This film was surprisingly beautifully shot. The script wasn't bad although there were a few cheesy moments. But you didn't really notice because the camera work and direction were so lovely. It was a good story - I found this film to be a surprising gem because I normally don't like 'chick flick' films or love stories. I wondered whether the director being Oriental had anything to do with the way it was shot because I thought there were definite Eastern influences in the compositions and images. It was gorgeous but not ostentatious. Tasteful, beautiful, refreshing.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Willow
(1988)
Charming when taken with salt
11 March 2002
I saw this movie as a teenager when it first came out in the cinema. I was totally entranced and obsessed by it and I think i used to watch it every few months on video. Going back to it now as an adult I can see its flaws, but it still charms.
As other people have said, the special effects look old now. Even at the time I remember being slightly disappointed by the two-headed dragon, and there were other flaws I picked up even in my state of obsession.
The costumes in this movie are pretty good all-round. I never fail to be cut the bone with terrifying shivers when I see Queen Bavmorda wrapped feet to neck in bandages under her robe. Gruesome.
The script is probably both the strength and the weakness of the movie. There are some fantastic one-liners in the script that still leave me helpless with laughter even now. Never has the word 'Beer!' sounded so hilarious! I won't quote any more of them, discover them for yourself. Having said that, many of the characterisations were quite weak. Our hero Madmartigan himself does not always make sense though he is very funny. Sorsha is not a particularly strong character either, though she is so beautiful and so 'tough' that it's easy to forgive and go along for the ride.
I always found the score entrancing, I think it echoed the heroic, magical, quiet and terrifying nature of so many different events extremely well. It's worth buying on its own.
Some people have mentioned that the brownies are very annoying but I have to say I never found them so, they just make me laugh. They are only there for comic relief anyway - 'You? what did you do? Just hung around and eat our eggs!' The only character I found annoying was Cherlindrea, queen of the fairies. She seemed too wierd to be a good character, I always found her slightly alarming.
So really, to sum up, there's a lot of laughs, some great chase scenes, fantastic scenery, a beautiful heroine and hunky (if slightly bemusing) hero. An evil witch and her henchmen, a lot of magic, and plenty of fights. Suspend your disbelief and go along for the ride.
(Incidentally if you've read my reviews of 'First Knight' or 'Merlin', I have always thought that Gavin O'Hillerhy, who played Madmartigan's mate Airk Thaughbaer, would make the BEST king Arthur ever. There's a great shot of him with his sword, near the end of the film, in the tent just before the final battle - he looks every inch the king.)
As other people have said, the special effects look old now. Even at the time I remember being slightly disappointed by the two-headed dragon, and there were other flaws I picked up even in my state of obsession.
The costumes in this movie are pretty good all-round. I never fail to be cut the bone with terrifying shivers when I see Queen Bavmorda wrapped feet to neck in bandages under her robe. Gruesome.
The script is probably both the strength and the weakness of the movie. There are some fantastic one-liners in the script that still leave me helpless with laughter even now. Never has the word 'Beer!' sounded so hilarious! I won't quote any more of them, discover them for yourself. Having said that, many of the characterisations were quite weak. Our hero Madmartigan himself does not always make sense though he is very funny. Sorsha is not a particularly strong character either, though she is so beautiful and so 'tough' that it's easy to forgive and go along for the ride.
I always found the score entrancing, I think it echoed the heroic, magical, quiet and terrifying nature of so many different events extremely well. It's worth buying on its own.
Some people have mentioned that the brownies are very annoying but I have to say I never found them so, they just make me laugh. They are only there for comic relief anyway - 'You? what did you do? Just hung around and eat our eggs!' The only character I found annoying was Cherlindrea, queen of the fairies. She seemed too wierd to be a good character, I always found her slightly alarming.
So really, to sum up, there's a lot of laughs, some great chase scenes, fantastic scenery, a beautiful heroine and hunky (if slightly bemusing) hero. An evil witch and her henchmen, a lot of magic, and plenty of fights. Suspend your disbelief and go along for the ride.
(Incidentally if you've read my reviews of 'First Knight' or 'Merlin', I have always thought that Gavin O'Hillerhy, who played Madmartigan's mate Airk Thaughbaer, would make the BEST king Arthur ever. There's a great shot of him with his sword, near the end of the film, in the tent just before the final battle - he looks every inch the king.)
Merlin
(1998)
Pretty in places but mostly rubbish
10 March 2002
When it comes to telling the Arthurian legend, this movie is really rubbish. There are so many trite and cliched points to it, that it would be hard to list them all, and my review would probably not be published if I did.
The Arthurian legend is a long story, well in need of four hours to tell, but why on earth this version devoted so much time to things that were never in the original legends anyway is beyong me. The story of Nimue and Merlin was an interesting interpretation, if too far-fetched for my liking. The inclusion of Auntie 'A' was, to my mind, contrived and cliched. In fact much of the script was disappointing.
Having said all that, the acting was really not bad, and most of the costumes were very well done indeed. EXCEPT, I am compelled to point out, those of Frick, and Queen Mab, the character played by the normally illustrious and wholly worthwhile Miranda Richardson. We are treated to a beautifully done-out and mostly historicallly accurate 10th century court, and then, a Disney-esque, overly made-up and totally fake-looking evil Queen Mab. Despite the fact that she is from the 'Otherworld', it's an insult, especially when the lady of the lake, also a fantasy character, was done so beautifully.
I did however like the relationship built between Frick and Morgan, it was a nice touch and mostly sensitively handled. Once again however it was completely extraneous to any shred of the original tale.
I was disappointed with some of the casting. While Rutger Hauer and Isabella Rosselini looked the part, their accents were offputting. Arthur looked the part as the boy king, but his youth could not be disguised despite the character growing older. Lancelot and Mordred were too much like American soap-opera stars who had grown their hair. Later in the movie, new characters were added at such a rate, and they all looked so similar - attractive, regal, dressed in rich robes - that it was hard to tell them apart, especially when each had so little screen time.
Anyway enough of my ranting. The movie did have good points. Sam Neill wasn't bad though I'm surprised at his agreeing to appear in such a script. Isabella did a pretty good job. But really, if you want to watch an Arthur movie, watch 'Excalibur', or be done with movies, and go read Patrick Cornwell's 'Winter King' series.
The Arthurian legend is a long story, well in need of four hours to tell, but why on earth this version devoted so much time to things that were never in the original legends anyway is beyong me. The story of Nimue and Merlin was an interesting interpretation, if too far-fetched for my liking. The inclusion of Auntie 'A' was, to my mind, contrived and cliched. In fact much of the script was disappointing.
Having said all that, the acting was really not bad, and most of the costumes were very well done indeed. EXCEPT, I am compelled to point out, those of Frick, and Queen Mab, the character played by the normally illustrious and wholly worthwhile Miranda Richardson. We are treated to a beautifully done-out and mostly historicallly accurate 10th century court, and then, a Disney-esque, overly made-up and totally fake-looking evil Queen Mab. Despite the fact that she is from the 'Otherworld', it's an insult, especially when the lady of the lake, also a fantasy character, was done so beautifully.
I did however like the relationship built between Frick and Morgan, it was a nice touch and mostly sensitively handled. Once again however it was completely extraneous to any shred of the original tale.
I was disappointed with some of the casting. While Rutger Hauer and Isabella Rosselini looked the part, their accents were offputting. Arthur looked the part as the boy king, but his youth could not be disguised despite the character growing older. Lancelot and Mordred were too much like American soap-opera stars who had grown their hair. Later in the movie, new characters were added at such a rate, and they all looked so similar - attractive, regal, dressed in rich robes - that it was hard to tell them apart, especially when each had so little screen time.
Anyway enough of my ranting. The movie did have good points. Sam Neill wasn't bad though I'm surprised at his agreeing to appear in such a script. Isabella did a pretty good job. But really, if you want to watch an Arthur movie, watch 'Excalibur', or be done with movies, and go read Patrick Cornwell's 'Winter King' series.
Saturday Night Fever
(1977)
Sad and Frustrating
2 March 2002
I have to say I watched this movie in the hopes of seeing some good dancing. Well... some of the dancing wasn't too bad. But what disturbed me the most were the going-nowhere characters in this movie. If you enjoy watching young people who have poor role models and the emotional maturity of three-year-olds screw up their own lives and each others' lives, watch this movie. I found it quite depressing. Possibly the last moment was slightly redeeming but not enough (for me) to have made watching the movie worthwhile.
A Midsummer Night's Dream
(1999)
Very funny and visually gorgeous
14 December 2001
Well I loved the casting of this movie, my only criticism is of the mish-mash of accents. We have all manner of different American accents, we have French, and then another range of British including London girl Anna Friel, who is hilarious because of it, incidentally. Once you got over the accents it is a magical film, a gentle fantasy which picks you up, whirls you around, tickles and delights, and then gently takes you back to earth so you don't land with a bump.
I've rarely seen anything so gorgeous to look at, and if you've read any of my other reviews you'll see I always go for the beauty of things. Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Everett were just perfect, both of them looked delicious enough to eat. Although I can sympathise with the desire for Emma Thompson in the part of Titania. The accent and intonation would really have made it fantastic.
Callista Flockhart was fantastic; 'Oh, SPITE! Oh, HELL!' She does the giddy masochism of Helena to a 'T'.
One of the things Shakespeare does best is insults, and in this film it is a field day of insults! I can't remember any of the good ones unfortunately but there is nothing funnier than seeing an actor deliver passionately and with all the venom they possess, some word which is completely nonsensical!
What with hectic chase scenes on bicycles, ridiculous magical mix-ups by Stanley Tucci's (twinkling and devil-may-care) Puck, a consummate Bottom played by Kevin Kline, and all kinds of visual jokes I'm sure Shakespeare did not put in his stage directions, this film is an absolute picnic, just the thing if you're feeling down in the dumps.
I've rarely seen anything so gorgeous to look at, and if you've read any of my other reviews you'll see I always go for the beauty of things. Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Everett were just perfect, both of them looked delicious enough to eat. Although I can sympathise with the desire for Emma Thompson in the part of Titania. The accent and intonation would really have made it fantastic.
Callista Flockhart was fantastic; 'Oh, SPITE! Oh, HELL!' She does the giddy masochism of Helena to a 'T'.
One of the things Shakespeare does best is insults, and in this film it is a field day of insults! I can't remember any of the good ones unfortunately but there is nothing funnier than seeing an actor deliver passionately and with all the venom they possess, some word which is completely nonsensical!
What with hectic chase scenes on bicycles, ridiculous magical mix-ups by Stanley Tucci's (twinkling and devil-may-care) Puck, a consummate Bottom played by Kevin Kline, and all kinds of visual jokes I'm sure Shakespeare did not put in his stage directions, this film is an absolute picnic, just the thing if you're feeling down in the dumps.
Dancers
(1987)
Dancing ***** Acting *** Choreography -*
14 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Surprisingly ok movie considering the main actors are dancers. I'm not being rude, I'm a dancer, and the fact is there aren't many who are good actors. The screenplay is quite good too, if a little obvious at times, with a lovely flower theme through the whole movie, apart from a lame moment near the end involving a tattoo... To be picky, there needed to be more character development with the two lead characters and their romance, I felt nothing when tragedy hit, because they had not been developed enough to be believable. A case of too much dancing and too little script.
Baryshnikov and Kent are so beautiful that it's easy to forgive any other flaws in their performance, but then I'm a sucker for looks. I give 10/10 for the actor who played Paolo, he evoked great sympathy for his character and so I was rooting for him, and thought he should have got the girl in the end.
However once again I am stunned by how BORING the choreography is. If you're a dancer, watch this film with a non-dancer and ask them what they thought of the dancing. Odds are they're bored with it. Makes you think. PLEASE can we stop doing steps that don't mean anything. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE classical ballet, it's a fantastic challenge and there's nothing better for strength and flexibility. But it's no wonder that audiences are declining when we keep choreographing steps that are meaningless and their only function is to look pretty.
(spoiler ahead) I mean check out the second half of act two of Giselle in this movie. Albrecht is supposed to be dancing to death - DYING. But the music is trilling away prettily and Albrecht treats us to all manner of lovely turns and jumps and gestures. I just don't buy it.
The fact is that true classical ballet like this (story ballet, big sets, loads of pretty costumes, love, tragedy, masses of meaningless steps, classical music) is an art form that is based on archaic court dances of a VERY past era of history that most countries are glad they got rid of. I honestly think ballets like this deserve to be filmed really, really well ONCE and then not done any more. Only dancers and balletomanes must enjoy this stuff. I simply can't believe that anyone who doesn't know about either classical music or classical dance could enjoy this.
If dance would wake up and start doing stuff that ordinary people could relate to, then it would attract more audiences. Instead, dancers keep doing what they've always done, and they moan about how hard it is to survive as an artist. I suppose that there is a certain self-righteous romance about being a starving artist, but I've been there and done that and I'm sick of it.
So I'm off to find a way to make dance more interesting and make more money, Bye now...
*whew* that soapbox feels higher than normal tonight...
Some dance technique notes... Quite impressed with the Wilis entrance hopping slowly in arabesque. Despite the fact that it's an awful step to make it look good, there must have been 30 of them all with perfectly matching legs and seemingly floating over the stage. I never realised Alessandra Ferri had such small feet, watch her en pointe, quite stubby, gives me hope!!! :) She has amazing jumps and incredibly flexible hips and lower back. Her grande jete en tournant, watch the second leg, it goes up to 135 degrees *in arabesque* as she lands! and her series of 4 or 5 grande jetes all in a row with only one step in between is incredible, she gets to a 180 degree split on every one. Count Baryshnikov's pirouettes - I think he does seven in one scene, and in the solo near the end pulls off a triple almost lazily. Incredible.
Baryshnikov and Kent are so beautiful that it's easy to forgive any other flaws in their performance, but then I'm a sucker for looks. I give 10/10 for the actor who played Paolo, he evoked great sympathy for his character and so I was rooting for him, and thought he should have got the girl in the end.
However once again I am stunned by how BORING the choreography is. If you're a dancer, watch this film with a non-dancer and ask them what they thought of the dancing. Odds are they're bored with it. Makes you think. PLEASE can we stop doing steps that don't mean anything. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE classical ballet, it's a fantastic challenge and there's nothing better for strength and flexibility. But it's no wonder that audiences are declining when we keep choreographing steps that are meaningless and their only function is to look pretty.
(spoiler ahead) I mean check out the second half of act two of Giselle in this movie. Albrecht is supposed to be dancing to death - DYING. But the music is trilling away prettily and Albrecht treats us to all manner of lovely turns and jumps and gestures. I just don't buy it.
The fact is that true classical ballet like this (story ballet, big sets, loads of pretty costumes, love, tragedy, masses of meaningless steps, classical music) is an art form that is based on archaic court dances of a VERY past era of history that most countries are glad they got rid of. I honestly think ballets like this deserve to be filmed really, really well ONCE and then not done any more. Only dancers and balletomanes must enjoy this stuff. I simply can't believe that anyone who doesn't know about either classical music or classical dance could enjoy this.
If dance would wake up and start doing stuff that ordinary people could relate to, then it would attract more audiences. Instead, dancers keep doing what they've always done, and they moan about how hard it is to survive as an artist. I suppose that there is a certain self-righteous romance about being a starving artist, but I've been there and done that and I'm sick of it.
So I'm off to find a way to make dance more interesting and make more money, Bye now...
*whew* that soapbox feels higher than normal tonight...
Some dance technique notes... Quite impressed with the Wilis entrance hopping slowly in arabesque. Despite the fact that it's an awful step to make it look good, there must have been 30 of them all with perfectly matching legs and seemingly floating over the stage. I never realised Alessandra Ferri had such small feet, watch her en pointe, quite stubby, gives me hope!!! :) She has amazing jumps and incredibly flexible hips and lower back. Her grande jete en tournant, watch the second leg, it goes up to 135 degrees *in arabesque* as she lands! and her series of 4 or 5 grande jetes all in a row with only one step in between is incredible, she gets to a 180 degree split on every one. Count Baryshnikov's pirouettes - I think he does seven in one scene, and in the solo near the end pulls off a triple almost lazily. Incredible.
Moulin Rouge!
(2001)
beautiful, fantastic, breathtaking... shallow
2 October 2001
I love this film. It is amazing to watch. A string of superlatives that ringed the globe could not come near to describing it.
Being a dancer, I loved the dance scenes (some of my friends were in them), they were unbelievably good. Very passionate and over-the-top, wonderful to watch.
I loved the way Baz mixed current and past culture in so many ways - it made what could have been a period film into a relatable entity for so many people.
The costumes in this film were remarkable as were the sets and effects, I could go on and on and start to write (probably really bad) poetry, that's how moving the visuals in Moulin Rouge were.
HOWEVER I have one complaint: I did not cry. I was not moved by this film. It is an easy thing to do - I'm an emotional person, I walk into the cinema looking for opportunities to be swept away and moved inside by the production. Not in this movie though. The fundamental problem, for me, was the love affair. The love was not deep enough, they had not shared enough, their love had not really been tested enough for me to believe in it. Oh sure there was the Count, but he was a cartoon character - to ridiculous to be believably evil. I could not see him as a serious threat to the love of Satine and Christian.
So there's my complaint. I couldn't cry at the demise of a love that was really too insubstantial to begin with.
Being a dancer, I loved the dance scenes (some of my friends were in them), they were unbelievably good. Very passionate and over-the-top, wonderful to watch.
I loved the way Baz mixed current and past culture in so many ways - it made what could have been a period film into a relatable entity for so many people.
The costumes in this film were remarkable as were the sets and effects, I could go on and on and start to write (probably really bad) poetry, that's how moving the visuals in Moulin Rouge were.
HOWEVER I have one complaint: I did not cry. I was not moved by this film. It is an easy thing to do - I'm an emotional person, I walk into the cinema looking for opportunities to be swept away and moved inside by the production. Not in this movie though. The fundamental problem, for me, was the love affair. The love was not deep enough, they had not shared enough, their love had not really been tested enough for me to believe in it. Oh sure there was the Count, but he was a cartoon character - to ridiculous to be believably evil. I could not see him as a serious threat to the love of Satine and Christian.
So there's my complaint. I couldn't cry at the demise of a love that was really too insubstantial to begin with.
Red Planet
(2000)
shoot the editor
2 October 2001
About 10 minutes into this film I said to my husband 'Hang on, did that make sense, or was it just a badly timed cut??' He agreed it was a badly timed cut. And there are loads of them.
It's not that bad a movie, really - not great, but not bad. But the editing sucks.
I would also agree with what other reviewers have said about lack of character development. I gave up trying to figure out who was who after a while and it didn't make much difference to the story!!!
It's not that bad a movie, really - not great, but not bad. But the editing sucks.
I would also agree with what other reviewers have said about lack of character development. I gave up trying to figure out who was who after a while and it didn't make much difference to the story!!!
Mission: Impossible II
(2000)
eye candy and adrenaline
2 October 2001
I had heard this film was short on plot, and I had heard correctly! However, having said that, I actually thought that in most other respects it was a good film.
I thought that (aside from lack of plot) the script was reasonably good, the main characters were believable and their responses to one another seemed real and not melodramatic.
At times the camera work DID tend towards the melodramatic, which I know friends of mine have found quite laughable, but to me the shots were so beautiful that I didn't mind. I'm a very visual person and, being very tired when watching this movie, I didn't mind that there was not much brain-food, I just enjoyed the gorgeous images floating over the screen. We all know the ending anyway, honestly. The bad guy dies, the good guy wins the girl.
This film was wonderful to look at, and for me, that redeemed a lot of flaws!
I thought that (aside from lack of plot) the script was reasonably good, the main characters were believable and their responses to one another seemed real and not melodramatic.
At times the camera work DID tend towards the melodramatic, which I know friends of mine have found quite laughable, but to me the shots were so beautiful that I didn't mind. I'm a very visual person and, being very tired when watching this movie, I didn't mind that there was not much brain-food, I just enjoyed the gorgeous images floating over the screen. We all know the ending anyway, honestly. The bad guy dies, the good guy wins the girl.
This film was wonderful to look at, and for me, that redeemed a lot of flaws!
The Devil's Advocate
(1997)
Amazing theological movie
10 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
(Minor spoilers contained)
You may find this surprising but, as a Christian, I thought this movie was excellent. Extremely graphic in many places but boy did it make you think. Assuming Al Pacino's character John Milton was indeed the devil (this was heavily insinuated by the script and some of the characters clearly believed it, but Milton himself never admitted to it), the character was written in such a way as to line up with much of what the Bible says about him. He is wily, cunning, plays on the weaknesses of the humans he preys on rather than blatantly overpowering them. Seems harmless at first, seems even rather attractive - offering money, a good life, all sorts of promises. And interstingly enough, he keeps his promises - it's what he DOESN'T say that will trip you up every time.
If I was an extremely spiritually aware person, but not a Christian when I saw this, I think I would have been terrified out of my wits by the truth portrayed by this movie. Which is, the devil CAN get you. It is so easy for him to lull us into a false sense of security. And I too would have done what Reeves' character did at the end of the final conflict, IF I did not know Jesus. Seeing as I do, my reaction would have been different, and the movie would have been a COMPLETELY different plot if Reeves' character had been a Christian. If you'd like to know what might have happened, I highly recommend you check out the novels by Frank Peretti, 'This Present Darkness' and 'Piercing the Darkness'.
Devil's Advocate is a movie I would recommend to anyone who is a Christian! You'll learn a lot. Just be prepared for the nauseating graphic content of some of the scenes. I watched it with someone who had already seen it, she told me when the worst bits were, in advance! It was a good plan!
You may find this surprising but, as a Christian, I thought this movie was excellent. Extremely graphic in many places but boy did it make you think. Assuming Al Pacino's character John Milton was indeed the devil (this was heavily insinuated by the script and some of the characters clearly believed it, but Milton himself never admitted to it), the character was written in such a way as to line up with much of what the Bible says about him. He is wily, cunning, plays on the weaknesses of the humans he preys on rather than blatantly overpowering them. Seems harmless at first, seems even rather attractive - offering money, a good life, all sorts of promises. And interstingly enough, he keeps his promises - it's what he DOESN'T say that will trip you up every time.
If I was an extremely spiritually aware person, but not a Christian when I saw this, I think I would have been terrified out of my wits by the truth portrayed by this movie. Which is, the devil CAN get you. It is so easy for him to lull us into a false sense of security. And I too would have done what Reeves' character did at the end of the final conflict, IF I did not know Jesus. Seeing as I do, my reaction would have been different, and the movie would have been a COMPLETELY different plot if Reeves' character had been a Christian. If you'd like to know what might have happened, I highly recommend you check out the novels by Frank Peretti, 'This Present Darkness' and 'Piercing the Darkness'.
Devil's Advocate is a movie I would recommend to anyone who is a Christian! You'll learn a lot. Just be prepared for the nauseating graphic content of some of the scenes. I watched it with someone who had already seen it, she told me when the worst bits were, in advance! It was a good plan!
The Siege
(1998)
Underrated movie with complex characters
8 September 2001
I can kind of understand why people are knocking this movie. There are some things which don't immediately make sense, and some of the characters do contradictory things.
HOWEVER I think people who complain about this are showing some level of ignorance and an unwillingness to appreciate that real people are indeed contradictory! Real people do not make sense! I think this is one of the film's strongest points.
These characters are flawed beings, all of them, like us. It made the movie more real to me - and that's saying something, it is a surprisingly realistic portrayal of events - pulls few punches in the explosion scenes, very heartbreaking at times.
Stop complaining about this movie, people, and start thinking.
HOWEVER I think people who complain about this are showing some level of ignorance and an unwillingness to appreciate that real people are indeed contradictory! Real people do not make sense! I think this is one of the film's strongest points.
These characters are flawed beings, all of them, like us. It made the movie more real to me - and that's saying something, it is a surprisingly realistic portrayal of events - pulls few punches in the explosion scenes, very heartbreaking at times.
Stop complaining about this movie, people, and start thinking.
Labyrinth
(1986)
still magical despite the flaws
22 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers in this review.
Like many people I saw this film as a teenager and was completely entranced by it - for two main reasons, firstly, because I felt like they had read my diaries in order to write the character of Sarah!!! And secondly because David Bowie is and was so sexy!
Seeing it as an adult I can see the flaws. The script is very weak, as is the concept. Sorry but, as beautiful as Jennifer Connelly is (I always wanted to be her) her acting is really not great, but then again, with a script like that I don't really know if she could have shown us what she was really made of!
I was never very scared of the Goblin king. For all his show of evil, how can a guy who rules over a bunch of such incompetents be scary? How could such an army possibly hold dominion over even a fairytale land? And since he has such power, why does he stand back and watch Sarah barge into the castle, telling his idiot goblins minions, 'Do something!' Sorry but it just doesn't hold any water.
I would LOVE to remake this movie with a truly scary bunch of goblins and a truly evil king. To all those who were wondering, yes I believe he is in love with her. This would not have to be lost. And also, making the goblins truly evil would not have to lose the humour either. Plenty other movies have scores of frightening evil minions with the old stupid one providing comic relief. It's not that hard to do!! :)
The last scene between Jareth and Sarah was terrible. He looked amazing and her acting wasn't too bad, but those lines, aaaargh. It must have really pained Bowie (such an intelligent guy) to have to say 'I ask so little. Just fear me, love me, let me rule you, and you can have anything you want.' There is no attempt to veil his true intentions at all - only a complete idiot would be taken in by that little speech. PLEASE can we have some subtlety - after all the movie has been at pains to suggest that the goblin king is wily and manipulative. That was not manipulative. That was just a really bad attempt.
The very ending, I am sorry to say (and I thought this even when I was a teenager) is absolutely pathetic. The intention is good, but carried out really badly. 'Every now and then in my life, for no reason at all, I need you - all of you' would make sense if she said it a few months into the future once she'd had time to realise the sense of it. But straight after she just got out of the labyrinth? It's totally illogical. She hasn't even had enough time to put her toys and costumes away.
But when all is said and done I have to say I adore this movie even still. There are some classic lines - 'It's so entertaining being your hat.' 'I hit something? Yes? No?' that you really can't beat and always have me in stitches. And despite all the holes the visuals are such that I can still let myself be carried away by the fantasy.
Like many people I saw this film as a teenager and was completely entranced by it - for two main reasons, firstly, because I felt like they had read my diaries in order to write the character of Sarah!!! And secondly because David Bowie is and was so sexy!
Seeing it as an adult I can see the flaws. The script is very weak, as is the concept. Sorry but, as beautiful as Jennifer Connelly is (I always wanted to be her) her acting is really not great, but then again, with a script like that I don't really know if she could have shown us what she was really made of!
I was never very scared of the Goblin king. For all his show of evil, how can a guy who rules over a bunch of such incompetents be scary? How could such an army possibly hold dominion over even a fairytale land? And since he has such power, why does he stand back and watch Sarah barge into the castle, telling his idiot goblins minions, 'Do something!' Sorry but it just doesn't hold any water.
I would LOVE to remake this movie with a truly scary bunch of goblins and a truly evil king. To all those who were wondering, yes I believe he is in love with her. This would not have to be lost. And also, making the goblins truly evil would not have to lose the humour either. Plenty other movies have scores of frightening evil minions with the old stupid one providing comic relief. It's not that hard to do!! :)
The last scene between Jareth and Sarah was terrible. He looked amazing and her acting wasn't too bad, but those lines, aaaargh. It must have really pained Bowie (such an intelligent guy) to have to say 'I ask so little. Just fear me, love me, let me rule you, and you can have anything you want.' There is no attempt to veil his true intentions at all - only a complete idiot would be taken in by that little speech. PLEASE can we have some subtlety - after all the movie has been at pains to suggest that the goblin king is wily and manipulative. That was not manipulative. That was just a really bad attempt.
The very ending, I am sorry to say (and I thought this even when I was a teenager) is absolutely pathetic. The intention is good, but carried out really badly. 'Every now and then in my life, for no reason at all, I need you - all of you' would make sense if she said it a few months into the future once she'd had time to realise the sense of it. But straight after she just got out of the labyrinth? It's totally illogical. She hasn't even had enough time to put her toys and costumes away.
But when all is said and done I have to say I adore this movie even still. There are some classic lines - 'It's so entertaining being your hat.' 'I hit something? Yes? No?' that you really can't beat and always have me in stitches. And despite all the holes the visuals are such that I can still let myself be carried away by the fantasy.
Head Over Heels
(2001)
very silly
11 June 2001
I saw this movie on a long-haul flight so don't blame me for seeing it, I had no choice! It was extremely silly and not at all believable. Full of terrible jokes and cliches. But the stars are gorgeous and it all ends happily ever after, so why not enjoy it - if you have nothing better to do. I didn't.
The Beach
(I) (2000)
The movie let itself down
11 June 2001
I was quite enjoying this film all the way through (apart from thinking that DiCaprio was woefully miscast - he's far too good-looking and charming to play such an annoying and charisma-less character) and then came - the END. I have never in my life come across such cinematic disappointment. How the film's editor can sleep at nights I will never know. All the tension, all the tragedy, all the realism was blown away in one fell swoop and may as well not have happened. Why didn't they just screen an episode of the Brady Bunch instead of spending millions of dollars and wrecking (so I hear) an entire Pacific island? Altogether unforgivable.
An Ideal Husband
(I) (1999)
Delicious
7 May 2001
Supremely cultured comedy of the highest order. I think this film simultaneously cherishes and pokes fun at the characteristics of English society 100 years ago. The settings are so lavish and the actors uniformly lovely, it is a feast for the eyes. It is also a feast for the mind, as you sort out the insults from the love scenes, almost all of them delivered in the same polite and cultured tones, which only adds to the hilarity. I particularly love the scripting and the acting of Miss Mabel and Lord Goring, they are absolutely delicious...!
First Knight
(1995)
It's just too easy to slam this movie
13 April 2001
There is really no need for me to go and re-hash the ways in which this movie did not line up with any accepted versions of the Arthurian legend, the way none of the movie was true to any historical period, or why it was miscast or why the actors did a lousy job. Plenty of other reviews can tell you those things, go ahead and scroll down.
What I would like to mention is that whether or not the above comments are justified, I don't see how anyone can ignore that the SCRIPT for this movie was appalling. Whether or not Richard Gere was a good choice, how COULD he do a good job with such terrible, Mills & Boon type lines??? The only question is, why did he sign the contract? Oh, for the money, right, I forgot. Same goes for Connery though it is less forgivable in my eyes that such an actor should do such a crap film for money only. Well who knows, maybe all Arthur's best scenes still lie on the cutting room floor.
Despite being an Arthur Devotee for the past 18 years and having read more versions of the story than I care to admit, I am quite willing to see the possibility that this movie could be enjoyed purely as a love triangle, and not as a version of the Arthurian legend. But, sorry, even this angle doesn't work, the script is still bad, the plot still has big holes. As far as I can see, the Zuckers (yes the whole family is involved, event the kids had bit parts, check the credits) simply thought, 'let's get some big hollywood names, a really famous legend, and make it look gorgeous, and we'll make a mint!!!' Well someone obviously blew the budget before the script was written.
Also, whether or not the details of the movie were period or not, is irrelevant - as others have pointed out, this is a LEGEND, it doesn't matter whether it is true to period. But what does annoy me personally is the cream marble everywhere at Camelot. Hello, we're in Britain here, not Venice!!!!!!! I can forgive the Disney-esque blue outfits on everyone. I can even forgive the leadlighted windows. It may be a legend, but it's a BRITISH legend, this is not Ben Hur or Quo Vadis! But hey, Zucker, you may have appropriated the characters and locations of a famous legend and put them to service in a money-spinning venture that totally betrays the original spirit, but don't feel you have to take EVERY opportunity to insult your audience.
Anyhow, bitching aside, it just doesn't matter which way I look at it. This wasn't a good movie. The only good thing I can find to say about it is that, Italy or Britain, the movie did look very pretty.
Just one last thing - PLEASE can someone make an Arthur movie with a decent script and actors? The Fiennes brothers could do Arthur and Lancelot, though they're not the only ones, Gwyneth Paltrow would do a regal Guinevere with the necessary intelligence and element of playfulness (which I think Cate Blanchett lacks - not that I'm hung up on having a blonde Guinevere), Pete Postlethwaite would make a great Merlin, Jonathon Rhys Meyers or Willem Dafoe for Mordred, Michelle Pfeiffer or even Uma Thurman for Morgana. I'm sure I've missed characters and people out - have to fit John Malkovich in there somewhere - but you get my drift.
What I would like to mention is that whether or not the above comments are justified, I don't see how anyone can ignore that the SCRIPT for this movie was appalling. Whether or not Richard Gere was a good choice, how COULD he do a good job with such terrible, Mills & Boon type lines??? The only question is, why did he sign the contract? Oh, for the money, right, I forgot. Same goes for Connery though it is less forgivable in my eyes that such an actor should do such a crap film for money only. Well who knows, maybe all Arthur's best scenes still lie on the cutting room floor.
Despite being an Arthur Devotee for the past 18 years and having read more versions of the story than I care to admit, I am quite willing to see the possibility that this movie could be enjoyed purely as a love triangle, and not as a version of the Arthurian legend. But, sorry, even this angle doesn't work, the script is still bad, the plot still has big holes. As far as I can see, the Zuckers (yes the whole family is involved, event the kids had bit parts, check the credits) simply thought, 'let's get some big hollywood names, a really famous legend, and make it look gorgeous, and we'll make a mint!!!' Well someone obviously blew the budget before the script was written.
Also, whether or not the details of the movie were period or not, is irrelevant - as others have pointed out, this is a LEGEND, it doesn't matter whether it is true to period. But what does annoy me personally is the cream marble everywhere at Camelot. Hello, we're in Britain here, not Venice!!!!!!! I can forgive the Disney-esque blue outfits on everyone. I can even forgive the leadlighted windows. It may be a legend, but it's a BRITISH legend, this is not Ben Hur or Quo Vadis! But hey, Zucker, you may have appropriated the characters and locations of a famous legend and put them to service in a money-spinning venture that totally betrays the original spirit, but don't feel you have to take EVERY opportunity to insult your audience.
Anyhow, bitching aside, it just doesn't matter which way I look at it. This wasn't a good movie. The only good thing I can find to say about it is that, Italy or Britain, the movie did look very pretty.
Just one last thing - PLEASE can someone make an Arthur movie with a decent script and actors? The Fiennes brothers could do Arthur and Lancelot, though they're not the only ones, Gwyneth Paltrow would do a regal Guinevere with the necessary intelligence and element of playfulness (which I think Cate Blanchett lacks - not that I'm hung up on having a blonde Guinevere), Pete Postlethwaite would make a great Merlin, Jonathon Rhys Meyers or Willem Dafoe for Mordred, Michelle Pfeiffer or even Uma Thurman for Morgana. I'm sure I've missed characters and people out - have to fit John Malkovich in there somewhere - but you get my drift.
Lady Jane
(1986)
Beautiful and Moving
13 April 2001
It's hard for me to be objective about this film as I find both the main actors so divine, but I thought the portrayal of the developing romance extremely moving, by the time the film ended I was sobbing, and I say that about almost NO movie.
The cinematography was stunning, both indoor and outdoor shots were beautifully visualised and captured. The sets and costumes also were extremely well done.
The cinematography was stunning, both indoor and outdoor shots were beautifully visualised and captured. The sets and costumes also were extremely well done.
Au petit Marguery
(1995)
Food and friends
12 April 2001
This is a really nice film centred around the last night of a restaurant. As the friends and regulars of the restaurant gather for one last dinner they each revisit various memories of the other dinner guests. It's full of intimate moments and the whole film is very honest and unromanticised. Not at all Hollywood. I'd really like to see this film again sometime - not a blockbuster but well worth my time. I was tired and didn't really feel like following subtitles but I found myself drawn in anyway. So I recommend this one for a quiet afternoon with your cat and a cuppa.
Monday After the Miracle
(1998 TV Movie)
Sensitive Telling of Helen Keller's emergence into adult life
25 February 2001
This is a beautifully shot film and features good performances by the actors. Perhaps lacking slightly in passion but still plenty of emotion present. Admittedly I don't know how close to the truth it is but it seems to be handled sensitively. I'd recommend it, it's pleasant viewing and you care about the characters. For those wanting action this movie will be a little slow, though!
Pocahontas: The Legend
(1995)
watch it on a rainy day
6 February 2001
This movie is very pretty to look at, with beautiful sets and costumes and Sandrine Holt is absolutely gorgeous. The Scenery was fantastic - beautiful landscapes. Myles O'Keefe as John Smith has great bone structure but thickening around the middle... Anyway enough of esthetics. The music was lovely, however the movie is not what you'd call rock-solid, the script is fairly weak in parts as is the plot. But for entertainment value it's not bad at all. Just suspend your disbelief when you hit an obvious flaw in the logic and you'll be ok. Tony Goldwyn did a good job, as did most of the 'white-men', actually fairly much all the actors were pretty good. As in many movies, it was only the script that let them down a bit.
Hook
(1991)
A balanced view (finally!)
13 August 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I have read so many user comments on IMDB about this movie, and it seems to me that most people have a very extreme view, one way or the other, for whatever reason - and this doesn't help the IMDB user who might be thinking about seeing the movie, because all they are getting are either biased, or emotional, views - or both.
So, to set the record straight, I am going to attempt to write a fair analysis of 'Hook'. Bear in mind, first of all, that even though England, Australia and the USA all allegedly speak the same language, we all have very different cultures and expectations of entertainment. Given this information, you can assume that: 1) Americans will *generally* like this movie better than the English or Australians, and 2) The English will *generally* tend further towards a negative view of the movie.
These comments are not intended to give offence, they are based on my experiences of living abroad for many years and having experienced different cultures.
Onto the movie itself. It has been criticised as being saccharine. It is my opinion that in places this criticism is justified. I do agree that Robin Williams can tend towards overacting, however bear in mind that the lines he says were written by other people. I personally thought that the child actors playing Jack and Maggie were not given a fair chance by the scriptwriters as many of their lines were obviously written to pull at the heartstrings of the audience rather than reflect 'reality' (which is a relative term in a movie that does not deal with the real world) - by reality I refer to the reality of how a real child would react in that situation. However, if the scriptwriters' aim was to pull at the heartstrings, then they succeeded, judging by the comments of many users concerning 'Hook'.
'Hook' has also been criticised as being badly cast. I personally think that when Williams is good, he is very good, and when he is bad - turn it off! I personally thought Hoffman was so good that I didn't even recognise him until the credits came on at the end. He has been criticised for hamming it up - well, this is a movie based on the concept of fantasy. Of course he is hamming it up. Most children's fantasies *are* larger than life.
(WARNING: Spoiler ahead) The romantic interlude has been criticised, and I would agree with the fact that it was not ideal, but for different reasons. The fact that it was short was not a problem in terms of the film's logistic flow. However I suspect that whole scene went right over the heads of the children watching, and probably most of the adults too, because it required your brain to switch from 'light entertainment' mode to 'emotional drama' mode in a split second. Here is what I think is the logic of that scene: Tinkerbell is upset, because she knows that Peter will leave Neverland as soon as he has rescued his children. She wants him to stay, and seeing as he is now an adult, she tries to convince him to stay using an adult tactic - 'I've always loved you'. However her plan backfires because first of all, Peter has now remembered so much about his past in Neverland that he is no longer in 'adult' mode, but is fully the original Peter Pan again, and secondly, in explaining to him that she is upset because he will leave once his children are rescued, she reminds him of the adult world and the fact that she is not a part of his adult world. He goes off to rescue the children, back in full light-entertainment-swashbuckling mode. It is a short, subtle scene, and in my opinion does not belong in the movie.
For those who hated Julia Roberts in the role, I would agree she was perhaps not the ideal choice, but to give her credit, I think she did a good job with what she had. Consider that she would have acted most of those scenes alone, against a blue backdrop, so that later on her image on film could be miniaturised and pasted on top of the scenes with Williams and the children.
The sets have been criticised. One user said 'Hook's ship looks like it has never seen the sea let alone sail on it, moored as it is on one of the most unconvincing sets ever constructed.' This person obviously has not taken to heart that 1) We are in Neverland here, and the rules are different: this ship does go to sea, but the important thing is that it should look like a child's fantasy pirate ship, not that it is seaworthy. and 2) This movie is aimed at children and the young-at-heart, and I suspect that if all you can do is criticise the accuracy of the set, you have missed the point.
One user said 'One scene that involves the lost boys at dinner engaged in banal childish name calling should have been excised from the movie after the first screening and burnt,it is Spielberg at his most unconstrained' Hmmm, once again I think this person does not remember what it is like to be a child. Elaborate name-calling is one of the oldest rites of childhood. The important thing is not to crush the spirit of your opponent, but to come up with a more breath-taking vocab than they can!
Finally, one IMDB reviewer says '"Hook" is reasonably entertaining in a mindless sort of way, I suppose'. Hear! Hear! That is exactly what it aims to be, entertaining, and not taxing on the brain cells. That is what its message is - have some fun for once and stop being so serious all the time.
I did not love this movie, it is not my favourite movie, far from it. However I hope I have shown that many of the criticisms that have been expressed are not always balanced. 'Hook' is a good fun film - but only if you are willing to let it be one.
So, to set the record straight, I am going to attempt to write a fair analysis of 'Hook'. Bear in mind, first of all, that even though England, Australia and the USA all allegedly speak the same language, we all have very different cultures and expectations of entertainment. Given this information, you can assume that: 1) Americans will *generally* like this movie better than the English or Australians, and 2) The English will *generally* tend further towards a negative view of the movie.
These comments are not intended to give offence, they are based on my experiences of living abroad for many years and having experienced different cultures.
Onto the movie itself. It has been criticised as being saccharine. It is my opinion that in places this criticism is justified. I do agree that Robin Williams can tend towards overacting, however bear in mind that the lines he says were written by other people. I personally thought that the child actors playing Jack and Maggie were not given a fair chance by the scriptwriters as many of their lines were obviously written to pull at the heartstrings of the audience rather than reflect 'reality' (which is a relative term in a movie that does not deal with the real world) - by reality I refer to the reality of how a real child would react in that situation. However, if the scriptwriters' aim was to pull at the heartstrings, then they succeeded, judging by the comments of many users concerning 'Hook'.
'Hook' has also been criticised as being badly cast. I personally think that when Williams is good, he is very good, and when he is bad - turn it off! I personally thought Hoffman was so good that I didn't even recognise him until the credits came on at the end. He has been criticised for hamming it up - well, this is a movie based on the concept of fantasy. Of course he is hamming it up. Most children's fantasies *are* larger than life.
(WARNING: Spoiler ahead) The romantic interlude has been criticised, and I would agree with the fact that it was not ideal, but for different reasons. The fact that it was short was not a problem in terms of the film's logistic flow. However I suspect that whole scene went right over the heads of the children watching, and probably most of the adults too, because it required your brain to switch from 'light entertainment' mode to 'emotional drama' mode in a split second. Here is what I think is the logic of that scene: Tinkerbell is upset, because she knows that Peter will leave Neverland as soon as he has rescued his children. She wants him to stay, and seeing as he is now an adult, she tries to convince him to stay using an adult tactic - 'I've always loved you'. However her plan backfires because first of all, Peter has now remembered so much about his past in Neverland that he is no longer in 'adult' mode, but is fully the original Peter Pan again, and secondly, in explaining to him that she is upset because he will leave once his children are rescued, she reminds him of the adult world and the fact that she is not a part of his adult world. He goes off to rescue the children, back in full light-entertainment-swashbuckling mode. It is a short, subtle scene, and in my opinion does not belong in the movie.
For those who hated Julia Roberts in the role, I would agree she was perhaps not the ideal choice, but to give her credit, I think she did a good job with what she had. Consider that she would have acted most of those scenes alone, against a blue backdrop, so that later on her image on film could be miniaturised and pasted on top of the scenes with Williams and the children.
The sets have been criticised. One user said 'Hook's ship looks like it has never seen the sea let alone sail on it, moored as it is on one of the most unconvincing sets ever constructed.' This person obviously has not taken to heart that 1) We are in Neverland here, and the rules are different: this ship does go to sea, but the important thing is that it should look like a child's fantasy pirate ship, not that it is seaworthy. and 2) This movie is aimed at children and the young-at-heart, and I suspect that if all you can do is criticise the accuracy of the set, you have missed the point.
One user said 'One scene that involves the lost boys at dinner engaged in banal childish name calling should have been excised from the movie after the first screening and burnt,it is Spielberg at his most unconstrained' Hmmm, once again I think this person does not remember what it is like to be a child. Elaborate name-calling is one of the oldest rites of childhood. The important thing is not to crush the spirit of your opponent, but to come up with a more breath-taking vocab than they can!
Finally, one IMDB reviewer says '"Hook" is reasonably entertaining in a mindless sort of way, I suppose'. Hear! Hear! That is exactly what it aims to be, entertaining, and not taxing on the brain cells. That is what its message is - have some fun for once and stop being so serious all the time.
I did not love this movie, it is not my favourite movie, far from it. However I hope I have shown that many of the criticisms that have been expressed are not always balanced. 'Hook' is a good fun film - but only if you are willing to let it be one.
Tell Your Friends