in love with her from the start of the movie which eliminates his confusion on his feelings during the school year...Hermoine prematurely spills the beans on her feelings for Ron which was only speculation in the novels...Lavender Brown becomes a obsessive and crazed girlfriend rather than simply over-affectionate (a reminiscent Unis from She's the Man)...the battle scene is missing from the end giving Dumbledore's death an anticlimactic feel making it all the more unemotional and disappointing...Harry hides under the floor simply holding his wand looking like a coward while Dumbledore dies, Snape sees him hiding rather than Harry being frozen under his cloak compliments of Dumbledore ...There is no funeral or break up with Ginny at the end of it (there is no relationship between the two either simply a kiss)...Hagrid is basically deleted from the movie as is Neville...Pensive trips are deleted and the Horocruxes are never explained, not even slightly...Luna finds Harry on the Hogwarts Express rather than Tonks...The Slug Club simply makes a cameo rather than a proper introduction and explanation...the Inferi look more like skeletons compared to the white bodies described in the book...I'm sure more discrepancies are present, however I can only remember so many of them.
It is absolutely a horrible interpretation of the book and I hope that they look at all of the mistakes and gaps left for the next movie and fill them in with more than humor (they are supposed to be in the middle of an all out war aren't they?) I mean I didn't even feel emotional when Dumbledore was killed, I was too busy trying to figure out why Harry was acting like a stunned coward under the floor boards and not doing something, isn't that his thing...doing seemingly impossible rescue missions?!?!
I am utterly disappointed in this installment of HP!!
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 2005 GMPN Review
Category: Adventure, Fantasy
Year: 2005
GMPN Rating: 8/10
It's unfortunate that so much of the book needed to be cut for time and the movie is still nearly 2 1/2 hours long. The rule of movie editing is when you must trim for time you remove the sub-plots. A lot of story and character development isn't there.
But what is there is a great visual treat. If the movie leaves you with questions just read the book or get the audio version on CD. It would have taken a minimum of another half hour to flesh the movie out and that simply wasn't going to be done by a studio whose primary target is a younger audience. (Note how no studio wants to release an animated film longer than 90 minutes for this reason.) Perhaps Alphonso Curon would have done a better job of cohesion but there really isn't much more that could have been done in the time and the script would have been essentially the same. This movie begs for an extended Lord of the Rings type DVD, another 30 to 60 minutes to give you what was left out for theatrical release.
See it and spend the bucks to see it on the big screen.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 2010 GMPN Review
Category: Adventure, Fantasy
Year: 2010
GMPN Rating: 9/10
After having seen HP6, I honestly didn't have great expectations in this one. I guessed it would be darker and scarier, as every HP movie has been darker and scarier than its predecessor. But HP6 was such a patchwork of scenes that didn't give you the feeling of a coherent work - I was afraid the even more complex story line of HP7 would make an even less coherent movie. However, I must say it was definitely a wise decision to split the 7th book into 2 movies. HP7 can take time to explain and introduce all the characters that are necessary to the plot.
I love the way Voldemort and the Death Eaters are portrayed in this movie. They are no longer just anonymous caped figures. You can see them interacting with each other, discussing and well... being human. Well, I'm always a big fan of the blurring of these clearcut good/evil categories in Fantasy.
As the book is split into 2 parts, all of a sudden, there's also time for little embellishments I hadn't realized I had missed in the earlier movies! For example, I loved the scene so much where the feather floated through the air when the fairy tale of the Three Brothers was being told. Also the drawing style that was used during the story was really amazing. This HP movie was the first of all that finally gave me the same feeling as Lord of the Rings did: Boy, this is not just some guys slavishly adapting a book into a movie, but they're actually autonomous artists and they have ideas of their own! And I don't mean they changed the whole plot (I wouldn't like that)! But (mostly visually) they did more than just bring across what's in the book.
This also expresses itself in the decision not to include the childish Harry Potter musical theme (at least I didn't hear it, correct me if I'm wrong) from the first movie that sounds like "Wow, everything's so magical here!" That tune was fine for the first movie, but as Harry got older and the movies got darker, it kind of felt like they had to force this theme into every movie several times even though it didn't really fit any more. Now the soundtrack, too, has finally grown up. And I loved it! Last but not least, the acting was brilliant! The tense atmosphere between Harry, Ron and Hermione really came across. Also with all the doppelganger scenes, you always still saw from their movements and behaviour which character was which though they were in disguise in a different body.
All in all, as the title says, this is a excellent grown-up movie and I can recommend it to everyone - except kids! If you have little kids, please don't take them. This movie has far too many scary scenes and little comic relief! Plus, the plot is quit complex including lots and lots of minor characters. It's really no longer a movie targeted at kids, even though it's still labelled
Category: Adventure, Fantasy
Year: 2010
GMPN Rating: 4/10
I was able to catch a prescreening of Alice in Wonderland tonight on March 2nd. Despite some pretty nifty visuals, and jaw dropping set pieces, I found the movie to be incredibly dull, flat, and utterly full of itself. The film is merely a vehicle for Johnny Depp to showcase his talents, and he portrays the Mad Hatter as an actor who can't quite find the right shoes to fill in the role. He rotates from a Scottish brogue, to a feminine lisp, and staggers once in awhile as the unmistakable character of Captain Jack Sparrow. Where the visuals triumph, the story lacks. The proposed 'sequel' to Alice in Wonderland is literally a rehash of most of the finer points of the original, except a lot more Johnny Depp- a character who the audience is supposed to sympathize with and root for, but who i found a bit annoying and tiresome after awhile. The plot is fairly simple. Alice (the stone faced, newcomer Mia Wasisoska whose acting is limited to mildly concerned, mildly puzzled, and mildly agitated) flees from an arranged marriage proposal from a wealthy lord. She follows a curious white rabbit and tumbles down a hole into Underland, referred to as Wonderland by Alice. She then meets a variety of odd characters, most of them familiar from the original Alice. The plot is fairly simplistic, and a tad boneheaded. The Red Queen (Bonham Carter, slightly overdoing it, but arguably the best actor of the bunch) rules the land, but is pitted against the tiresome goodness and light of her sister, The White Queen (Hathaway doing an air-headed imitation of, you guessed it, Captain Jack Sparrow). Alice is destined by some ancient scroll to defeat the Jabberwocky and end The Red Queen's reign of terror. Alice boils down to mere eye candy-something that is visually pleasing, but is only a piece of fluff. If your a fan of Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this movie is right up your ally. I prefer Burton at his best with movies that attempt to involve the audience like Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, and Big Fish. However, this bloated mess is sure to rank in hundreds of millions of dollars, but it tugs at our wallets rather than our hearts. It's a scary thought, but I hope that Burton's best
I went to see this movie because of my wife. She read the books some time ago and really wanted to see the movie. I am not too fond of animations.
I was pleasantly surprised. I liked the story a lot. It was really nice to see something new for a change. There are not too many cliches in it, and the little acting that is in the movie is quite good.
I was a bit disappointed by the animations. I think they could have been a bit better. But then again, as I said I am not the biggest animation fan.
Parting comments: It's a movie for the family. There should be something in it for every age.
See, I am a married man. And watching this movie, at home on the sofa with my wife whom I love above anything and hopefully always will, almost brought me to tears and easily did her. This movie, no matter all the overdone/overacted characters and the fact that Adam Sandler is probably the worst person in the world the act crying, is simply the best description of love ever. To have the energy to every day win over the heart of the one you love, is what we all should do, though ever so often don't have the energy to.
I believe that movie criticism often nitpicks too much on technical details or other such stuff of -actually- little importance. Show me a person who is not moved by this film and I show you a person who knows zip about real love. Real, I mean. I am not a religious person and this made me feel closer to what people often call God, whatever that is. Maybe I exaggerate, but I want to. And no work of art, of any genre, can be asked to do any more. On scale of 1 to 10, this goes to 11. (Can you see?!)
Some people said that "What's the moral of this story?," . The moral is even if you're alone and you feel like no one will ever like you, don't lose hope 'cause someone, anyone I'm sure will love. And it is also to accept yourself no maatter what you look like cause true beauty is in the inside not out. No matter what the judgements are, love youself, beleive in yourself, and no one not even a half human half monster can pin you down.
Hey !!! Whos cutting onions!?
I never regretted watching this movie after a long long time attempting to watch it(cause im not a fan of pinoy movies especially mmff entries). I just watched it late tho(01/01/15 7:05pm).
Have to admit,
The best pinoy romcom movie ever been made!!!
Really love the story timeline and frame. How it ended was brilliantly awesome..
Not a typical fairytale story.
gusto ko yung story, maayus ang plot magaling ang act ng dalawa
kaso mali ang paginerpret ng mga staff sa term na gangster
1. ang gangster most of the time fan ng rap hindi rock
2. ang fashion more like a freespirit than gangster (may maayus naman na fashion ang gangster eh)
3. ang aura ng lugar hindi medyo aggressive
sorry fans opinion ko lang di ko sinisisi ang mga nag act para sakin tae ang staff
GMPN Rating: 7/10
Category: Romance, Drama
Year: 2014
For me this movie was very realistic. Walang masyadong arte. Di sobrang heavy yung drama. There were a lot of parts na sobrang nakarelate ako. For those people na nagsasabing pangit yung ending dahil di naging sila, I just want to ask you all a question. Lahat ba ng taong nakikilala nyo nagiging kayo agad? Kati-katihan lang? This movie tells us na a person might be destined to be a part of our life or maybe just a passer by. Kaya nga tadhana. Di natin alam kung ano magiging role nila sa buhay natin. Pwede natin silang maging kaibigan, love life, kaaway, etc. And this movie really gave us a piece of what's really happening. I love JM and Angelica's acting here. They were very natural. :)
At first akala ko this is only a shalow movie mababaw ma arte corny .. pero mali ako .....this movie was so real and it really bites , ang ganda ng story mala korean style ... i highly recommend it must watch film ........
Honestly, I rarely watch Filipino movies because of the almost awkward and repetitive type of scenes. But this one, I got to watch... I have watched the trailer like over and over. If you want to break free from the traditional Filipino Movies (especially comedy) you have to watch this. Thank God for Direk Antoinette Jadaone. Very funny, yet timely and true.
This is the most beautiful, stunning and compelling story I've ever watched. 1000% guaranteed the most best film ever. The story is very powerful. Twists are perfectly cultivated. Wow! The writer of this story should receive an excellent award! If this is a book, this would be my most number 1 favorite. Wow! You should watch it guys. Perfect movie. I assure you.
its more than meets the eye :) Viva always full of suprises...... I never knew na magkakaron pa ng Chick Flick movie sa Pinas na may sense at may moral lesson di tulad ng ibang movie na puro lantudan at walang humpay na promotion sa mga loveteam na napakalayo naman sa katotohanan.... the best movie toh <3
napanood kona to ng ilang beses at paulit2 ko pa ring pinapanood dahil sa mga funny scenes at halos walang korny part... my God! nag improve rin kc ang pag didirect ni BB. Joyce Bernal eh... di tulad ng karaniwang pinoy movies na kaya lang kumikita dahil sa lakas ng love team buti ngaun laki na ng kaibahan...i think na chachallenge sila sa mga acting at movies ng ibang bansa gaya ng S.Korea :) this movie and must be..love and sarah and llyod movies are so far the signs of great improvement
I don't like to be negative, but I feel obligated to help save the rest of the world from wasting their hard earned money on this movie. This is just about the worst movie I can recall ever seeing in my entire life in the movie theater, and I have seen more movies than anyone I know. There were about 10 minutes of this movie that I can honestly say were funny, but the remaining 84 minutes were just complete and utter agony. The movie takes the concepts of silly and campy to new lows. The movie is laden with deliberate and unintelligent attempts at campy humor, but every attempt falls flat. The concept behind the movie was great, but the execution simply does not measure up. Disappointed! Can I get my money back? :-)
Russell Crowe has absolutely outdone himself with this film; it had me entranced from the start. Beautifully shot, amazing casting and the time and effort put into the making of this film really shone through. I feel the costumers deserve an Oscar nomination for this one - everything was spot on which for a period drama is almost impossible:) Flawless casting and great character development leads the viewer through the story; this film will bring out emotions and provoke thought. I loved the perspective of the film; it is an exceptional sensitive retelling of an historical story from both perspectives and I think this is one of the absolute highlights of this film.
See it - you won't be disappointed!Take the tissues though...
I just watched this movie. I really like it, for it brings a fresh wave with it's story, characters and overall look. A lot of animation movies nowadays share quite a similar way of storytelling, and that's where Happy Feet 2 stands out from the crowd. Characters of Matt Damon and Brad Pitt worked out really well. Graphics and effects look really awesome. George Miller commented on the amount and complexity of those effects by saying that their render farms almost crashed in the process. Also I'd like to comment on 3D part of the movie, because it does really work out here, looks beautiful with 3d glasses on - gives real depth, really amazing experience. And I can't say the same for a lot of 3D movies that are out there. I would definitely recommend this movie, for Happy Feet 2 will be interesting for both children and adults.
