Reviews

Harry Potter has been a tremendous film series spanning a decade, and it seems like we have grown up along with the characters in these films. They all do a fantastic job, especially the big three who have learned so much over time. But how could they not sharing the screen with the likes of Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman etc.

The series, for the most part, has stayed true to the books. Obviously things had to be cut out because there was no way possible they can fit every little detail of the books into the movie. However, in part 1 I was upset with leaving out Kreacher's Tale, and now in the 2nd movie the whole ending sequence left me baffled, as to why they changed it. In the book we had Grawp and house elves attacking, but there was really none of that, and Neville kills the snake right away, not when it's about to kill Ron and Hermione. But my favorite part of that last battle was Molly's duel with Bellatrix, but that scene left a lot to be desired, as there was really no build up, but at least Molly got to say her line. Ugh. All in all, it was still a very good movie, but in the end this battle sequence left a lot to be desired.

The Prince's Tale though was about as great as I was hoping for along with the Resurrection Stone scene, as both of those parts were full of emotion, mostly due to Alan Rickman's acting. He has always done the best in these movies.

The books were better of course, but the movies were entertaining to watch, and I guess I probably couldn't imagine a much better series, but I would have liked to see them a little closer to the books.

This movie is a cheat and a lie. I admit that I was skeptical going into this one, but that scene where that guy kills his family was all wrong and so obviously fake. If this was real, there would have been a ton of snipers on him, and the second he pulled the gun up to his wife's head, he would have been shot and killed, and his kids would have stayed alive. Plus mixing the so called archive footage with the actual footage just made the movie even more unbelievable than it already was, along with the introduction from Milla Jovovich. Even the film's score took away from the movie's already ridiculous claims.

The acting and directing were awful considering that this was supposedly real, especially in the "archive footage." Even Will Patton's performance was lacking as he was way over the top, same with Milla Jovovich when she was crying and clutching the little teddy bear. This movie would have been so much better off if it just chose one of the two directions instead of trying to do both archived footage and dramatization. Overall, this was an extremely disappointing experience.

How did this movie ever win best picture, and why do people like it so much? It has some of the worst dialog in the movie I have ever heard, and Connie Nielsen's "acting" just made me want to throw up. Not to mention the abysmal plot where there are several problems: 1) We're made to think that Commodus is a bad emperor mainly because he killed his dad and wanted to sleep with his sister. 1st thing wrong about this is that wanting to get laid with his sister doesn't have anything to do with being a bad emperor. 2nd thing is if I was in Commodus's situation, I would have killed him too for not letting me be emperor for some stupid general played by Russell Crowe.

2) The general won a couple fights and suddenly he's everyone's favorite action hero.

3) It's the same tired old revenge plot we've been seeing in movies for years with nothing added to make it interesting (see Kill Bill for that). Also so what that he killed his wife and son too; it's better to get them out of the way then to have them coming for revenge after killing dear old dad (although they probably wouldn't have done much), and they were not even in the movie, so I really didn't care (see Star Wars for caring that family members die).

4) Problem 3 led me here about how in movies they always leave the main character alone in an easy situation he can get out of instead of just killing the loser while he's being held. (see Austin Powers for making fun of this Hollywood trend)

5) The emperor would never get in a ring to fight a slave, especially when he knows he's gonna lose. How stupid! (see Spartacus for gladiator fights with purpose) Well I'm sure there's more, but these are the ones that anger me the most.

Anyway there were some things I did like about the movie which are some of the action scenes were intense and exciting, and the music by James Horner was pretty darned good and enjoyable to listen to. Too bad that it wasn't part of a better movie.

If the Academy wanted to pick an action movie as best picture, they should have went to the far superior Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I know I'm not the only one who hated this movie. In fact I'm not even the only person in my family that hated this movie, my mom and sister did too, and I have met other people who hated this movie throughout the years since it came out. Unfortunately, it hasn't been too many people at all.

Enough of that, I of course looked and heard why people seem to like this movie so much. But I couldn't disagree more. The whole plot of the movie is ridiculous -- how a mentally challenged person could go through or cause all these historical events and fads. For example, creating the smiley face, the s*** happens bumper sticker, catching the people in the Watergate scandal, winning a medal of honor, becoming a ping-pong champion (like an American can ever win that!), becoming an all-American athlete for football, running across the country, falling in love with a drug-addicted stripper (well i guess this one's believable as he is mentally challenged), speaking out against the Vietnam war after he won the medal of honor for it, etc. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. Running some more, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. Then just quitting for no apparent reason, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!!

OK, now the good parts of it. Yes there are some things I liked about the movie. The cinematography was beautiful (and I'm a big fan of this as I believe it helps set the tone of a movie), but it's useless because there is nothing for it to enhance. I also liked Gary Sinise in this; Lt. Dan is actually a cool character. And of course, the soundtrack is awesome...Now only if we can mute everyone but Gary Sinise and the music, I might be able to sit through this movie again. One can only hope...

Now back to the not so good to outright horrible. I never read the book by Winston Groom so I can't say if they did the book justice or not, and I really don't care. I mentioned how much I hated the basic premise for this movie, but the dialog doesn't help either, with it's cheesy axioms and pathetic southern accents (I used to live in TN, and I don't remember the accents being that bad). Whatever, I can live with the accents, but I prefer the exaggerated ones in "Fargo" (I thought they sounded cool). Anyway, now onto the acting: Tom Hanks wasn't great in this movie at all. How hard is it to play somebody that doesn't change from one scene to the next. He walks, talks, and acts the same in every scene of the movie. This had to have been Hanks' easiest performance to play...and it won him his second Oscar. But of course this isn't the first time that's happened. See Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man," but at least that was a good movie.

I like a lot of Robert Zemeckis's films by the way to include "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" "Contact" and even "Beowulf," but this one, he asked way too much for me to believe. I actually think the events of "Star Wars 1-6" were more likely to have occurred than the events in this movie. A lot has been said about his right wing political agenda; I don't care; it's his movie, he can do what he wants with, but I don't have to agree. Also that this movie is stereotypical to blacks. I always wondered what African Americans thought about some of the stuff in it as I don't think it was meant to be racist, but some of it kind of came off like it. I guess it's up to them to decide.

Now onto the last part of my comment which doesn't have anything to do with why I like/dislike any part of the movie. I've been called a Communist, un-American, and other worse things for hating this movie. Really what is the point. I don't put other people down for not liking movies I like. Everybody's is entitled to their own opinion. Furthermore, I thought I lived in (and fought for) a country where I can like or dislike whatever movie I want. I don't like movies because everyone else does, and just because Hollywood or the media says that a movie is good, doesn't mean that it is. In fact I tend to disagree with Hollywood a lot. Anyway, isn't having to like something that's jammed down my throat communist in itself? Anyway, if I had to choose between becoming a communist and liking this movie, I would choose communism without a second thought or regret.

If I was rating this movie on how much I actually liked it, I would give it a -infiniti just on the stupid screenplay alone. Too bad, it took awhile for "The Shawshank Redemption" to get popular, or that would have swept the Oscars that year.

This is the best animated Disney movie I have eve seen, and I have seen most of them. It's so different from all the other ones, as the bad guy not only lives, he also wins. The Coachman is probably one of the most evil villains Disney has ever produced; he turns kids into asses and makes them do hard labor for the rest of their lives...and he gets away with it. Although the ending is happy, there's still bitterness to it because every bad guy gets away, including Stromboli who is evil because of his greed, as with the two foxes who "befriend" Pinocchio. Supposedly the book is darker than the movie, but this movie is as dark as it needs to be.

The music is memorable, featuring the classic "When You Wish Upon a Star," which is the only song that seems to be normal for a Disney movie. It does have other musical numbers, but they all seem to have a dark undertone to them. The animation itself is brilliant, especially for 1941; I've always loved the clock sequence. I only wish that animated movies would get back to drawing animation instead of the new cgi crap; it may take longer, but it looks so much better. It's pretty sad when a movie from 1941 looks better than current ones.

This is the only Disney movie I gave a 10/10.

Although I enjoyed watching yet another historically inaccurate film from Mel Gibson (the first being 'Braveheart'), I found this one too far-fetched.

not only does the hero escape a human sacrifice because of the unlikely event of a solar eclipse, but he also outruns a jaguar, survives jumping down a waterfall, making it out of quicksand, and somehow saving his wife, son, and newborn baby boy from drowning to death---in just two days. yeah right!! I criticized 'Forrest Gump' for the same reasons. At least this didn't win best picture though.

Anyway, as I said, I did enjoy the film though, mostly due to the excellent cinematography (that should have been considered for an Oscar, but of course wasn't) and sound achievements. Hollywood hates Mel Gibson. Probably because he's the only person who has the balls to make a movie like this. It should have been better than what it was.

Note: I gave 'Braveheart' a 10/10 because it deserved it. Being historically inaccurate has no bearing whatsoever on ratings I give a film.