Change Your Image
moneyben
Reviews
Coraline (2009)
You're the jerk wad that gave me the doll!
i have a child of 3 and a child of 8 and both love this movie.. it is scary, so if your kids have not been a fan of a horror based kids movie, or indeed never seen one before, i do advise you preview it first.
i have no idea why there is such a lot of negativity towards this in regards to it not being appropriate for children.. i know many adults that hate horror films and many that adore them, i don't understand why children cannot be filtered the same way.
My kids love scary movies so i knew they'd enjoy this and it has the bonus of being entertaining for an adult too, which is a huge thumbs up for any mother that knows a favourite DVD will be on repeat for the next week or so after you buy it.
i did like the music but like someone has previously mentioned the score did seem a little misplaced at times.
overall entertaining and a fantastic children's horror movie
Mysterious Skin (2004)
Another opinion..... For what it's worth.
First of all let me just say that i was really looking forward to 'Mysterious Skin', I had read and heard a lot about the story itself and the themes and situations it was based on. Hearing about it i immediately thought that this sounded like my type of movie. I wasn't wrong, on paper this is the type of story that really draws me in with characters and situations that i can really relate to.
However, When i finally did see 'Mysterious Skin' i honestly felt completely let down. A project which for me had so much potential to really blow me away, and affect me in a way that very few films are able to these days, ended up being a major disappointment in more ways than one.
To begin with i really thought that the actors (in central roles) just weren't good enough to carry the weighty subject matter. I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and was really interested to see him in this role but unfortunately i just didn't believe him as Neil, there were a couple of redeeming points (for instance, when the three friends are threatened by the guy with a gun in the pick-up, and Neil hangs out of the car window howling) but for the most part i found his performance to be heavy handed and obvious in a way that wouldn't let me accept him as the character. It's not like i don't like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, i do. i really wanted him to rise to the level that this role demanded but i never felt he did. Then there's Michelle Trachtenberg, Who despite what people may say can act, but for me her character in this was just too one dimensional, too simple, there was just no depth to her, and i really didn't feel the ultimate friendship bond between them (wendy & neil) either. On the other hand i did feel that Elisabeth Shue was very effective in her role as neil's mother, and similarly Chase Ellison and Bill Sage both gave excellent performances in their smaller parts, but sadly this did nothing to counteract the other central performances which were left lacking.
I've heard so many people describe this movie as beautiful, disturbing, difficult to watch, powerful and highly realistic, for me none of these seemed appropriate. There are several nice touches throughout the movie but i never got emotionally involved with the main characters (which i mainly attribute to their performances), this meant that when the director started to crank up the explicit scenes and the characters found themselves in more and more difficult situations i just didn't really care that much. The pivotal rape which really ought to be one of the most powerful and disturbing scene's in the film (although shocking due to the physicality of the action) left me feeling that if only it had been shot differently with more attention paid to certain details that it would have been much more effective.
The other thing that really bothered me about the movie was the clean finish that seemed to be prevalent throughout, a great example of this for me was Michelle Trachtenberg's look. I understand that she is a beautiful girl and there is nothing you can do about that, but it just didn't feel conducive with the character (a young small town girl, with no prospects, no visible parents and a prostitute for a best friend) to have her looking so good and well made up throughout. This also bothered me about the look of Neil after the rape. I guess i'm trying to say it just didn't feel gritty enough to come across as believable to me, and certainly not enough to seriously disturb or affect me.
In short, my conclusions are that even thought this story appeals to me so much the actual execution of the production itself has delivered a bland, heavy handed, boring in places, ineffective movie with a central performance that just didn't fill the shoes of Neil's character and in doing so this (coupled with bad scripting and shallow supporting figures) put the whole picture out of balance.
I wanted to like this movie, Believe me i did. But it simply was not good enough.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
You have got to be kidding me !
This movie was a serious disappointment. It was tired, cliché and showed me absolutely nothing i hadn't already seen many times before.
The court room scenes were boring to begin with but the soon lapsed into the realm of the ridiculous (Father Moore reads a letter in which Emily describes talking to the virgin mary) and the seriously tedious (any of the court scenes in the second half).
The only thing that offered any kind of reprieve from the banality of the above was the actual possession sequences, Which started off well but then built up to a massive anti-climax (especially after i have been reading so many comments on here stating that the 'Barn scene' is so 'Disturbing', which it definitely was not). I was left thinking, is this IT, is that ALL!!!!! Do not listen to anybody who tells you that this movie is a masterpiece, or even anyone that tells you it is good. This ended up being nothing more than a big boring waste of my time.
Mystic River (2003)
Something is missing.....
An Oscar winning director. A cast to die for. A script based on a bestseller. With all of this in it's favour one could be forgiven for assuming that 'Mystic River' was certain to be far-and-away THE film of 2003. If one was to consider the competition then again, one could be excused from thinking that this WAS it.
In many way's Mystic River does achieve what it sets out to do, and it certainly has no trouble in beating it's contenders as far as content goes. But when you consider some of the competition (Return Of The King / Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions) it's not that hard.
'Mystic River' is satisfying on many levels. Most notably because of the acting, which is near flawless throughout. Sean Penn (Jimmy) takes the lead and shows us once again that he is without a doubt (one of) the best of his generation. Tim Robbins (Dave) also shows his worth and does well in conveying the contradictions of his character. Kevin Bacon (Sean) holds his own but with a much lesser part, a shame as Bacon is a massively underrated talent today. Someone who came as a surprise was Laura Linney as the knowing and wilful wife of Penn's Jimmy. She play's it cool and calm and by the time we get to see Annabeth's true colours she is all but stealing scenes from Penn.
The Direction and Cinematography are of an equally high standard and Eastwood manages to perfectly set the gloomy scene. The area in which the characters live, plays as much of a part as our three leads and as the film progresses it becomes an uncomfortably claustrophobic place to be and to watch.
As you can see my comments on 'Mystic River' are favourable. It is a great film that is expertly constructed but there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on. With all that was going for it my expectations were understandably high, and although it delivered on many points it failed to draw me in emotionally (perhaps the most important thing). Subsequently i was left feeling slightly detached and cold towards the outcome.
All in all 'Mystic River' is a precise and fluid drama which is head and shoulders above much of what's on offer, but without the emotional heart that it so sorely lacks it will always be somehow less than the sum of it's parts.
8 / 10
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Absolutely essential - Eastwood has done it!
OK, I will admit from the outset that i like Clint Eastwood. I like his style, both his acting and directing style. I like the look of him, and whats more i think that he lends a certain gravitas to any movie he's involved with (whether he be on or off screen). However i will also say that although i found both 'Unforgiven' and 'Mystic River' to be satisfying movies on the whole, they each suffered problems which kept them from being all they could.
I'm happy to say that with 'Million Dollar Baby' Eastwood has finally done it. His direction is as precise and exact as one could want, and with a unbelievable sense of balance he still manages to create a truly intimate and obviously personal picture. For me it is balance that is the key to why 'MDB' outdoes his previous efforts and elevates itself to the practically flawless. The emotion and atmosphere is never over the top (and if anything is slightly restrained) this maintains a hard-to-watch realism which demands your attention, draws you in and keeps you involved throughout.
The real star of this picture is the beautiful Hilary Swank. As Maggie Fitzgerald she has done something many (including myself) thought impossible and surpassed her Oscar winning performance from 'Boy's Don't Cry'. With this mature, subtle and thoroughly expert turn she has proved that she is one of the most promising and talented actresses in the world today.
Swank becomes the character. Swank is Maggie Fitzgerald. In this picture, Swank doesn't steal scenes, She owns them. She holds her own and more, even when sharing the screen with Freeman or Eastwood.
This is a perfect example of classic direction, real emotion and fantastic acting from all involved. Swank deserves Best Actress without a doubt and likewise the Best Director should go to Eastwood.
9 / 10