Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Hauru no ugoku shiro (2004)
My favourite Miyazaki!
What an amazing achievement! This is by far the best example I have ever seen of animated characterization. The expressions and the nuances and the emotion captured in this film are truly breathtaking. I love all of Miyazaki's work, but in Howl's Moving Castle he has managed to take it to a level that to me sets the standard.
It has all of the classic stunning Miyazaki panoramas, rich settings, exciting and unusual machinery, and brilliantly conceived creatures that are often humorous and fanciful. The characters are all very expertly crafted and developed, but what really enchanted me were their expressions and the subtle but powerful ways that he chose to elaborate on their connections and emotions. It is very difficult to describe, but they come to life in such a powerful way as to seem entirely real and unique.
He achieves this within the medium - not by really imitating or parroting film or live action, but by artfully exploiting the medium to enhance and capture the subtle interactions that make up relationships. He shows his audience what his characters are thinking and feeling by carefully chosen gestures and facial expressions, rather than relying always on dialog, etc. I was completely swept away by this skillful use of animation - I have never anywhere else seen anything that begins to come close to it.
The story is fantastic - I haven't read the novel, but it had all of the elements I have come to enjoy in Miyazaki's work - there is the humour, the lighthearted moments, the strong, insightful, loyal, and honourable characters, the lyrical drama and action sequences. The pace is perfect - it flows nicely and is always exciting, suspenseful - I got very caught up in the characters and their struggles and hopes. The themes were expertly handled with Miyazaki flair - and always richly meaningful and perceptive.
I can hardly wait to see what this brilliant artist creates next!
Hak hap (1996)
Seriously awesome fight sequences!
The story would never win awards, but that's not what it's about... the script was just entertaining and suspenseful enough to make room for the incredibly choreographed fight scenes. Who needs a story with fighting like that? Really, it's worth watching for that reason alone. IF you can handle the gore, of which there is a LOT... none of it done realistically enough to be tough to look at. I gave it a 7.
No aliens, no fury, no invasion... just achingly slow count-down.
This movie was so bad that it more resembled a very tired TV series than a movie. There was no action, the acting, writing, and directing were abysmal, and it wasn't even decently filmed. I will give it credit for having suspense, though it was the half-hearted, stressful kind of suspense you get when you are in denial about the fact that you are sitting through a numbingly pathetic excuse for a movie and you are clinging to a futile hope that in a couple of minutes it might get interesting. This isn't an alien thriller... it had no aliens, or convincing alien technology, and there was no sense of imminent threat (beyond the very real possibility you are having 2 hours sucked from your lifespan by some hack film maker.) The story (Department of defense cover up about alien invasion) might have been good if an actual writer took the idea and built a script around it, but the way this was done, it shouldn't have been more than a half hour long. Don't waste your time... and don't listen to the votes... this isn't better than a 2...
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Worse than the worst made for TV "Jesus" movies...
It tried to look really good... many of the "tribe" actors looked like they shot the film on holiday from their usual job of posing for romance novel covers... and the "baddies" looked real mean, ugly, and nasty, and uncomfortable in their extremely fakey costumes... and oh... let's not talk about the hair extensions! It really wanted to be a super cool, sexy, action-packed movie... but it only managed to be accessible to those who are seasoned "suspension of disbelief" gurus. Yes, some of the effects were neat-o... but it's hard to enjoy that when you are transfixed with how truly bad the script is.
With all of that in mind, I really think every movie should get a chance, and I want you to be able to actually sit down in front of this film and give it a try at entertaining you... so here's my advice:
The whole thing was watchable if you do these 3 things: 1) Forget Ronny Hubbard wrote the story, and that Scientology came into play in any of it... if at all possible, never find out. 2) Shut of the mechanism in your mind that wants things to make logical sense (or just watch it when you are sick in bed and desperate for entertainment, or can't move enough to reach the remote.) 3) Think of it as a comedy... if you do that, you might actually enjoy Travolta's performance.
It was very mediocre... it failed to entertain me, but I DID watch it right through, so I gave it a 3.
Awesome lame lizard-fest...
This movie was great for what it was... sort of a utility grade Jurassic Park. It was about as hi-fi as any made for TV movie, but the concept was a bit different from most "killer reptile" movies, so that brought in a bit more interest. The lizards were very well conceived, and very exciting... but that's coming from someone who likes "killer reptile" movies. If you want amazing, watch Jurassic Park... if you want a diversion that's kinda exciting, and just a hair deeper than "Python," check out Komodo.
Not as bad as all that...
I saw this movie totally expecting it to be unwatchable... my family rented it during our movie gag-a-thon, where we screened lousy films for a horrible sort of fun. It was very lo-fi... but we all really enjoyed it for what it was. We have a separate category around our house for this sort of film... and within that category it rates right up there with lo-fi movies like Supernova, Python, and Komodo. If you are renting 5 for 5, or if you see it come up on TV... it's not bad. Kind of "Red Dawn" meets "Independence Day" but never graduates from High School. Mark Hammil's presence and performance are redeeming qualities, but don't expect pure genius, I gave it a 5. Enjoy.
Truly horrible... I mean yech!
This was such a bad movie... I mean, bad. It's two redeeming qualities are: 1) Now when someone asks me "What's the worse movie you have ever seen?" I will have a suitable reply. 2) It was mildly entertaining to see a movie that uses the kind of giant plastic bugs that you can buy at dollar stores... how often do you see that? It looks like it might have been trying to be "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" meets "Arachnophobia," but it unfortunately only managed to be "my 10 year old son meets cam-corder..." and, come to think of it, he would have done a better job. I mean... gargle afterward.
Excellent film inspired by, but not truthful to, the book.
The Lord of the Rings is my favourite book, and I have longed for a great while to see it put into a worthy film. Despite the fact that many major changes were made to the story, this film lives up to that title in spirit.
I would have liked to have seen the hobbits singing Shire songs at the Prancing Pony, to have seen Legolas get his due credit for meeting Frodo's party after their encounter at Weathertop... and to have seen Gandalf get his due credit for transforming the river into a stampede of white horses, would have preferred it if Saruman would not have been portrayed as being in league with Sauron, when really he really wanted to try to use the ring against him, and I really would have appreciated it if Gimli and his party would not have been portrayed as being ignorant of the fact that Moria was a ruin, and I would have liked it if Frodo had - as in the book - told no one of his plans to go off alone... all of which were changed, along with a lot of the characters' motives and emotions.
I would have loved to see an exact replica of the books on film, but I see how the changes help the film to be effective in new ways. While the singing at the Prancing pony emphasizes the nievete' of the Hobbits, the lack of it emphasized how intimidated they were. Arwen is to marry Aragorn... it's nice to see her character being developed on the screen. Saruman's shift to the dark side simplifies the conflicts... so that emphasis can be put on the Fellowship and the corrupting influence of the ring. The "realization" on screen that Moria has been overtaken helps to create an overwhelming sense of despair and dread, and Frodo's exchanges with his fellows - regarding his plans to leave - really deepen the characters and shows how wise, perceptive, and bonded this Fellowship is.
Middle Earth, all of its characters, locales, peoples, creatures, and cultures are right there on the screen... which alone thrilled me... but also on screen was the heaviness of the impending doom, the dark, awful reality of the ringbearer's task, the steadfastness of the simplest folk, and the love, honor, respect, strength, and wisdom of the characters involved. There is so much a purist could criticise in this film, but I prefer to praise the faithfulness of the portrayal to the spirit of the story. I gave it a 9.
A brilliant film, Truly "Mercilessly funny!"
This film is my absolute favourite. I have seen it at least a few dozen times, and it never dulls for me. The other comments I have read here cover its intelligence, wit, brilliant acting, and depth very well. I guess I can only add that Fans of Shakespeare, philosophy, science, intelligence, language, theater, and Tom Stoppard who have not seen it really, really must!! It is amply worthy of a 10! One warning: if you are not a fan of the above, spare yourself some boredom. It is not for everyone.