Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Innocent film from a bygone era...
7 June 2007
I loved this film. No special effects, no flashy camera-work, just well-written characters, story, and dialog, instantly charming!

The characters were well-rounded and complex, not like the unlovable stereotypes found in today's romantic comedies. The jokes were well-paced. Actors delivered excellent performances. Directing was simple, not for showing off, just for telling a story.

AND there was no hint of sex or rudeness anywhere. Just good clean-and hopelessly funny!-humor. I laughed SO hard! (And didn't feel guilty for doing so!) This is the kind of movie we need today! No gross-outs no sex scenes, no rude dialog, just pure, innocent fun!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Old comedies are the BEST!
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best adaptation yet
7 June 2007
I love the Narnia books. They are very dear to my heart. So I was very excited when I learned a movie adaptation was in the works.

At first I had some minor worries, such as Georgie Henley's age, Tilda Swinton's blonde hair (in the books, the witch has black hair), the changes to the story, etc. Despite all of that I came out of this movie very happy and satisfied that justice was done to my beloved C.S. Lewis.

Georgie was perfect as Lucy. I know some people criticize her acting abilities but you have to keep in mind this was an eight-year-old girl who'd never done any major acting work before in her life. Given that, I thought she did a very nice job. I can say the same for the other actors as well. Tilda Swinton was a chilling and bewitching White Witch. Jim Broadbent, as Professor Digory was a bit whimsical, but nevertheless quite charming. James McAvoy did a great job as Tumnus with that perfectly clipped British accent. I never would have guessed that he was actually Scottish! And Liam Neeson made for a very warm and believable Aslan.

Allow me to digress for a minute and talk about the amazing CGI work on Aslan. That was something that bothered me in the BBC version-Aslan was stiff and static, not the kind of character I could be instantly attached to. Aslan in this version makes me want to shout "KITTY!" and run up and hug his fluffy head. (But he probably wouldn't like that... He's not a tame lion after all.) And he shows emotion and cracks jokes just like the human actors. It's obvious the writers tried really hard to make even the CGI characters real and believable. (I especially liked how they made the Beavers sound just like a real married couple!) For that I applaud them.

I want to take some time to address some other user's objections to the movie. First, the idea that the movie is clichéd. Nonsense. Narnia was written back in the 1950s and 60s. The ideas may be cliché now but back then they were fresh and original. (In fact, there was no such thing as a fantasy blockbuster back then.) And if you watch the making-of features you'll see that the creators tried very hard to avoid making their movie look like other fantasy movies. (Hard to do considering they shot several sequences in New Zealand, like LOTR, and even had Weta Workshop doing their props and costumes.) That was the reason they made the White Witch blonde. Second, Peter's inability to use a sword is actually quite realistic. He just got that sword a few hours ago, you don't seriously expect him to know how to use it right off the bat do you? And third, the idea that this is just a propaganda film to promote Christianity to children. Sure it is. Because everyone knows Lewis sat down at his desk and thought "Hmm, how can I tell the story of the Gospel in an appealing way to young children?" Not at all. It's a fantasy story first and a morality tale second.

Despite the story changes, this was still the best and most faithful film adaptation of the book I have seen. It was better and more exciting than I expected, and I applaud the creators for a job-well done.

Kudos to you!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Absolutely spectacular!
23 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Two words.

LOVED. IT.

Being a Teen Titans junkie I was naturally thrilled with the prospect of the movie. And I can say with confidence that it did not disappoint.

From the opening packing scene to the Titans singing a nonsensical version of their theme song during the credits, this movie moved me.

I have four good things to say about this movie. One; it had some real meat to it. The story, the characters, the setting, everything just had a little more depth. There was an air of seriousness about it, especially when (*spoiler ahead*) Robin got arrested. Same with the final climax, which was also one of greatest Teen Titans battle sequences EVER! Two; In spite of it's occasional seriousness, it had some of the funniest Teen Titans moments I've ever seen! Beast Boy singing karaoke! The packing sequence! Starfire totally going great guns on the DDR machine! Three; the music was AMAZING! The rock version of the Titans theme kicked butt, and the Japanese flute theme was sooo beautiful. I seriously wish they'd release a soundtrack of the music-'cause I'd buy it in a heartbeat! Four; My Robin was the hero du jour and looked totally hot in civilian clothing! *cough!* And Star and Robin finally kissed! All in all, I'm waiting anxiously for its release on DVD.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Beautiful...
22 August 2006
I think I was one of the very few who actually looked forward to this latest project by M. Night. I saw the teaser for it in cinemas when I went to see Star Wars Episode III and from the very beginning it piqued my interest. I downloaded the official trailer during the summer and became even more excited. The days up to its release were almost torturous-I wanted to see it so bad! I can safely say it was well worth my time.

Sure, the acting may not have been very brilliant, and the story may have been a little hurriedly put together, but hey, that's what bedtime stories are like. They don't proclaim to be artfully and masterfully scripted, but they have a quality of wonder that widens the eyes of children in spite of that fact. The only thing I was really bothered by was all the tight close-ups. But even that wasn't so bad. Once I got used to it, I realized this was M. Night's way of bringing us into the world of the characters.

This may or may not be M. Night's best work-I'll leave that to the real Shyalmalan enthusiasts to decide-but it definitely had that "storylike" quality to it. The story had an original mythology behind it, which I liked. Bryce was lovely as the Madame Narf. None of the helpers were who you'd thought they were. The scrunt was creepy. The music was haunting. And the dialog was absolutely beautiful. Clevland's speech to his children took my breath away.

In the end, Lady in the Water is not about cinematic brilliance, shocking and scaring the audience, or pleasing the critics. It's about telling a bedtime story that even adults can enjoy.

That's enough to please this fantasy fan.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't believe the hype-
12 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I did and I lost two and a half hours of my life that I can never regain again.

I honestly have no idea what the critics and fans see in this movie. And that's not because I can't appreciate "art". I love a good film with profound messages, brilliant cinematography, and great directing.

This film just isn't one of them.

My main complaint about this film is that it's so horribly slow-paced, to the point of boring its audience to death. On the other hand, sequences of dialog go by too quickly and there's not enough exposition to let people who haven't read the book know what's going on (My mother had mercy on me and explained everything before I watched it). Would it have killed them to hire a narrator? At least for the beginning and the end?

Let me break it down for you: (Spoilers throughout)

For the first two minutes you are treated to a black screen with no music, waiting for the actual movie to begin.

For the following minute and a half, you see several pictures of sunrises and savanna landscapes. Like the audience couldn't figure out how to set the scene unless they saw the establishing shot three or four times.

The next eleven minutes are occupied with the grunting monkeys. They fight, see the monolith, fight some more, pommel things with a bone. Supposedly they are prehistoric men whose evolution is being influenced by the monolith's singing. Not that you could tell if you hadn't read the book.

*Finally* we get into space. Only to be subjected to twelve minutes of ships slowly spinning to the Blue Danube Waltz (A pretty quick-tempo-ed waltz as I understand, yet here it feels absolutely agonizing). At last we get some innocuous dialog and rather cryptic exposition about the government not letting people land on the moon. We are left to wonder about this for fourteen more minutes of Blue Danube and spinning ships and neat camera tricks with anti-gravity.

Next comes four minutes of watching a ship travel over the surface of the moon and dock at a space station. We get a little more exposition in a board room scene that follows. Then we're back outside traveling at a snail's pace over the moon. A second monolith is revealed, again filling our ears with that horrible ringing (I had no idea that was an actual piece of music!). The monolith does its little light show and then the plot jumps forward.

*Seven* minutes of watching the ship to Jupiter travel. By this point in time my brains had turned into mush. Could it be moving any slower? Maybe it's "realistic" to portray it as such, but we still don't need to see five or six different shots of the same thing to grasp the concept of its "realism". Let me tell you about this "realism" thing; I cheered when the secondary astronaut character died. Not because I'm a sadist and like watching people die, but because after five minutes I was just so annoyed at the sound of his darn breathing! I'm supposed to care about this character, feel when he dies! Instead I found myself waiting for blissful silence whatever way it came.

Anyway, now we get to the most interesting part of the film-the part with HAL. Forget Dave the stick-of-wood protagonist. The real star of the show is that coldly impersonal, chillingly villainous, ruthlessly merciless bad guy of a computer. He's great. And the "Open the pod bay doors" sequence is wonderful. But it's too short. And it's not long before the director once again lapses into too-long goings on.

Four minutes for HAL to die. And die he does. Slowly, painfully, losing intelligence with every minute, voice getting lower and slower, singing "Daisy, Daisy", all with a low and constant hissing that becomes just as annoying as the heavy breathing.

Seven minutes of flying colors as Dave enters the monolith. Seven. I could FEEL my brains melting and dripping out of my ears! Seven full minutes of absolutely nothing but some guy's whacked out psychedelic version of space travel, again with that thrice-cursed chorus! We got the idea at the beginning of the sequence! Why drag it out so long? Unless he wanted to make LSD users go psychotic and have flashbacks.

I'm not even going to try to explain the ending, mostly because I don't quite get it myself. Supposedly he's in an alien research laboratory and they're teaching him deep and profound things while he watches himself getting older and older and then they send him back to earth as some kind of cosmic celestial space baby. None of this comes across in the film. For all you know, it's just a sequence of images with no purpose or plot whatsoever. A lot of the movie felt that way.

The first time I tried watching this movie I gave up halfway through. The second time I suffered through this sore excuse for a film, it was to help my sister time the sequences to see how long they lasted. It's that boring.

Call this crummy film "art" if you wish. I wouldn't. I've seen more interesting "art" in the local museum. And I am never subjecting myself to this kind of suffering ever again.
1,927 out of 3,234 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed