Reviews

How people are giving this atrocity higher than two stars (which is quite generous) is one of the great mysteries of this world. As a huge fan of the original novel, I decided to give this film a try. The original novel is as deep as the Pacific Ocean, rich in detail, complexity, plot and characterization. This has the depth of a kiddie pool.

There's nothing about this film that is remotely worth praising. The pacing is slow and dull, the cinematography is like watching a high school student film. The acting is so wooden I've heard rumors that they build tree houses from it.

Look, making a book adaptation isn't just recreating what's on page to screen. It's so much more than that. There has to be richness and detail in setting, understanding of characters and motivations, and a grip on the basic message of the novel. The movie doesn't have any of that. It clearly wanted to sell itself and did a horrendous job at that (it was a box office bomb and poorly reviewed for a reason).

My biggest issue here is that the "Roaring Twenties" aren't roaring. The setting in this film was clearly done with minimal effort - almost all the buildings are Victorian style (not Art-Deco or Gothic, which would have been more familiar in that period), the clothing is not remotely twenties, nor is the hair and make-up. The color of the film is so drab and dull. One of the greatest things about this decade was the emergence of freeform Jazz, and the movie hardly understands that. Yeah, everything looks old, but it doesn't work. To make a film adaptation of this novel is to make the Roaring Twenties ROAR. Go all out with costume, hair, music, sets, it's part of what makes the novel great. Nothing about that is here.

The on screen colors are like a funeral home, even the famous party scenes (I love how everyone does the Charleston at completely random and inappropriate times, and that's the only dance everyone knows. Apparently it's all that existed in this world).

It misses the point of the novel. After the film is done, the "credits" are laid over a bunch of people having fun on a dock and some women singing a fun beach song. I was in shock from the horrible film and then was put into a coma. Honestly, how can such a famous and well-known story be completely missed? It's like trying to shoot Godzilla and accidentally shooting your best friend.

I've seen some poor adaptations before and this is so high on that list we've had to add a second floor. Please do not watch this film. The fact people on here have given it higher than a two is unforgivable and impossible to understand why. Nostalgia, perhaps. I refuse to let this horrendous film into my life any longer. I advise you to do the same. Shame on these filmmakers.

First of all, let me just say people overreact ridiculously to this film. I've seen it a number of times in the past few years, so I know it well enough to know it isn't the worst film in the world.

However, that's not to say it isn't bad, or isn't laughable at times. This is one of those films that's fun to put on on one of those "curl up on the couch and watch a bad movie" sort of day.

For those familiar with the classic disaster film "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972) or the most recent remake "Poseidon" (2006), it's the same story - on New Years Eve, a cruise ship capsizes while hundreds of people celebrate the holiday in the ship's ballroom. A group of them decide that, instead of sitting and waiting for help, to climb up, through, and find a way out of the ship before it sinks would be the smarter idea. The original film was a massive smash hit that can be claimed to be the "classic" disaster film. Sure, there were disaster films before that, but the original film is what set the genre in motion. Certainly without it, films like "The Towering Inferno", "Titanic", "The Day After Tomorrow" might not have never existed.

So what do we have here? Like most NBC projects, you've got a great idea, a decent cast who desperately needs direction, yet you hire a terrible director and an even worse screenwriter. I'm going to start and say this - the writing in this film is an absolute joke. It's hard to believe that, at some points, the director didn't have scenes cut or the studio didn't step in and stop things from going bad to worse.

There's a hilarious attempt at "realism" here. The original film has the ship capsizing due to a massive tsunami wave - unlikely, yes, but explained well enough so it's passable. But this... I'm not sure why they did what they did here. Instead of a massive wave, it's a terrorist attack. Stay with me here - terrorists are working on the ship and have bombs hidden in kegs of beer, yet only one bomb detonates on one side of the ship, and we get a bunch of bull---t science exposition about how it "can happen" even though it'd be obvious to an eight grade student it can't happen. This idea backfired sharply.

We've actually got some veteran actors here, and some aren't bad. Rutger Hauer, who does well with what he's given. Adam Baldwin shows his teeth a lot. Steve Guttenberg being Steven Guttenberg. Alexa Hamilton gives everyone bizarre looks as she turns her head slowly (about eight times in the film). C. Thomas Howell, however, is the most natural at what he's given and does fine. The younger actors, however, are literally CRYING for some direction here, but it's like the director is just sitting back and eating a taco while watching his film sink. It's awful to see at parts.

The characterization... wow. Not only are the majority of characters uninteresting, the ones that have potential to be interesting are either annoying, one-dimensional, or begin to do things that have no real purpose. None of the characters ever act like they're in a disaster. It just seems like they're going through a haunted house at Six Flags. Belle Rosen starts nearly every sentence she says with "My husband Manny..." and goes to worship him like he's the sun god or something. The good characters are good, the bad characters are bad, and there's very little in between.

And for a disaster film, there's no tension or horror. It's really, really easy to figure out who's going to get killed off in the main group - character's with few lines, or with little to do. It's really as if they had little left to do with the characters and just killed them off for the "shock value", but considering they die and no one ever mentions them again, it's a bit pointless. We also, for the first time, get to see the rescue operations taking place outside of the ship. This adds an extra 20 minutes in run-time with a bunch of characters we don't care about (but they try to get us to) and takes away any mystery if there's help outside of the ship. A big plus the 1972 film had was that it focused on what was happening inside the ship and only that - we had no idea if there was help outside at all. Was it all worth it in the end? Did it all come to a dead end? , in this film, you KNOW who's going to live and who's going to die. NO risks are taken.

Now don't get me wrong, this film does have quite a bit of positive aspects to it. For a TV miniseries, the effects are quite good. Surprisingly good in some scenes, in fact (and surprisingly bad in other scenes - it's odd). The set pieces are well done, such as the ballroom and some other places. A lot of it seems to be like they modeled after Cruise Ship Tycoon or something, but it's passable. There's also some clever references to the original novel here that other films haven't done yet, and some subtle references to the original film that make Poseidon fans a bit more excited. Some scenes are even very well acted and well done. The capsizing scene is quite effective as well, though a bit silly at times. Give credit where credit is due.

Overall, is it good? No. Perhaps slightly enjoyable. Such a thing is rare, considering this film is pretty much hated among both the Poseidon fan community and just humankind in general, but it's fun to watch every now and again. It's quite a good lesson to aspiring filmmakers on how not to make a disaster movie.

5/10

Let me just say the first thing. I've finished the book as of last night and watched the film today. And let us sum it up quickly before I go into detail. Never since Percy Jackson have I been so frustrated and disappointed with an adaptation, one that shouldn't have been such a cliché, amateurish film to begin with.

So let's start with the plot: John is an alien from the planet Lorien. Him and his "father", Henri have come here after their planet was destroyed. Along with John, nine other children were able to get off the planet with their guide/mentor (aka their own Henri), and the planet was destroyed by the Mogadorians, a hostile alien race with little remorse, sympathy, or anything redeemable. They use up all resources (including that of their own planet) to advance their society. The Lorien race, however, has a race which have abilities to do other things in battle, such as control the elements, telekinesis, speed, etc. The Mogadorians plan to colonize Earth next, yet with the Nine who got away on Earth it is impossible, as they have the chance to defeat them. So, one by one, they have to kill the survivors, who have to be killed in order of a "number" they were given back on Lorien. They have a kind of protection unless they are killed in order. John blends in with Earth while also learning about himself, his abilities, friendship, the works as the "invasion" begins. Simple enough, nothing complicated, right?

Nope. In this movie, we're given little to no explanation other than characters shouting exposition at each other in order to advance the plot. By doing this we miss information that honestly could be useful to the viewer to, you know, understand what the hell they are watching.

Let's start with the script. It includes classic lines, such as: "It's not you, it's me!" "I can't stop thinking about you."

Let us talk about characterization for a moment, too. I get that there is ONE alien in the movie, yet NO ONE in this movie acts seemingly human. They say things that sound like high school English papers (similes, metaphors, etc.), don't react like a, well, human would in most cases, and chances we have to develop characters are just wasted and burned right in front of your eyes. It's actually depressing to watch at times.

Alex Pettyfer. Yes, he's attractive. He's hot, actually. He's tall, muscular, confident looking, everything someone likes to look at when you're people watching at the mall.

But this is the problem. I can't take the situations seriously. There isn't any way that someone who looks like Pettyfer would be an outcast, would be picked on, have few friends, etc. In some scenes, he attempts to look insecure, in hiding. No. He looks stupid. Especially since he's got perfect hair, teeth, and looks.

Henri is annoying as hell. All he does is complain. For a "mentor" he does a terrible job at it. Annoying. Annoying. Annoying. Seriously, I found little reason to care about whatever happened to him. Sometimes it felt like the actor just wondered on set after four days of confusion and played the character. I'm not even joking. Watch it with that in mind.

Sarah (played by Dianna Argon, of Glee) actually has some things going for her that are, once again, washed away. She's a stupid Bella Swan like girl in this, without much depth or even any kind of interesting aspect. She just takes pictures of everything. Why? We don't know. And she falls in love with John after like, two days. She even invites him to dinner after he watches her in a store and follows her down the street. But it's cute to her, she's so kind.

Everything feels scripted. Nothing feels natural. Only one thing does. Jake Abel, who plays Mark. Out of everyone, EVERYONE, he's the only character who is played with some depth and natural feeling to him. Abel was perfectly cast in this, similar as he was in Percy Jackson (another terribly directed fantasy flick where he just seemed... oddly great, even given crappy scripts).

There isn't any mystery to this. We know what the Mogadorians look like in a few minutes. We know the dog is something special. We know Sarah and John are going to get together. They don't let us play with imagination. Any interesting plot lines are just taken off quickly. One scene in particular: John begins his legacies (some kind of alien puberty), and Henri tells him he needs to control it! ...like he does two seconds later. So, no, we never get to see him learn and gain control. He's automatically an export, as proved by his "running through the forest while learning abilities" scene that looks strangely familiar to Avatar.

Speaking of, WHAT is with the back flips the aliens do in this movie? It doesn't look cool - it looks like a stupid waste of time and money.

So, in the end, it's just a repeat of Percy Jackson, Eragon, etc. Great source material taken by untalented people, who, as a result, make movies that are forgettable, cliché, bland, and stupid at times. All the time the books are sitting next to you, literally screaming "WHY CAN'T YOU JUST USE ME?!?!"

5/10

I've been a bit confused as to some other reviews I've seen on this site. Most call the film "beautiful" and a great realistic love story. In some cases they seem to right, but in other cases they aren't.

Let's start with the plot: It's 1960's France, and we've got three guys at a boarding school. François (our main character), Serge (our main character's love interest/lust), and Henri (some kid with a radio). François is in some kind of borderline relationship with his best friend, Maïté. They're at a wedding of the older brother of Serge, even though we aren't totally sure who knows who and how they were invited there. I'll just assume that Maïté's mother, Madame Alvarez, somehow knows Serge's brother. Anyways they go through a horribly shot wedding (more on that later), then go. We get some dialog in which François claims Serge is "weird". Serge's older brother says something about being attracted to Madam Alvarez, and that she can help him get out of going to the war in Algeria. Oh, and he attempts to almost rape her, but don't worry: it's never brought up again.

Anyways, Sergi seduces François one night, and it all goes from there. That kid with the radio is involved too, don't worry. Henri is apparently a Fascist from Algeria (strange, considering he's about as North African as a taco) who is always eager for news from there. It all goes from there, I don't want to give away too much.

Okay, now let's start with my first problem: the cinematography. Some call it "beautiful" and it looks like "summer" and so "pure" all the time. Okay, no. It just sucks in this movie. NOTHING is unique about it. I could pick up a camera and make a movie in the same place with the same outdoor light, and it'd look so "artsy" to some. It is just... nothing. Nothing looks pretty, nothing looks unique. It's just average.

And don't get me started on my main problem: the editing. The GODFORSAKEN EDITING. It's just awful. There are no transitions, at some points it seems to cut in mid-conversation.

Let's use an example. At the beginning, there's a scene with Madam Alvarez is dancing with Serge's brother at his wedding. First of all, they are dancing incredibly quickly for a waltz, and they spin and spin and spin. We're with one camera angle (never cuts to another), so it's almost like both are trying to talk, but the other person continues to block them with their head. The scene ends with the two talking, only it's his shoulder covering half her face and his, well shoulder. It just looks terrible, almost unprofessional.

A lot of elements seem tacked on. There's a whole sub plot with Madam Alvarez as well, with her going crazy over something (I'll leave it to you to see). Only there isn't a reason for it. At all. There isn't any resolution to her problem, no relation to our main characters, it's like they just wanted to add more drama, but it seems like two movies that were accidentally edited together when they should have been separate.

The acting is quite good, though. They all seem to know their characters and do perfectly fine with what they have. I wouldn't mind seeing most of them in other films.

But the direction that everyone calls "fantastic" isn't really that. Half the time the characters do things for no particular reason, leaving you wondering their motivations for half the things they do.

While it isn't a bad movie, it isn't good. It's entertaining, but just an average piece of film. Nothing special. Go ahead and see it if you want to. By seeing it, you won't gain anything. By skipping it you won't miss anything.

6/10

Wow... just, just wow. This film was, without a doubt, one of the most incredible films I have seen in recent years. I expected something along the lines of Emmerich's Godzilla, but I was very wrong. From the moment this film starts, it's addicting. You immediately begin to wonder about these characters, will they live or die? Cloverfield is about a group of people who are throwing a going away party to their friend Rob, who is leaving to Japan for a business promotion. During the party, however, all hell breaks loose when an "earthquake" strikes the city (New York City). After an explosion, and the Statue of Liberty scene, they go on a journey to find Beth, Rob's ex-lover, who is trapped in her apartment.

Acting was very good from everyone is the picture. With no-names running the show, I was surprised at how good they were, considering monster films can be some of the hardest films to act in. And with a 30 million dollar budget, they did a lot. That is very little for a film(the average is about 70-100 million). J.J. and his team did a fantastic job on this film. With the mixed reviews, I was worried about everything that would happen, would it be worth the money I paid for a ticket? Guess what? The answer is, without a doubt, yes.

J.J., Mr. Reaves, and everyone else involved, I hope your proud, because it was one hell of a ride.

One of my Favorites.

The film is about Pete Riley (Handley) who works at a huge Megaplex, where things begin to go wrong. His siblings (Smith)(Wachs) are two movie lovers, like myself, who want to save the Megaplex. If that isn't enough, the place is about to have a huge premiere for the owners film. Crazy huh? Anyway, the acting is pretty decent, some fiction mixed in with Non-Fiction. It's got to be one of the best and most remembered Disney Film.

Micky Rooney is in it! How much better can it get! One for the family, this film. It's entertainment on all levels.

Disney better continue to play this film, because if they don't, I have no idea whats going on in their heads.

When I first heard there was going to be a episode like this, I thought to myself, "Oh God. There Out of ideas." But then I heard Mark Indelicato was guest starring. He is in the TV show "Ugly Betty" and I've seen Ugly Betty a lot, almost all the episodes. I thought again, "Wow. This may be good." Mark has an amazing singing voice, however, he doesn't really use it a lot, or what I mean by that is you can't hear it due to London.

In this episode, Maddie and London's school (and now Zack and Cody's school because they are in High School) are putting on a production of High School Musical. Maddie decides to try out for the role of Sharpay. However, London steps in and decides to do the same. Cody decides to try out for Troy, and Antonio (Indelicato) goes for Ryan.

The singing, dancing, laughs, excellent. This was an amazing episode. Don't miss it.