Viewed in
2010 (2)
Premise
The Unholy Trinity (Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Danny Elfman) reunite to make a live-action adaption of Lewis Carroll's books, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.
Loved
Anne Hathaway's performance. The visual feast.
Liked
The very cool cast.
Thoughts
A fun and luscious film.
Like most Burton films, there were tons of weird, exciting, and darkly humorous scenes for the eyes to behold, usually at the cost of a good plot. Thanks to some fascinating special effects, the film makers created a wonderful, bizarre, and diverse world. All of it looked even cooler in 3D IMAX. I loved that for most of the film, Alice was, to quote the Mad Hatter, "always too big or too small". This added to the off-beat style of the film.
The awesome cast was full of Burton favorites, wonderful British actors, and unexpected actors. Words cannot describe how excited I was to see the immortal Crispin Glover as the awkwardly tall Prince of Knaves. Helena Bonham Carter was great, despite the visual bastardization of her figure, as the evil Queen of Hearts. I definitely dug all the Brits doing fine voice acting, especially Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. Sadly, Alan Rickman and Christopher Lee were underused. Amusing that there were four Harry Potter alumni in the cast.
Obviously, the headliner was Johnny Depp as Mad Hatter. While he did exude the oddball performance that was expected for such a film, I do not know if it was truly noteworthy. This is probably a good thing, as he could have been so noticeably weird that it would have diminished the ensemble performance. Instead, the scene-stealer was the delightful Anne Hathaway as the White Queen. Her ditsy, hyper-posturing performance was extremely funny and nearly made me laugh out loud whenever she appeared on screen.
While the story was predictable, it at least had a semblance of a plot, and had a clear narrative. It felt like a genuine story, not an excuse to string together a bunch of trippy scenes.
This was superior to the 1951 "classic" in every way, except for the song (sadly no "Merry Unbirthday" here). The main difference was that the 2010 version had a plot, and the characters were fleshed out. In the 1951 version, it was a parade of bizarre, inconsequential creatures, and Alice's character was borderline hate-able. I'll bet the hardest part for Burton and company was how to make the iconic Cheshire Cat better than the original. And they pulled it off by going the subtle route.
Having bashed the 1951 version, I will admit that watching that movie beforehand greatly enhanced my experience in the current film. There were some wonderful shoutouts and twisting of famous lines that made me giggle. Granted, maybe these lines existed in the books. I have not read them.
Most called Burton's version a sequel. Based on the stand-alone plot, I disagree, and felt a little misled by the media on that aspect. This Alice is much older, but the film is easily standalone.
When I heard about this project at its inception that it would be Tim Burton doing live action 3D, I was ecstatic. After many months of self-hype, this film delivered. Like the title character, I was whisked away into a wonderfully weird world, thanks to Tim Burton's eye candy, and the cornucopia of cool characters.
What I would change
No talking doorknob?!
Showing posts with label fantasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fantasy. Show all posts
Alice in Wonderland
Viewed in
2010
Premise
A Disney animated version of Lewis Carroll's book.
Loved
Card soldiers animation. The Dormouse.
Liked
The Merry Unbirthday song and the Chesire Cat.
Hated
The plot.
Thoughts
I expected to really enjoy this, considering I like animation and trippy movies. However, I was sorely disappointed.
There were some very bizarre and interesting characters, such as the bouncy Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the nonsensical Mad Hatter, and the famous, mischievous Chesire Cat. My favorite of all would be the hilariously drunk Dormouse.
As expected, the animation was quite excellent, and was probably very difficult, considering the different and deviant visual styles that was required. I found the scenes with the armies of card solders to be spell-binding and awesome. Astounding considering there were no computers back then.
What brought this movie down was the stupid plot. It literally had only four meaningful moments, everything else was just a piling on of wacky creatures. As much as I like the weird characters and animation, there still needs to be rhyme and reason for their existence and actions. I became bored very easily as I realized they lacked any of that. After that, it felt like a 20 minute bit stretched beyond watchable.
I never read the book, so if this seemingly lack of plot was just like the original source, then I might give it more leeway (and in turn probably would hate the book).
While I enjoyed the animation and some cool moments, the lame story completely wrecked my experience. I do not understand the hype of this "classic". You may think I am criticizing it too much as an adult, but my inner child was not impressed.
What I would change
Chopped it up into five minute shorts, made them into some sort of weekly adventure series.
Random
Is that a hookah?! Shame on Disney for promoting drug use!
Anyone else notice that the King looked like Cogsworth from Beauty and the Beast?
2010
Premise
A Disney animated version of Lewis Carroll's book.
Loved
Card soldiers animation. The Dormouse.
Liked
The Merry Unbirthday song and the Chesire Cat.
Hated
The plot.
Thoughts
I expected to really enjoy this, considering I like animation and trippy movies. However, I was sorely disappointed.
There were some very bizarre and interesting characters, such as the bouncy Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the nonsensical Mad Hatter, and the famous, mischievous Chesire Cat. My favorite of all would be the hilariously drunk Dormouse.
As expected, the animation was quite excellent, and was probably very difficult, considering the different and deviant visual styles that was required. I found the scenes with the armies of card solders to be spell-binding and awesome. Astounding considering there were no computers back then.
What brought this movie down was the stupid plot. It literally had only four meaningful moments, everything else was just a piling on of wacky creatures. As much as I like the weird characters and animation, there still needs to be rhyme and reason for their existence and actions. I became bored very easily as I realized they lacked any of that. After that, it felt like a 20 minute bit stretched beyond watchable.
I never read the book, so if this seemingly lack of plot was just like the original source, then I might give it more leeway (and in turn probably would hate the book).
While I enjoyed the animation and some cool moments, the lame story completely wrecked my experience. I do not understand the hype of this "classic". You may think I am criticizing it too much as an adult, but my inner child was not impressed.
What I would change
Chopped it up into five minute shorts, made them into some sort of weekly adventure series.
Random
Is that a hookah?! Shame on Disney for promoting drug use!
Anyone else notice that the King looked like Cogsworth from Beauty and the Beast?
Beauty and the Beast
Viewed in
1993, 2002, 2003, 2012
Formats
VHS, IMAX theater, DVD, Movie theater (3D)
Premise
Disney's masterpiece about a young lady who agrees to be the cursed Beast's prisoner in his castle to save her father.
Loved
Everything.
Thoughts
My personal favorite Disney animated film and a must-see film of the 1990's.
There was so much to choose from, but I guess my favorite aspect was the unforgettable music. Every time the first few notes kicked in, I got chills down my spine from memories and anticipation. The music was beautiful and the lyrics spot on. If I had to pick a best song at gunpoint, I'd probably be dead.
In addition, the characters were magical, the voice performances brilliant, the animation elegant, and the story timeless.
I've seen it in many formats, and they were all perfectly fine. The IMAX version had an additional song, but it paled compared to the classics. The 3D was decent post-conversion, obviously the CGI animated scenes like in the ballroom were breathtaking. But the original theatrical version is perfectly fine to enjoy.
If you've never seen/liked Beauty and the Beast, you are no friend of mine.
1993, 2002, 2003, 2012
Formats
VHS, IMAX theater, DVD, Movie theater (3D)
Premise
Disney's masterpiece about a young lady who agrees to be the cursed Beast's prisoner in his castle to save her father.
Loved
Everything.
Thoughts
My personal favorite Disney animated film and a must-see film of the 1990's.
There was so much to choose from, but I guess my favorite aspect was the unforgettable music. Every time the first few notes kicked in, I got chills down my spine from memories and anticipation. The music was beautiful and the lyrics spot on. If I had to pick a best song at gunpoint, I'd probably be dead.
In addition, the characters were magical, the voice performances brilliant, the animation elegant, and the story timeless.
I've seen it in many formats, and they were all perfectly fine. The IMAX version had an additional song, but it paled compared to the classics. The 3D was decent post-conversion, obviously the CGI animated scenes like in the ballroom were breathtaking. But the original theatrical version is perfectly fine to enjoy.
If you've never seen/liked Beauty and the Beast, you are no friend of mine.
Big Fish
Viewed in
2004, 2005
Formats
Movie theater, DVD
Premise
A story about a son trying to learn more about his dying father by reliving stories and myths his father told him about himself. Directed by Tim Burton.
Thoughts
It's been a while, but I recall it being one of Burton's most complete films. There were still some cool visuals, but they actually served to move the plot and reveal the characters. Another departure was that it not edgy or dark, which was good in this case.
What I would change
No idea.
2004, 2005
Formats
Movie theater, DVD
Premise
A story about a son trying to learn more about his dying father by reliving stories and myths his father told him about himself. Directed by Tim Burton.
Thoughts
It's been a while, but I recall it being one of Burton's most complete films. There were still some cool visuals, but they actually served to move the plot and reveal the characters. Another departure was that it not edgy or dark, which was good in this case.
What I would change
No idea.
Brave
Viewed in
2012 (2)
Formats
Movie theater (digital), HDTV
Premise
Pixar's animated tale of a Scottish princess who wishes to change her fate, only to face the consequences.
Loved
Hair!
Liked
Strong daughter-mother relationship.
Disliked
Lack of great story.
Thoughts
The first thing that comes to mind walking out if the theater was how superlative Merida's red mane of awesomeness was. Years ago, Pixar wowed us with Sully's wonderful fur in Monsters Inc. In Brave, it was mesmerizing beyond words. Last year, Disney's Tangled had Rapunzel's gimmicky (yet still under utilized) hair. This movie put Rapunzel's hair to shame in CG gorgeousness.
Now as for the rest of the film, it was a strong rebound from Cars 2. It was full of heart and funny cartoony humor. I really liked the 2nd act, where the daughter-mother dynamic was taken to unexpected and creative heights. I was so glad that marketing did not reveal just how the lead's fate was changed, because I would've had different, more pessimistic, expectations of the movie. Kind a disappointed Ebert gave it away in his review.
Anyway, the middle section was the best written part, with interesting twist on familiar family-fairy tale tropes, while showing strong character relationships. This film definitely sported one of the cutest fictional mothers in a long time. I also found the dining hall scene to be really touching and emotional, even though it started of with a "what are you doing?!" moment.
Compared to Pixar's best, it lacked character and complexity. The moral of the story was simple, yet felt unclear and small stakes at the same time. While mother and daughter were fleshed out, everyone else were one-note, forgettable goofballs. There aren't enough movies with strong female characters, but did it have to be at the expense of no strong male characters? Also, while the twist of fate was interesting, it was predictable ten minutes in.
Despite the bright red hair and lush highlands, this was surprisingly heavy on dark cinematography. I heard some mixed reviews about the 3D, especially in terms of brightness, so I think this would've been a serious viewing issue for the audience. I was glad I didn't bother to find out, and just stuck with perfectly fine 2D. Having said that, I would love to have seen Merida's splendiferous locks in as many dimensions as possible.
Brave was a very good family-friendly movie. That tantalizing hair was almost worth the price of admission itself. However, when I think back to Pixar greats, I found it recommendable, but not must-see.
Bridge to Terabithia
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Two adolescent outcasts deal with their problems in their own world.
Who should watch
Everyone but little kids.
Thoughts
Shame on Disney for misleading us with their marketing this film as a fantasy movie. This is a great film, but it is not a kiddie wannabe of 'Lord of the Rings'. This is above that.
This is a wonderful story about adolescence: trying to maintain your inner child while reality eats away at it. It's the conflicting experience everyone gets: parents, siblings, bullies, teachers, school crushes, and of course friendship. You will get emotional!
The only flaw is the plot is very similar to a certain family movie. My girlfriend sniffed it out halfway through.
What I would change
Changed the marketing. I repeat, this is a great family drama, not a fantasy.
2007
Premise
Two adolescent outcasts deal with their problems in their own world.
Who should watch
Everyone but little kids.
Thoughts
Shame on Disney for misleading us with their marketing this film as a fantasy movie. This is a great film, but it is not a kiddie wannabe of 'Lord of the Rings'. This is above that.
This is a wonderful story about adolescence: trying to maintain your inner child while reality eats away at it. It's the conflicting experience everyone gets: parents, siblings, bullies, teachers, school crushes, and of course friendship. You will get emotional!
The only flaw is the plot is very similar to a certain family movie. My girlfriend sniffed it out halfway through.
What I would change
Changed the marketing. I repeat, this is a great family drama, not a fantasy.
Brothers Grimm, The
Viewed in
2005
Premise
A pair of medieval con-artists are forced to - oh screw it. It's a Terry Gilliam movie about fairy tales.
Who should watch
Terry Gilliam fans. Jonathan Pryce fans.
Thoughts
It was what I expected: quirky, weird, scary, trippy. But in comparison to other Terry Gilliam films I've seen, this was the tamest. It just didn't seem to be quirky, weird, scary or trippy enough. If you're in the mood for something like this, I recommend 'Sleepy Hollow'.
If there is a reason to watch, it’s the characters Cavaldi and Deletombe (played by the great Jonathan Pryce). Despite the hunk presence of Heath Ledger and Matt Damon, these character actors steal every scene.
What I would change
It's kind of hard to fix a Terry Gilliam movie...
2005
Premise
A pair of medieval con-artists are forced to - oh screw it. It's a Terry Gilliam movie about fairy tales.
Who should watch
Terry Gilliam fans. Jonathan Pryce fans.
Thoughts
It was what I expected: quirky, weird, scary, trippy. But in comparison to other Terry Gilliam films I've seen, this was the tamest. It just didn't seem to be quirky, weird, scary or trippy enough. If you're in the mood for something like this, I recommend 'Sleepy Hollow'.
If there is a reason to watch, it’s the characters Cavaldi and Deletombe (played by the great Jonathan Pryce). Despite the hunk presence of Heath Ledger and Matt Damon, these character actors steal every scene.
What I would change
It's kind of hard to fix a Terry Gilliam movie...
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Viewed in
2010
Formats
Movie theater (digital)
Premise
Based on C.S. Lewis's book, Lucy, Edmund and their unwilling cousin return to Narnia on King Caspian's ship.
Liked
The attention to character.
Thoughts
Like the other two, it was good, but not great.
I liked it better than Prince Caspian because it had more character development. Edmund dealt with a familiar ghost, and newcomer Eustace transformed from annoying non-believer to unlikely hero. For me, Lucy's story most interesting and sympathetic, as she was tempted by her jealousy of her older, prettier, and more accomplished sister.
Speaking of, it was good to see William Moseley and curvaceous Anna Popplewell onscreen again, even if it was for a fleeting moment. In fact, their appearance as well as other specters of the previous movies added depth and nostalgia to the experience.
The ending was interesting and surprising at the same time. For one thing, the Christian allegory was laid on so thick that even an uneducated agnostic (yours truly) could easily understand. What I did not expect was bittersweet emotion as familiar faces from these movies bid farewell to each other and to the audience.
It did not really have any flaws, although Eustace was far too annoying. While the visual effects, quirky creatures, and fight scenes were fine, it still gave this forgettable aura of "Lord of the Rings Lite".
Based on what I saw, the dearth of shots ripe for 3D made me glad I did not go for the more expensive version. You won't miss much if you save money by going regular 2D.
While superior to the second movie in character, the lack of memorable action made it far from must-see. But it should suffice for special effects driven family entertainment this holiday season.
What I would change
No idea.
2010
Formats
Movie theater (digital)
Premise
Based on C.S. Lewis's book, Lucy, Edmund and their unwilling cousin return to Narnia on King Caspian's ship.
Liked
The attention to character.
Thoughts
Like the other two, it was good, but not great.
I liked it better than Prince Caspian because it had more character development. Edmund dealt with a familiar ghost, and newcomer Eustace transformed from annoying non-believer to unlikely hero. For me, Lucy's story most interesting and sympathetic, as she was tempted by her jealousy of her older, prettier, and more accomplished sister.
Speaking of, it was good to see William Moseley and curvaceous Anna Popplewell onscreen again, even if it was for a fleeting moment. In fact, their appearance as well as other specters of the previous movies added depth and nostalgia to the experience.
The ending was interesting and surprising at the same time. For one thing, the Christian allegory was laid on so thick that even an uneducated agnostic (yours truly) could easily understand. What I did not expect was bittersweet emotion as familiar faces from these movies bid farewell to each other and to the audience.
It did not really have any flaws, although Eustace was far too annoying. While the visual effects, quirky creatures, and fight scenes were fine, it still gave this forgettable aura of "Lord of the Rings Lite".
Based on what I saw, the dearth of shots ripe for 3D made me glad I did not go for the more expensive version. You won't miss much if you save money by going regular 2D.
While superior to the second movie in character, the lack of memorable action made it far from must-see. But it should suffice for special effects driven family entertainment this holiday season.
What I would change
No idea.
Chronicles of Narnia Prince Caspian
Viewed in
2008 (2)
Premise
Based on the C.S. Lewis book about the four siblings returning to the Narnia to find it oppressed by a new regime.
Who should watch
Fans of the book.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, my memory of the book fails me, so I cannot compare that aspect.
The special effects were very good, and I was glad to see the original cast back. There were some cool action fantasy sequences of battles between large armies of men and beasts. Also, I enjoyed Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard), although he sometimes reminded me of Puss In Boots from the 'Shrek' movies.
Unfortunately, it was not much of a story. I do not know if I should blame the book or the adaptation. Overall, it felt like an elongated action flick with little plot or character development. It got bogged down with the political subplots. Lastly, this movie lacked the sense of wonder and magic compared to the first film.
I still like the series, but this movie was a disappointing. Nevertheless, I would recommend this fans of the first film, just to see some cooler fight scenes, and the return of characters.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
Was this a passing-of-the-torch movie between the great Warwick Davis and Peter Dinklage?
2008 (2)
Premise
Based on the C.S. Lewis book about the four siblings returning to the Narnia to find it oppressed by a new regime.
Who should watch
Fans of the book.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, my memory of the book fails me, so I cannot compare that aspect.
The special effects were very good, and I was glad to see the original cast back. There were some cool action fantasy sequences of battles between large armies of men and beasts. Also, I enjoyed Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard), although he sometimes reminded me of Puss In Boots from the 'Shrek' movies.
Unfortunately, it was not much of a story. I do not know if I should blame the book or the adaptation. Overall, it felt like an elongated action flick with little plot or character development. It got bogged down with the political subplots. Lastly, this movie lacked the sense of wonder and magic compared to the first film.
I still like the series, but this movie was a disappointing. Nevertheless, I would recommend this fans of the first film, just to see some cooler fight scenes, and the return of characters.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
Was this a passing-of-the-torch movie between the great Warwick Davis and Peter Dinklage?
Chronicles of Narnia The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
Viewed in
2005
Premise
Based on the famous children's book.
Who should watch
Fans of the book.
Thoughts
Very well done film. While it lacked the emotional gravitas as 'Lord of the Rings' films, the story and special effects were just as well done. You will be transported to that wonderful universe.
As a non-religious person, I was not distracted by the Jesus parable. Instead I just saw the film as a story about loving your family and forgiveness. The world could use a lot more of both.
What I did find distracting was the barely-underage-hotness of Anna Popplewell. she reminded me of a young Jennifer Connelly.
What I would change
Nothing.
2005
Premise
Based on the famous children's book.
Who should watch
Fans of the book.
Thoughts
Very well done film. While it lacked the emotional gravitas as 'Lord of the Rings' films, the story and special effects were just as well done. You will be transported to that wonderful universe.
As a non-religious person, I was not distracted by the Jesus parable. Instead I just saw the film as a story about loving your family and forgiveness. The world could use a lot more of both.
What I did find distracting was the barely-underage-hotness of Anna Popplewell. she reminded me of a young Jennifer Connelly.
What I would change
Nothing.
Cinderella
Viewed in
1988(2), 1989
Formats
VHS
Premise
Disney's animated classic about the neglected step-sister and her fair godmother.
Thoughts
Details are fuzzy, but I recall really enjoying this fairy tale, especially the story and music.
What I would change
No idea.
1988(2), 1989
Formats
VHS
Premise
Disney's animated classic about the neglected step-sister and her fair godmother.
Thoughts
Details are fuzzy, but I recall really enjoying this fairy tale, especially the story and music.
What I would change
No idea.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Remake of the 1981 Harryhausen movie.
Liked
The slightly improved storyline.
Hated
Crappy 3D.
Thoughts
I liked it over the original, but not significant improvement.
Storyline-wise, it was an improvement. Perseus had a mind of his own, instead of just being led around by gods. Hades made a more formidable antagonist than that jealous freak. The climactic battle between Perseus and the Kraken was actually climactic. Lastly, the mechanical owl was replaced with a babe, which improved two things: it got rid of that cursed annoyance, and broke up the monotony of the sausage-fest. Despite my hatred for that bird, I loved the shoutout to it.
In terms of special effects, they were "better", but it kind of lacked a charm of the Harryhausen stop-motion critters. In fact the whole movie lacked any pop. The dialogue was boring and stiff, very much like all the actors' performances. Not even Qui-Gon Jin (as Zeus) nor Voldemort (as Hades) could ham it up enough to make their power struggle interesting.
I intentionally watched it in 3D, just to see what bad 3D looks like. It was a waste of money. The whole movie was noticeably dimmer and duller, and there were many disorienting scenes. Sometimes further objects bulged ahead of closer ones, other times, the head would have definition but their bodies would be flat. This is what happens when you convert at the last minute, and poorly.
Thus, my 3D lessons are learned. One, do not watch haphazardly converted movies. Two, pay for high-end-high-quality ones only. The only theater I can trust is The Bridge in Los Angeles, and only the 3D IMAX or digital projectors. I like Real 3D technology, but it's got to be digital, which the Torrance AMC did not for Clash of the Titans.
Anyways, back to the movie. I think fans will enjoy the updated version, just keep it in 2D.
What I would change
Not bother with the shoddy 3D conversion.
Random
Do you really need a Dialogue Coach for a movie like this?
2010
Premise
Remake of the 1981 Harryhausen movie.
Liked
The slightly improved storyline.
Hated
Crappy 3D.
Thoughts
I liked it over the original, but not significant improvement.
Storyline-wise, it was an improvement. Perseus had a mind of his own, instead of just being led around by gods. Hades made a more formidable antagonist than that jealous freak. The climactic battle between Perseus and the Kraken was actually climactic. Lastly, the mechanical owl was replaced with a babe, which improved two things: it got rid of that cursed annoyance, and broke up the monotony of the sausage-fest. Despite my hatred for that bird, I loved the shoutout to it.
In terms of special effects, they were "better", but it kind of lacked a charm of the Harryhausen stop-motion critters. In fact the whole movie lacked any pop. The dialogue was boring and stiff, very much like all the actors' performances. Not even Qui-Gon Jin (as Zeus) nor Voldemort (as Hades) could ham it up enough to make their power struggle interesting.
I intentionally watched it in 3D, just to see what bad 3D looks like. It was a waste of money. The whole movie was noticeably dimmer and duller, and there were many disorienting scenes. Sometimes further objects bulged ahead of closer ones, other times, the head would have definition but their bodies would be flat. This is what happens when you convert at the last minute, and poorly.
Thus, my 3D lessons are learned. One, do not watch haphazardly converted movies. Two, pay for high-end-high-quality ones only. The only theater I can trust is The Bridge in Los Angeles, and only the 3D IMAX or digital projectors. I like Real 3D technology, but it's got to be digital, which the Torrance AMC did not for Clash of the Titans.
Anyways, back to the movie. I think fans will enjoy the updated version, just keep it in 2D.
What I would change
Not bother with the shoddy 3D conversion.
Random
Do you really need a Dialogue Coach for a movie like this?
Clash of the Titans
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Ray Harryhausen contributes to a retelling of the story of Perseus.
Liked
Harryhausen's signature stop-motion creatures. Unexpected boobies!
Hated
The mythology-butchering, boring storyline, and the special effects.
Thoughts
Watching this as an adult, this was practically unwatchable.
What I liked best was that it had an old Hollywood feel to it, thanks to the music, sets, dialogue and dialogue delivery style. I think it was a tribute to those films from the 1960's. As expected, Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion creatures were quite excellent, ranging from giant vultures to the slithering Medusa monster.
Except Harryhausen's cool critters, the special effects were laughably outdated. It looked pretty good for a 1960's movie, except Clash of the Titans was made in 1981. I swear I've seen better special effects in earlier Godzilla movies.
As for the story, bleh. I did not like all the rearranging of the myths just to add more monsters. Half the time, I was distracted by thoughts of "That's not how I remember it". Also, the mechanical owl seemed like an R2-D2 ripoff.
The wooden acting did not help the cause either. While it was fun to see a young Maggie Smith (via Harry Potter movies), she lacked much presence for a goddess. Same for the late, great Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus.
Despite the stop-motion monsters and tribute-like feel, I found this movie boring and very outdated.
What was the rating of this movie? There were two boob shots! And this was meant for kids?
What I would change
The misleading title. It sounded cool, but there was no clashing of any titans whatsoever. Perhaps if it was called "The Legend of Perseus", I would have liked it better.
2010
Premise
Ray Harryhausen contributes to a retelling of the story of Perseus.
Liked
Harryhausen's signature stop-motion creatures. Unexpected boobies!
Hated
The mythology-butchering, boring storyline, and the special effects.
Thoughts
Watching this as an adult, this was practically unwatchable.
What I liked best was that it had an old Hollywood feel to it, thanks to the music, sets, dialogue and dialogue delivery style. I think it was a tribute to those films from the 1960's. As expected, Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion creatures were quite excellent, ranging from giant vultures to the slithering Medusa monster.
Except Harryhausen's cool critters, the special effects were laughably outdated. It looked pretty good for a 1960's movie, except Clash of the Titans was made in 1981. I swear I've seen better special effects in earlier Godzilla movies.
As for the story, bleh. I did not like all the rearranging of the myths just to add more monsters. Half the time, I was distracted by thoughts of "That's not how I remember it". Also, the mechanical owl seemed like an R2-D2 ripoff.
The wooden acting did not help the cause either. While it was fun to see a young Maggie Smith (via Harry Potter movies), she lacked much presence for a goddess. Same for the late, great Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus.
Despite the stop-motion monsters and tribute-like feel, I found this movie boring and very outdated.
What was the rating of this movie? There were two boob shots! And this was meant for kids?
What I would change
The misleading title. It sounded cool, but there was no clashing of any titans whatsoever. Perhaps if it was called "The Legend of Perseus", I would have liked it better.
Conan the Barbarian
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Arnold Schwarzenegger's breakthrough role as Conan the Barbarian.
Liked
Very little.
Hated
Everything else.
Thoughts
There was blood, bulging muscles, and boobs, but I was bored.
I wish I could think of something to compliment, but the only thing I could think of was Conan's hot mom actress. Sadly, nothing else worked for me.
Arnold was obviously a logical choice, given his physical attributes. However his accent was so heavy and indecipherable, it was like listening to a parody. The casting of James Earl Jones was puzzling, since you're asking him to Darth Vader it up in an inferior role, when Star Wars was still on everyone's mind.
The plot was plodding and the magic scenes made no sense. Add the super-serious epic fantasy dialogue ("CROM!!!!"), and you got something so silly that it unintentionally verged into Monty Python territory. While there were multiple sex scenes and naked chicks, not a single one was pretty. Even as guilty pleasure, it failed.
Considering this movie was Schwarzenegger's debut, there was some historical merit, but it still felt like a waste of time. Maybe if I was a twelve year old boy without internet, I might have found the hacking and nudity entertaining.
Lastly, I was shocked to discover the director co-wrote Apocalypse Now, and Oliver Stone was a co-screenwriter. How do you go from Apocalypse Now to this? At least Stone had an excuse that this was an means to an end; all his good stuff came afterward.
What I would change
Not made the movie.
2010
Premise
Arnold Schwarzenegger's breakthrough role as Conan the Barbarian.
Liked
Very little.
Hated
Everything else.
Thoughts
There was blood, bulging muscles, and boobs, but I was bored.
I wish I could think of something to compliment, but the only thing I could think of was Conan's hot mom actress. Sadly, nothing else worked for me.
Arnold was obviously a logical choice, given his physical attributes. However his accent was so heavy and indecipherable, it was like listening to a parody. The casting of James Earl Jones was puzzling, since you're asking him to Darth Vader it up in an inferior role, when Star Wars was still on everyone's mind.
The plot was plodding and the magic scenes made no sense. Add the super-serious epic fantasy dialogue ("CROM!!!!"), and you got something so silly that it unintentionally verged into Monty Python territory. While there were multiple sex scenes and naked chicks, not a single one was pretty. Even as guilty pleasure, it failed.
Considering this movie was Schwarzenegger's debut, there was some historical merit, but it still felt like a waste of time. Maybe if I was a twelve year old boy without internet, I might have found the hacking and nudity entertaining.
Lastly, I was shocked to discover the director co-wrote Apocalypse Now, and Oliver Stone was a co-screenwriter. How do you go from Apocalypse Now to this? At least Stone had an excuse that this was an means to an end; all his good stuff came afterward.
What I would change
Not made the movie.
Ella Enchanted
Viewed in
2006 (x2)
Premise
A lady tries to break her curse of obeying everyone else's orders.
Who should watch
Anyone who likes quirky, happy movies.
Thoughts
It was funny, wacky, unique, weird and entertaining. I do not mean to belittle it when I say it is this generation's 'Princess Bride' movie. Speaking of which a certain 'Princess Bride' actor does appear in this one with a deliciously hilarious role.
While the whole cast was funny, the beautiful and lovable Anne Hathaway stole the show and my heart. She is my new celebrity crush, unless a miracle happens and Lindsay Lohan returns to redheaded, 'Mean Girls' days.
What I would change
Nothing.
2006 (x2)
Premise
A lady tries to break her curse of obeying everyone else's orders.
Who should watch
Anyone who likes quirky, happy movies.
Thoughts
It was funny, wacky, unique, weird and entertaining. I do not mean to belittle it when I say it is this generation's 'Princess Bride' movie. Speaking of which a certain 'Princess Bride' actor does appear in this one with a deliciously hilarious role.
While the whole cast was funny, the beautiful and lovable Anne Hathaway stole the show and my heart. She is my new celebrity crush, unless a miracle happens and Lindsay Lohan returns to redheaded, 'Mean Girls' days.
What I would change
Nothing.
Golden Compass
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Based on the book series, 'His Dark Materials', in which a little girl begins an epic journey involving talking creatures and fighting polar bears.
Who should watch
Fans of the book? Those who like expensive, cgi-laden fantasy epics.
Thoughts
I have not read the books, so I have no idea how the movie compared.
The movie had some interesting ideas. I liked the gimmick that in this universe, a person's soul exists as free-will, accompanying animal. One cannot live without the other. Due to this gimmick, there was tons of very cool special effects of all sorts of different, talking creatures running amok throughout the movie.
In yet another example that everything in Hollywood comes in two's, this movie starred an excellent young actress named Dakota. She was a strong presence. Her fellow child actors were surprisingly bad, as they appeared to be pretending too hard to be kids.
Most of the characters were boring, except for the disgraced, fighting Polar Bear, voiced by Sir Ian McKellan. The movie kicked into high gear (from boring to slightly interesting) when he finally appeared.
I think the problem was in the story and execution. I never understood what was happening on screen, especially all the political stuff. Yes, all the media buzz already warned me that there were some anti-Church themes embedded in the story, but they were not presented clearly enough in the movie even make a stink about.
Granted that this was supposed to be a series, so not everything had to be explained. So, my opinions about my plot confusion may be moot later on.
What I would change
More fighting polar bear stuff!
2007
Premise
Based on the book series, 'His Dark Materials', in which a little girl begins an epic journey involving talking creatures and fighting polar bears.
Who should watch
Fans of the book? Those who like expensive, cgi-laden fantasy epics.
Thoughts
I have not read the books, so I have no idea how the movie compared.
The movie had some interesting ideas. I liked the gimmick that in this universe, a person's soul exists as free-will, accompanying animal. One cannot live without the other. Due to this gimmick, there was tons of very cool special effects of all sorts of different, talking creatures running amok throughout the movie.
In yet another example that everything in Hollywood comes in two's, this movie starred an excellent young actress named Dakota. She was a strong presence. Her fellow child actors were surprisingly bad, as they appeared to be pretending too hard to be kids.
Most of the characters were boring, except for the disgraced, fighting Polar Bear, voiced by Sir Ian McKellan. The movie kicked into high gear (from boring to slightly interesting) when he finally appeared.
I think the problem was in the story and execution. I never understood what was happening on screen, especially all the political stuff. Yes, all the media buzz already warned me that there were some anti-Church themes embedded in the story, but they were not presented clearly enough in the movie even make a stink about.
Granted that this was supposed to be a series, so not everything had to be explained. So, my opinions about my plot confusion may be moot later on.
What I would change
More fighting polar bear stuff!
Gulliver's Travels
Viewed in
1996
Formats
Network TV.
Premise
Ted Danson stars as Gulliver in the NBC TV movie adaptation of the Jonathan Swift novel.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, except I liked it for the special effects and being quite close to the novel. While it had an interesting way of tying all four tales together, the ending was kind of lame. Also, it seemed to lack the political bite of the novel.
What I would change
No idea.
1996
Formats
Network TV.
Premise
Ted Danson stars as Gulliver in the NBC TV movie adaptation of the Jonathan Swift novel.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, except I liked it for the special effects and being quite close to the novel. While it had an interesting way of tying all four tales together, the ending was kind of lame. Also, it seemed to lack the political bite of the novel.
What I would change
No idea.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Viewed in
2011 (2)
Formats
IMAX 3D, Movie Theater (3D)
Premise
In the conclusion of the concluding chapter, Harry and friends try to find the last Horcruxes while Voldemort's army lays siege to Hogwarts.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Thoughts
Amidst massive hype and expectations, I never expected it to be this good.
Not sure why, but there's actually very little I feel compelled to write about. Probably because with such a massively shared experience, it would be hard to come up with an angle no one had thought about. Or perhaps I'm afraid my inferior words would not substantiate what a miracle it was to have a decade of excellent modern literature and a decade of accompanying quality modern cinema.
The execution was exquisite. Pretty much every epic, cathartic, surprising, somber, triumphant, and romantic moment delivered with great emotional impact. I swore the audience and I were crying and sniffling for the last hour non-stop. It managed to hold all that emotional sway while still following the rules for wands and J.K. Rowling's universe.
These days, it's easier to spot bad special effects than quality special effects, and much like all the other aspects of the film, it was flawless (by 2011 standards). Of all of them, my favorite was easily Bellatrix's booby-trapped vault. It blew me away.
Watching it in a legitimate IMAX theater, the image was bright and the 3D conversion was hardly noticeable. While it added some depth and enhanced the flying/fight scenes (especially when they set up a magical barrier around the entire school), it was not essential to shell out the extra dough to enjoy the visuals. By the way, if you end up deciding on going 3D, you might as well go all the way with IMAX. It's much more brighter and clearer than regular 3D.
There were some trivial stuff that I could nitpick about, but not really worth it. See Spoilers Section.
All I can say is that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 had great acting, directing, and writing, and did the book and the Potter universe more than justice. It honestly could not have been any better. Time will tell if this will usurp Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as my favorite, but there's no denying this was the best executed entry in the outstanding franchise.
What I would change
See Spoilers Section.
Spoilers Section
Here are my nitpicks:
I wished Voldemort's death was more explosive. Bellatrix and Nagini had great deaths that prompted cheers from the audience, yet, everyone was rather silent when the Dark Lord withered away.
Bonnie Wright's makeup in the epilogue looked comically clunky. But I'd rather have that than trying to attach myself to new adult actors in such a cathartic scene.
I wouldn't have bothered with Lupin and Tonk's child subplot as a throwaway line. Fans of the books know you can't fit everything in, and a halfway attempt is sometimes worse than eliminating details.
This might be more of a problem with the 6th or 7th film, but I got confused if there were six or seven Horcruxes that Harry had to hunt down.
2011 (2)
Formats
IMAX 3D, Movie Theater (3D)
Premise
In the conclusion of the concluding chapter, Harry and friends try to find the last Horcruxes while Voldemort's army lays siege to Hogwarts.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Thoughts
Amidst massive hype and expectations, I never expected it to be this good.
Not sure why, but there's actually very little I feel compelled to write about. Probably because with such a massively shared experience, it would be hard to come up with an angle no one had thought about. Or perhaps I'm afraid my inferior words would not substantiate what a miracle it was to have a decade of excellent modern literature and a decade of accompanying quality modern cinema.
The execution was exquisite. Pretty much every epic, cathartic, surprising, somber, triumphant, and romantic moment delivered with great emotional impact. I swore the audience and I were crying and sniffling for the last hour non-stop. It managed to hold all that emotional sway while still following the rules for wands and J.K. Rowling's universe.
These days, it's easier to spot bad special effects than quality special effects, and much like all the other aspects of the film, it was flawless (by 2011 standards). Of all of them, my favorite was easily Bellatrix's booby-trapped vault. It blew me away.
Watching it in a legitimate IMAX theater, the image was bright and the 3D conversion was hardly noticeable. While it added some depth and enhanced the flying/fight scenes (especially when they set up a magical barrier around the entire school), it was not essential to shell out the extra dough to enjoy the visuals. By the way, if you end up deciding on going 3D, you might as well go all the way with IMAX. It's much more brighter and clearer than regular 3D.
There were some trivial stuff that I could nitpick about, but not really worth it. See Spoilers Section.
All I can say is that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 had great acting, directing, and writing, and did the book and the Potter universe more than justice. It honestly could not have been any better. Time will tell if this will usurp Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as my favorite, but there's no denying this was the best executed entry in the outstanding franchise.
What I would change
See Spoilers Section.
Spoilers Section
Here are my nitpicks:
I wished Voldemort's death was more explosive. Bellatrix and Nagini had great deaths that prompted cheers from the audience, yet, everyone was rather silent when the Dark Lord withered away.
Bonnie Wright's makeup in the epilogue looked comically clunky. But I'd rather have that than trying to attach myself to new adult actors in such a cathartic scene.
I wouldn't have bothered with Lupin and Tonk's child subplot as a throwaway line. Fans of the books know you can't fit everything in, and a halfway attempt is sometimes worse than eliminating details.
This might be more of a problem with the 6th or 7th film, but I got confused if there were six or seven Horcruxes that Harry had to hunt down.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Viewed in
2010, 2011 (2)
Formats
IMAX theater, DVD
Premise
The first half of the seventh and final novel of the Harry Potter series.
Liked
Pretty much everything... I think...
Thoughts
Part of me wanted to put this review on hold until after the conclusion, months from now.
Much like the book, this chapter in the saga felt different, because our heroes were on the road, never stepping foot at Hogwarts. While there were mysteries to solve, it felt more like a long chase movie, full of deadly pursuits and close calls.
In context of the entire franchise, it was really fun watching the puzzle pieces come together, as events/characters from the first movies/books began to reveal their place in the whole tapestry in J.K. Rowling's imagination. The best thing about making this novel into two parts was that the film makers were able to take their time with minor characters and even bring the amusing side of magic back into the series. Also, it gave me time to shed a few tears as more and more beloved characters became casualties of war.
While the opening opening action sequence was fantastic (pity it was not in 3D), some of the later action scenes felt too hectic to understand what was happening. Also, Ron's big test was a bit over-the-top for me.
The biggest problem with the film was that as a stand-alone movie, it probably left too many loose ends. A lot of clues and characters seemed to nonsensical or lacked meaning. As the film neared the end, I did not want it to stop, because I knew and dreaded the fact that it would be months until I could see how everything ended.
Obviously, this probably was not intended to be stand-alone, but it did compel me to advise my family to hold off on watching this until Part 2 comes out.
Since my memories of the novel were hazy at the time viewing this title, I could not really compare it to the book. However, the differences I did recognize seem mostly logical from a film making perspective.
Technically, it did everything right, it made me laugh, cry, and get excited in the right moments. The unintentional side-effect was that it left me feeling incomplete. It was a little unnerving, but all I can do right now is trust that everything will make sense (and be worth it) in the end.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
In the credits, they listed a dialogue coach for Parseltongue.
2010, 2011 (2)
Formats
IMAX theater, DVD
Premise
The first half of the seventh and final novel of the Harry Potter series.
Liked
Pretty much everything... I think...
Thoughts
Part of me wanted to put this review on hold until after the conclusion, months from now.
Much like the book, this chapter in the saga felt different, because our heroes were on the road, never stepping foot at Hogwarts. While there were mysteries to solve, it felt more like a long chase movie, full of deadly pursuits and close calls.
In context of the entire franchise, it was really fun watching the puzzle pieces come together, as events/characters from the first movies/books began to reveal their place in the whole tapestry in J.K. Rowling's imagination. The best thing about making this novel into two parts was that the film makers were able to take their time with minor characters and even bring the amusing side of magic back into the series. Also, it gave me time to shed a few tears as more and more beloved characters became casualties of war.
While the opening opening action sequence was fantastic (pity it was not in 3D), some of the later action scenes felt too hectic to understand what was happening. Also, Ron's big test was a bit over-the-top for me.
The biggest problem with the film was that as a stand-alone movie, it probably left too many loose ends. A lot of clues and characters seemed to nonsensical or lacked meaning. As the film neared the end, I did not want it to stop, because I knew and dreaded the fact that it would be months until I could see how everything ended.
Obviously, this probably was not intended to be stand-alone, but it did compel me to advise my family to hold off on watching this until Part 2 comes out.
Since my memories of the novel were hazy at the time viewing this title, I could not really compare it to the book. However, the differences I did recognize seem mostly logical from a film making perspective.
Technically, it did everything right, it made me laugh, cry, and get excited in the right moments. The unintentional side-effect was that it left me feeling incomplete. It was a little unnerving, but all I can do right now is trust that everything will make sense (and be worth it) in the end.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
In the credits, they listed a dialogue coach for Parseltongue.
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
Viewed in
2001, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011
Formats
Movie theater, DVD, Cable TV (w/ ads w/ deleted scenes)
Premise
The first movie in the successful franchise, in which young Harry learns he's a wizard.
Loved
How cute the kids were.
Disliked
The snail's pace.
Thoughts
It was an interesting re-watch as the series comes to a close. I was amazed by the clues left here would be revealed in the later movies.
One of the best things about the series was the impeccable casting. Here, I was giddy as characters were introduced, and how adorable the young actors were. They were absolutely squeezable.
Computer graphics looked dated.
The biggest problem was the incredibly slow pace. Compared to the better paced films, trying to re-watch this was torturous at times, waiting for things to happen. It did excel at showing the wonder and magic of Harry's wizarding world.
What I would change
Reduced it to two hours.
2001, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011
Formats
Movie theater, DVD, Cable TV (w/ ads w/ deleted scenes)
Premise
The first movie in the successful franchise, in which young Harry learns he's a wizard.
Loved
How cute the kids were.
Disliked
The snail's pace.
Thoughts
It was an interesting re-watch as the series comes to a close. I was amazed by the clues left here would be revealed in the later movies.
One of the best things about the series was the impeccable casting. Here, I was giddy as characters were introduced, and how adorable the young actors were. They were absolutely squeezable.
Computer graphics looked dated.
The biggest problem was the incredibly slow pace. Compared to the better paced films, trying to re-watch this was torturous at times, waiting for things to happen. It did excel at showing the wonder and magic of Harry's wizarding world.
What I would change
Reduced it to two hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)