Change Your Image
katiepoppycat
Reviews
Sahara (2005)
boys adventure
I've been a Dirk Pitt fan for a long long time, he's been my hero ever since my dad gave me Shockwave to read when I was 10. Since then, I've eagerly anticipated every new book release, and Clive has never disappointed, delivering action, adventure, fun and teeny little bit of history in every book. And Breck Eisner does exactly the same. I've been following the progress of the film as eagerly as any other Dirk junkie, wailing with disappointment when Hugh Jackman cancelled, and being hideously disappointed with the casting of Steve Zahn. And last night I went to see the film and absolutely loved it. It's not 'spot on' in the way that PJ managed to film the version of LOTR that every geeky fan-boy has been playing in their heads for years. But I really really enjoyed it. Matthew McConaughey was totally believable as Dirk, Steve Zahn was a great Al, even if he wasn't the Al from the book; and they played off against each other beautifully. Their low key wrangling and the hints of their past really fulfilled all my expectations. Penelope Cruz was a little 2D as Eva, but most of Dirk's female romantic interests are rather 2D, even if they are beautiful intelligent doctors/diplomats/marine biologists. But she at least had a go at taking care of herself and didn't spend the whole film waiting to be rescued. William H Macy was great as Sandecker, even if he didn't have quite the right look. His telephone call during the shootout on the Calliope was inspired. The only disappointment was Rudi Gunn - he was great in the film but not the capable cool right hand man he is in the book. I don't think any Clive Cussler fan need feel betrayed by this film - It translates most of the action of the book onto the screen and remains true to it's spirit. I went to see this with one other fan and two people who had never read the books and we all loved it. And BTW when did they ever say they were Navy SEALs in the movie?
The Bourne Identity (2002)
strangely unsatisfying
**SPOILERS**
I never got around to seeing the Bourne Identity before now, I'm not sure why. Having seen lots of terribly thrilling trailers for The Bourne Supremacy, I thought I'd get around to it. I thought I'd really enjoy this film, I like Frederick Forsyth books and I was quite the fan of Jack Ryan until all the weapons specs got too much for me. But somehow, this film failed to deliver.
Certainly, Matt Damon was believable as the confused assassin, certainly all the ingredients of car chases, espionage and techno gadgets were there. But none of it ever came together and really 'did it' for me. There was virtually no chemistry with the leading lady, and it all just seemed like it had been done before. Maybe the knowledge that there was a sequel ruined it - at no point did I feel that Bourne was in any danger, and I already know the ending. Disappointing.
I, Robot (2004)
Will Smith is the new Bruce Willis
**SPOILERS**
With his tight vest, his macho wounds and his pithy one liners. Am I the only one who sees this? I, Robot probably horrified all the die hard Asimov fans out there. It takes Asimov's ideas and turns them into two hours of action and explosions with very little soul, and not a shred of originality. It's funny how, in films set in the future, there's always a character who has a fondness for retro style. Could it be that there would be no opportunity for product placement otherwise?
IR was an enjoyable couple of hours of escapism. It had moments when it tried to be serious - some interesting soliloquies on what constitutes life and the nature of free will. However, it mostly settled for Will Smith blowing things up. Which he does do extraordinarily well. His supporting cast were a little lame, but really, the stars were the robots. With more than a nod to the Matrix, the robots were alternately sinister and endearing. Smith's character was every bit as 2D as his mechanical counterparts, despite some real effort on his part. Unfortunately the tone of the movie was such that any efforts at emotion just played out rather badly - including his tortured explanation of just why he hated the robots so much.
Like so many of the big summer blockbusters, I, Robot had all the right ingredients, it just failed to deliver. It could have been a clever coherent nod to the events later portrayed in sci fi classics like Bladerunner and the Matrix. Instead it's just more mindless popcorn. Save the money from your cinema ticket and pick up a copy of Bladerunner instead.
The Pink Panther (1963)
slightly bemused
**SPOILERS**
The Clouseau films are legendary. Unfortunately, I'm just the right age to think of an animated character, rather than a diamond when I see a reference to it. Maybe this stands in the way of my enjoyment of the films. I remember watching them as a child and howling with laughter at the antics of Clouseau, but now it a looks a little bit contrived. But nevertheless, still pretty funny. Sellers plays Clouseau completely straight, totally unaware of what is happening around him - as his investigation falls apart and his unobtrusive undercover squad wreak havoc. It's also an interesting film for what it says about the period - the smoking and drinking, the lifestyles, and the relationships are fascinating to watch. Still, it didn't have howling like it used to. Maybe once the police chief makes an appearance I'll enjoy it a little more.
King Arthur (2004)
who killed King Arthur?
**SPOILERS**
Some might say Clive Owen. Others might say Antoine Fuqua. I say it was Peter Jackson.
Now before all the geeky fan guys and girls start flaming me, let me expand. I loooooove PJ. He's a god. But frankly, he's ruined epic action movies for me because none of them ever seem to live up to the precedent he set with LOTR.
King Arthur is no exception. Now I was a little torn about this film. On the one hand, I love the King Arthur myths - in all their forms - and a couple of hours of heroic guys in armour with bows sounds great to me. On the other hand, I object to a gung-ho Yank - yes Bruckheimer, that's you - rewriting my history, and telling me that he's going to tell 'the true story'. I'm not going to go into all that stuff right now, it's been done to death already. If they'd gone down the Troy route of being 'inspired by' or 'based on' I'd have been a whole lot happier. But really, what were the Saxons doing invading through Scotland? But of a detour, what?
Anyway, what did I like about this film? Well, it looked spectacular. I wish I lived in a Britain that looked like that. The battle scene on the river was incredibly shot - the bright blue sky contrasting with the dazzling whiteness of the snow and the dark leather and furs of the warriors. The costume design was magnificent - the richness of the Roman armour, the dirty peasants, the British warriors, and of course Guinevere's pretty dresses. But why was she wearing one of them on the river to shoot in? As well as being frozen, those trailing sleeves would have been tangling with her bowstring and causing no end of trouble.
The supporting knights were well cast, if not given much to do. I spent the first 30 minutes of the film desperately trying to sort one from another. Even the official website confuses Galahad and Gawain. Nice to see Europeans cast in most of the major roles, although I really don't understand why the obviously Scandinavian actor playing Cerdic gave him an accent straight out of the Deep South.
What didn't I like? Well Clive Owen deserves a special mention. Having an impossibly square jaw and SHOUTING A LOT does not an actor make. At only one stage could I take him seriously - his dire threat to the bishop - 'neither the Church . . . '.
The battle scenes were well shot but so heavily edited that they lost all sense of danger. First Tristan slo-mos towards towards Cerdic, then Guinevere slo-mos towards Cynric ( just as well I checked the credits, otherwise they'd be hairy guy and bald guy). Then Lancelot slo-mos towards Guinevere, and Arthur . . . that got tiresome really quickly.
Well, this could go on forever. Lets try and wrap it up. King Arthur should have been excellent, it had all the right ingredients. But once again, Bruckheimer over eggs the pudding and cooks it at waaaay too high a temperature. Terribly disappointing. The website is ace though!
The Stepford Wives (2004)
frothy and fizzy
**SPOILERS**
Reading through the other reviews on the site for this film, I'm reminded of what my Grandmother always says. 'This would be a very dull world if we all liked the same things.'
How true.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone can be complaining about the fact that this film is not scary enough. Yes, the original was more of a thriller. But from the opening scenes depicting Joanna's latest tv shows it's clear that this film is a comedy. And it's really funny! OK so I missed out on some of the US in jokes 'Connecticut, the only place they wouldn't notice a town full of robots'. However, there was more than enough international humour to keep the film going. I was laughing all the way through the the film. Where to begin? The titles of Bette Midler's books, Roger the hysterically camp gay stereotype, the book club, the exercises . .. .the robodog falling down the stairs(that one made me choke on my popcorn) Joanna's desperate attempts to fit in with her manic cupcake baking . . . .. . The laughs really did keep on coming. And whenever the film started to look like it was getting a little dark, it was immediately lightened up. And I know the Scooby Doo style ending has come in for some stick, but I really enjoyed it. Plus I've always been a bit scared of Christopher Walken. It makes sense that he's really a robot. The film had been rather clumsily edited and it wasn't clear whether the women were robots or mechanically controlled. However, plot consistency isn't really what this film was about. Maybe I'd have been disappointed if I'd seen the original and then this. But, like the Italian Job, Stepford Wives 2004 takes the ideas from the earlier film and uses them in a completely different way.
And what a cast it has! Nicole Kidman plays it straight as the deeply confused Joanna, Matthew Broderick is still unbelievably cute and quite believable as he tries to fit in with the guys. Roger Bannister is incredibly funny, Bette Midler nicely understated and playing brilliantly off Jon Lovitz. 'Clean this house!' 'Clean it yourself!' However, it's Glenn Close and Christopher Walken who steal the film as the demented King and Queen of Stepford.
A real treat.
King Arthur (2004)
who killed King Arthur?
**SPOILERS**
Some might say Clive Owen. Others might say Antoine Fuqua. I say it was Peter Jackson.
Now before all the geeky fan guys and girls start flaming me, let me expand. I loooooove PJ. He's a god. But frankly, he's ruined epic action movies for me because none of them ever seem to live up to the precedent he set with LOTR.
King Arthur is no exception. Now I was a little torn about this film. On the one hand, I love the King Arthur myths - in all their forms - and a couple of hours of heroic guys in armour with bows sounds great to me. On the other hand, I object to a gung-ho Yank - yes Bruckheimer, that's you - rewriting my history, and telling me that he's going to tell 'the true story'. I'm not going to go into all that stuff right now, it's been done to death already. If they'd gone down the Troy route of being 'inspired by' or 'based on' I'd have been a whole lot happier. But really, what were the Saxons doing invading through Scotland? But of a detour, what?
Anyway, what did I like about this film? Well, it looked spectacular. I wish I lived in a Britain that looked like that. The battle scene on the river was incredibly shot - the bright blue sky contrasting with the dazzling whiteness of the snow and the dark leather and furs of the warriors. The costume design was magnificent - the richness of the Roman armour, the dirty peasants, the British warriors, and of course Guinevere's pretty dresses. But why was she wearing one of them on the river to shoot in? As well as being frozen, those trailing sleeves would have been tangling with her bowstring and causing no end of trouble.
The supporting knights were well cast, if not given much to do. I spent the first 30 minutes of the film desperately trying to sort one from another. Even the official website confuses Galahad and Gawain. Nice to see Europeans cast in most of the major roles, although I really don't understand why the obviously Scandinavian actor playing Cerdic gave him an accent straight out of the Deep South.
What didn't I like? Well Clive Owen deserves a special mention. Having an impossibly square jaw and SHOUTING A LOT does not an actor make. At only one stage could I take him seriously - his dire threat to the bishop - 'neither the Church . . . '.
The battle scenes were well shot but so heavily edited that they lost all sense of danger. First Tristan slo-mos towards towards Cerdic, then Guinevere slo-mos towards Cynric ( just as well I checked the credits, otherwise they'd be hairy guy and bald guy). Then Lancelot slo-mos towards Guinevere, and Arthur . . . that got tiresome really quickly.
Well, this could go on forever. Lets try and wrap it up. King Arthur should have been excellent, it had all the right ingredients. But once again, Bruckheimer over eggs the pudding and cooks it at waaaay too high a temperature. Terribly disappointing. The website is ace though!
Walking Tall (2004)
tedious
**SPOILERS**
The Rock appears to be popping up on lots of British chat shows lately, and always comes off well. He's articulate, has great presence and seems pretty quick off the mark. Why then, did he make this godawful film? I did only catch this film by chance, one of those 'lets see the next film that starts' things. And fortunately we were the only people in the cinema because we were so bored by the time it got to the climax that we were talking about The Bourne Supremacy. About the only thing this film has going for it is that it's mercifully short. And Johnny Knoxville.
Maybe I'm being a little harsh here, maybe this film worked better for an American audience - we just don't hero worship our military like they do. And our villages and communities tend to be ruined by little things like pit closures rather than the opening of casinos. But overall, the story was just too twee for me. And as for writing . . .
It felt very much like the director didn't trust his audience to recognise the goodies from the baddies. And so we were treated to clumsy scenes where the two opposing factions play American Football together - which is ridiculous in itself! However, what made it worse was the way that the football game was used to highlight the ethics of the two groups - The Rock and co discuss real tactics; the generic baddies plot to disable and possibly maim their opponents. And just in case anyone wasn't sure who was who, the big bad guy then pops open a bottle of beer and gets in his car! Damn, these are bad people! Why didn't they just give him an eyepatch, or maybe even a fluffy white cat to stroke!
And don't get me started on the female lead. She pole dances pretty well and wears a bra pretty well too. Of course, that's all the script required her to do.
This film claims to have been based on a true story. I bet the real life residents of that town have now lynched their sheriff in protest that this film was ever made.
Not even Johnny going postal with a rifle in someone's living room can save this piece of rubbish. Avoid!!
Shrek 2 (2004)
fast, funny and rather wicked in places
**SPOILERS**
I enjoyed the first movie, but it didn't blow me away. In fact, I watched it once on dvd a couple of years ago, and I've had no desire to see it again. That is, until I watched Shrek 2 last night. Now I'm wondering if the first one was, in fact, an awful lot better than I gave it credit for.
The genius of Shrek is that it combines parody with originality - pop culture references abound - from Farbucks, down to Puss's hat grabbing a la Indiana Jones. Yet it is still fresh and funny, with enough originality to keep it moving. Although some of the references were a little wasted on UK audiences - notably, the 'Knights' sequence. 'Cops' is not a big thing over here - I still really enjoyed it. The character of Puss really made this film for me - he combined elements of Zorro, Garfield and of course, El Mariachi. I particularly loved his cute kitty tactic to fool his opponents, and his low level mumbling in Spanish after his tumble off Donkey. And major kudos to the scriptwriters for getting my favourite old chestnut 'why the long face' gag in. And Jonathan Ross as the ugly sister was just classic.
Queen of the Damned (2002)
Awful. Just awful
**SPOILERS**
Does Stuart Townsend have no shame? I quite liked him in Shooting Fish, playing a cheeky chappie. The next film I saw him in was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And not content with mincing his way through that, he does the same in Queen of the Damned. Admittedly, the poor guy is having a hard time of it at the moment, given that he will forever be 'the man that was sent home from LOTR - the greatest film of our time'. Although that may be some of karmic force repaying him for his performance in Queen of the Damned.
In his defence, Townsend is fighting a losing battle. The script appears to have been written by someone who read the book 10 years ago and is trying to write a script based on what they can remember. 'There was really cool character called Mael, who was a Druid, but I can't remember who he was or what he did . . . never mind, I'll put him in anyway.' Townsend also has the disadvantage of having to follow Cruise's sterling performance in Interview with the Vampire. He's obviously trying to go down a completely different route and make the character his own - unfortunately, he doesn't quite get there. He looks the part of a vampire goth rock star, but that's as far as it goes. Aaliyah was a magnificent Aakasha - however the script seemed to demand little more from her than the ability to wear a very sexy costume and hiss a lot - although her tragic death may have meant that lots of wonderfully written exposition could not be filmed. Yeah, right.
As a sexy vampire horror movie, Queen of the Damned is okay. As an adaptation of hugely passionate novel it fails in so many ways. The characters have been butchered, the stories and histories irreparably damaged. It's only saving grace is it's soundtrack.
Excalibur (1981)
the true story . .
**SPOILER**
Hey, if Bruckheimer can make the claim, why can't I? I've got as much right to as he has!
Okay, that's enough of the Bruckheimer bashing. Possibly the best thing for me about the legends of King Arthur is that you can make them anything you want them to be. Hell, recent research has 'proved' that King Arthur hailed from Turkey! There are no facts associated with these legends, just a thousand years of myth and magic. And that's why I'm such a fan of our once and future king. I have always loved Malory's romantic interpretation of King Arthur that is much more medieval than dark ages. And John Boorman's Excalibur holds true to Malory's vision of brave knights, dark deeds and mysterious sorcerers.
It's strange in today's cinematic world of CGI creatures and 'Massive' generated armies to see how it used to be done - get a large crowd of enthusiastic extras, put them in full armour and tell them to start hitting each other. In some odd way, it seems less real! Equally , the rather crude ageing techniques - the longer the beard, the older the character is - could spoil the flow, but the film has been so lovingly crafted and the actors so immersed in their parts that it doesn't really matter.
Williamson is a wonderful Merlin, his slightly comic exterior hinting at the darkness within, Helen Mirren is a deliciously dangerous Morgan, and Nigel Terry makes a great Arthur - the contrast between his youthful exuberance and his world weary final battle with Mordred is extremely powerful. There's a great supporting cast of British talent as well - Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart . . . all wonderful. The only characters who let the film down were Lancelot and Guinevere - I didn't feel their searing passion nor their struggle to contain it for the good of the land.
To anyone who is eagerly anticipating the imminent release of 'King Arthur', I recommend watching Excalibur first. I have a feeling that Bruckheimer's effort will be more epic battle than story. Boorman gets it the right way round, even if it is a wee bit rushed in places.
Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)
a beautiful adaptation
SPOILERS
Interview with the Vampire is a powerful, moving opening chapter of a story. I think it's a shame that Ann Rice had to jump on the cash cow and take it long past the point where it's interesting any more, but here is not the place for that discussion. I followed the ups and downs of the movie adaptation with great interest - Rice's hostility to the actors, her campaigns against the film, and her subsequent retraction of her objections. That alone makes this an interesting film. However, it is as powerful, and moving as the book itself. The long slow unfolding of the loss of Louis's soul and his tortured quest to retain his humanity is one of the most powerful performances I have ever seen, and contrasts beautifully with Lestat's devil-may-care, detached killer. Yet all along, one feels that Lestat has depths that he is hiding - Cruise obviously read the chronicles and occasionally hints at the philosopher lurking under Lestat's pale skin. Kirsten Dunst also turns in a memorable performance as the woman forced to live in the body of a child. It's a shame that they couldn't keep Claudia's age as it was in the book, but no six year old could ever have lived up to the role. She is the perfect vampire - with no memory of her human life she is cold and remorseless in her killing. Yet, she is also strangely vulnerable, and the death of Claudia still makes me cry, despite having seen the film so many times in the ten years since it's release. The atmosphere of the film is delicately handled, from the swampy, sultry airs of New Orleans to decadent 19th Century Paris. Antonio Banderas hints at the depths of Armand's character, and his coven are as repulsive as they are in the books. This is one adaptation that can hold it's own as film in it's own right, as well as doing justice to the book - a rare thing, until LOTR came along. I only wish Jordan had kept the reins and prevented the travesty that was Queen of the Damned.
Troy (2004)
trying just that little bit too hard . . . .
Whilst I've always liked the story, I've never really liked the Iliad. It's so easy to get bogged down in all the 'mighty voices' and it reads like a series of small fights between lots of different characters. I've always preferred the Odyssey, it has so much more story. That said, it's easy to see why Hollywood wanted to make a film of this. It has flawed heroes, romance, tragedy and more importantly lots and lots of violence. The continual appearance of a nearly naked Brad Pitt doesn't do it any harm either. The trouble for me was, it seemed to be trying too hard to be everything. As an action/battle film, it was superb. Cast of thousands, authentic looking fights and weapons, lots of blood . . . . but it was trying to be an epic romance as well, which I really struggled with, especially given that romance does not figure too strongly in the text. I also struggled with their attempts to portray strong women - Briseis in particular. Her redemption of Achilles was just a little difficult to swallow - especially given that I'm pretty sure that Homer's version has him cutting her throat on Patrocles' memorial. I also struggled with te happy ending element of the film too - As any scholar will no, Troy does not continue to survive with the sword, and Hector's child is doomed to be viciously murdered, rather than escaping to Mount Ida.
That said, I really did enjoy this film, although it felt a long one. Brad Pitt's portrayal of Achilles as a tortured hero was sheer poetry, even if it didn't fit with my own view of the petulant, egotistical maniac of Homer. Peter O Toole was devastatingly good as Priam and Eric Bana was a perfect Hector, one of the few characters, along with Odysseus, remaining true to the spirit of the text. Orlando Bloom made a pretty Paris, but the inclusion of his archery rankled with me - it was jarring reminder of his role in LOTR and really spoiled the suspension of disbelief.
Troy will probably go down as one of the classics, and it is a great film. But ultimately, it butchered Homer's story too much for me to take it seriously.
Josie and the Pussycats (2001)
satire disguised as bubblegum girly fluff
**SPOILERS**
I've never seen the cartoon version of Josie and Pussycats - in fact, I thought they were the girls out of Captain Caveman. Ooops. However, I find it difficult to believe that the cartoon version can be any more fun than the movie. This is one of those films that you don't set out to watch. I caught the last 30 minutes on TV one night and rushed out to buy it. I'm sure there are plenty of early teenage girls who will watch this film and just enjoy the girly-rawk music, and the romance and triumph of the goodies over the baddies. The grown ups out there will get a lot more than they bargained for. JATP is a great satire on the fickleness of the modern music world and how it feeds on and feeds up the fads of todays teens. From the branded hotel rooms through to the merciless killing off of any musician who catches on to the plot, it mocks modern life in such a gentle way that many people don't even realize what it's doing. Even the anti-climactical ending seems to sort of fit - Fiona's big plan to brainwash the youth of America to like her is so absurd it's hysterical.
The pussycats themselves are pretty good - there's a real chemistry there between the girls that's lovely to watch. It makes you wish that you'd had friends like that when you were their age. However, for me, the show is stolen away by DuJour. Although their appearances are only brief, they summed up everything that is wrong and right about the pop industry today. And I can't believe they got 'back door lover' past the censors. And the description of how they sustained their horrific injuries in the parking lot of the Metallica gig had me creased over.
The Mummy Returns (2001)
annoying kid!!
** SPOILERS**
I'm a big fan of The Mummy for the very simple reason that if you want a couple of hours of brainless, silly entertainment, there is no better film. except maybe Van Helsing. . . . .
It had a cheeky charm about it, a tongue in cheek humour and acknowledged it's lack of originality in every scene it stole from Indiana Jones, from Hammer horror movies, from King Solomon's Mines and so on. Where The Mummy Returns fails, is that it fails to do this. This is a very silly film trying to be serious and it just doesn't work. Introducing plot devices whereby Rick OConnell is destined to be the saviour of mankind is just stupid. Underusing the funniest character in the film(Jonathan) is just stupid. Making fundamental changes that can't possibly tie in the first film is just stupid. And that child is just stupid.
I'm not a kid friendly person to start with. And whilst he was quite cute, and obviously enthusiastic and not a bad actor, I just didn't like him. It seemed like a way of getting more kids to like the film really which just annoyed me.
I do actually quite like this film, but given a choice I would rather watch The Mummy. I like the way Evie evolves as a character, but she is the only one who does - and it's supposed to be set 9 years later. And how is it that if she's the reincarnation of Nefertiti, Imhotep thought she was Anck-sun-amun in the first film? I know this film isn't supposed to be taken seriously, but when Sommers expects you to, I feel the need to pull him up.
The Mummy Returns feels like a sequel that rehashes all the best bits of the first film - all the same plot devices, fight scenes and action sequences. And it fails to deliver the same payload. And don't even start me on the Rock. I really looked forward to seeing him in this film, I loved the idea of his character. And what did I get? A 2 minute prologue, the rest was a CGI scorpion monster that growled. Disappointing.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
like eating McDonalds food . . . .
**Spoiler**
. . . . When you're really hungry, and you haven't eaten it for a while. You savour every mouthful and ask yourself why you don't eat there more often. An hour later, you're hungry again.
Azkaban had many many many good points. Howver, there were so many things that disappointed me too. I freely admit to being a Potter nut - damn, I even wrote my BA Hons dissertation on Harry! So that makes me feel somewhat proprietorial towards him. Lets start with the good.
The look and feel of the film was absolutely spot on. Don't misunderstand me, the first two were great. But they felt a bit Enid Blyton really - there was lots of sunshine and 40s style clothing. Cuaron brings Hogwarts a bit more up to date, and the kids feel much more real kids. The 'male bonding' scene in the Gryffindor boys dorm was particularly noteworthy. Although having introduced a plot device of sweets that make you sound like animals, why didn't it get reused later for Hermione's werewolf impression? I also find it difficult to believe that Professor McGonagall would have let the Gryffindors wander around the school in varying states of disarray the way they did. There'd have been some pretty stiff detentions handed out for sure.
It's nice to watch all the kids growing up, Neville in particular has changed rather a lot since the last film. The three principals get better with every film they make, and I sincerely hope that they stick it out for all of them. The dynamics between them are a joy to watch, particular Ron and Hermione's burgeoning 'romance'. Rupert Grint is particularly brilliant and realises Ron perfectly. I love the scene where he wakes from his nightmare. 'The spiders! The spiders want me to tapdance!'
The adult cast were equally brilliant, with Cuaron setting up lots of people for future use - I can't wait to see Paul Whitehouse as Sir Cadogan, and a bit more of Madame Rosmerta. Emma Thompson was deliciously deranged as Professor Trelawney, and Robert Hardy a wonderful Fudge. Once again, Snape was brilliant, but horribly underused. And when will they bring back Madame Hooch?
Now, criticisms. I'll say it again. WHERE WAS SNAPE? In the book, the character of Severus Snape is getting ever more complex, his motivations and his relationships to other characters are being slowly revealed. This was completely omitted from the film. I realize that there is an awful lot of material to get through, but still . . . . And I'm not sure how Harry got away without a detention after Snape caught him wandering around the school AT NIGHT. The Weasley twins are getting worse and worse. I'm beginning to really worry what they will do when we get to Order of the Phoenix, where they have moments that steal the book away from Harry entirely. Lets replace them with CGI Weasleys, they could only be an improvement. And what happened to our Head Boy? And what is going on with Draco? He comes on the big bad Slytherin king, and ends up running away blubbing every time. That's just wrong. And I still don't know what to make of Lupin and Black. They were both hampered by the way their plotlines were so badly rushed, but neither of them lived up to my expectations. I always pictured Remus as a much more attractive character than Thewlis, although his acting was spot on. I loved the scene with the Boggart where he put the gramophone on whilst having the students attack the creature.
The relationship between Sirius, James, Remus and Peter was never fully explained, which might explain why I found the character of Sirius so deeply unsatisfying. We never find out how he escaped from Azkaban, how they became Animagi, or the guilt Sirius feels about Lily and James. He flips straight from drooling madman to asking Harry to live with him which was too much for me to take. His final scenes with Harry were nicely done though.
Pettigrew's character was completely butchered. Like Sirius, his history was not explored, nor the significance of his escape. There's going to have to be an awful lot of backfilling in Goblet of Fire to fill in all this stuff. What hurt about these omissions was that they were so unnecessary. Rowling wrote two beautiful scenes in the book - the three broomsticks and the shrieking shack' - that filled in all these gaps. The screenplay writer just stomped all over them.
Despite these major flaws, I do still love this film and will go and see it again. My expectations were very high, and it would have been unlikely for them to have been wholly fulfilled. Maybe in Goblet of Fire?
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
dramatic departures from the text, but no less wonderful for it
**SPOILERS**
It's difficult to imagine what these posts would have looked like had I written them when I first viewed these films. Now, I'm writing them having seen the extended editions of FOTR and TT and the advantage of having seen ROTK more times than I care to admit. I know that some of the issues I had with TT were resolved in ROTK - the main one being the apparent character assassination of Faramir. In the book he rejects the ring utterly, yet in the film he comes close to falling under it's spell. However, the extended edition and ROTK highlights the nature of his relationship with Denethor and things start to make much more sense.
TT also sees the introduction of my favourite character in the books - Eowyn. Although I enjoyed Arwens extended pony ride with Frodo, I'm not sure why Jackson felt he needed another feisty female when Eowyn was waiting in the wings. Fortunately he came to his senses and Arwen went back to hanging around looking pretty and pale. I've never understood how Aragorn can choose Arwen over Eowyn, but hey, his loss is Faramir's gain.
Miranda Otto was absolutely superb as Eowyn. She was strong, yet vulnerable, beautiful and cold, everything she should have been. Her scenes with Wormtongue really stood out for me, and the dialogue that belonged to Aragorn in the text fitted well in the scene over Theodred's death bed. And I can't talk about Eowyn without mentioning Theoden. Bernard Hill broke my heart completely in both this and ROTK. His rejuvenation by Gandalf, his love for his niece, his internal conflicts, and above all, his grief for his son. Bernard made Theoden a better man than he was in the book - where he comes across as a reflection of Denethor without the rings corrupting influence. His tendency to doom and self destruction is still there, but Aragorn's influence tempers that.
Merry and Pippin continued to delight me as faithful portrayals of their characters from the book. They make a refreshing contrast from the heavier stuff with Sam and Frodo. And of course, Gollum. Watching Smeagol struggle to overcome his demons and ultimately failing is gut wrenching. And considering that he's a CGI character that's incredible. Unlike the awful Jar-Jar, one completely accepts Gollum as a real person. Even though he doesn't like po-tay-toes.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
how can you have a one line summary for this film?
**SPOILERS maybe**
I've always loved Tolkien, having really re-discovered him at University. Yet, I didn't realise how much I loved LOTR until I saw this film. Which is very unusual for me, being someone who tends to prefer books to films. Whatever. The Fellowship of the Ring is a beautifully crafted interpretation of Tolkiens vision of Middle Earth. It looks beautiful, sounds beautiful and even feels beautiful, if that's possible. There aren't many films where you can suspend disbelief entirely the way you do with the LOTR films. I can't count how many times I have set out to watch this film and look at aspects of it's production - the relative sizes of the different races, the use of CGI - yet every time I just get sidetracked by the story and lose interest in the how and the why. The first time I saw a picture of the cast onset in costume it totally threw me to see them in 'real' sizes. I was absolutely convinced that the hobbits really were that small.
The casting was spot on, the acting superb, I could go on and on and on but that would probably get boring. Of the three films, this does feel like the longest, but my theory is that that is because of the nature of time in the film - FOTR takes place of a period of several months. The principal action in TT and ROTK is much more compressed. Of course there are lots of things missing, and Tom Bombadil was sadly missed, but overall I can't see how this film could have been any better. And anyone who hasn't seen the extended edition is missing out. It enhances the experience considerably
Van Helsing (2004)
predictably brilliant
**SPOILERS**
It's groaning with cliches, there's way too much CGI, rotten accents, hammy acting, excessively dramatic moments, it has good goodies, bad baddies, slightly bad goodies and bumbling goodies, ludicrous plot devices and is oh so predictable - in short, bloody brilliant.
If you liked the Mummy, then you will love Van Helsing. It's nicely filmed, the opening scenes in black and white are a nice touch. From then on in, the mock gothic horror feel is well maintained, much as the ancient egyptian atmosphere worked so well in the Mummy. It's not worth going into the plot - hell, Sommers didn't bother! Suffice to say, there's lots of CGI ass kicking, and of course, the girl needs rescuing a couple of times. One criticism is that Sommers spent too much time setting up Van Helsing's mysterious past without ever resolving any of it. It's just a little too obvious that he's saving it all up for a sequel.
I felt the film was, in places, a little too reliant on CGI. I would have preferred to see Van Helsing and Dracula go head to head, rather than their monstrous incarnations. And if Stan Lee doesn't sue, I'll be amazed, because Dracula was blatantly Bloodscream.
As far as acting goes, Richard Roxburgh was deliciously camp as Dracula, his brides hilariously silly. Kate Beckinsale feisty and offering the most entertaining Romanian accent since Tim Curry in Congo. Hugh Jackman brought Wolverine out of the bag again, although instead of claws he had whirling blades that slid out of his sleeves. Cool. By far and away the best performance came from David Wenham, as Karl, the bumbling friar/Q stereotype. He had all the best lines, and just stole every scene he appeared in. My personal favourite was when he walked into the hall after a big werewolf incident and mildly enquired 'why does it smell of wet dog in here?'
To summarise then, cheesy, silly farcical fun, and i can't wait for the next one. As long as Sommers promises not to insert an annoying kid.
Mystery Men (1999)
tongue in cheek spoof for fangirls and boys
**SPOILERS**
I've always loved comics - I love the characters, the stories, the action etc. Mystery Men does for the world inhabited by comic books, what Terry Pratchett did for Middle Earth with his discworld series. If superheroes were real, you certainly would get corporate sell outs, as well as lots of wannabes who ran around in silly costumes. Mystery Men is a cynical, black comedy twist on the heroic worlds inhabited by Batman and the XMen. And dammit but it works beautifully. The group dynamics are brilliant, the super powers are laughable, and the baddies are wonderful. My favourite has to be Eddie Izzard - although I love Eddie anyway. 'Disco is NOT DEAD! Disco is life!'
Janeane Garofalo is particularly noteworthy as the bowler with some separation issues with her late father. The palpable discomfort of the rest of the team as she bickers with the skull of her murdered parent is a joy to watch.
Perhaps you have to be a comic fan in order to appreciate the silliness of Mystery Men. I certainly did, and i get more out of this film every single time i watch it. If you like Ben Stiller, and you 'get' the comic thing, you have to see this film.
The Mummy (1999)
the mutant offspring of indiana jones and alan quatermain
**SPOILERS**
The Mummy is one of those films that you can watch and watch again without ever getting tired of it. It's groaning under the weight of the cliches, the plot is horrifically predictable and it doesn't have a shred of originality. But that doesn't mean that I don't love it. This film definitely makes it into my top ten. In fact, 'The Mummy' was the first dvd I ever bought, and I'm still watching it. The CGI holds up enormously well, even considering the leaps and bounds we've made in the field since then.
I'm an enormous Indiana Jones fan, and Sommers has taken all my favourite things about Indiana Jones and shamelessly reused them. Fraser is brilliant as O'Connell, Rachel Weisz believable as kick ass librarian Evie, and I just loved John Hannah as her reprobate brother. Even the way his accent wavers between jolly hockey sticks and broad Edinburgh twang doesn't noticeably upset me. This is a film that doesn't take itself too seriously, and has no illusions about what it is - a couple of hours of escapist fun. don't watch this film if you get annoyed about authentic historical details. Do watch this film, if. like me, you love anything vaguely historical, and have a hero thing. I waited with bated breath for the sequel and was a little let down. But that's another story . . . .
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
scary, and gory and funny and really really good
**SPOILERS**
I'm not the biggest fan of horror films in the world. I like one once in a while, but they aren't my first choice for a nice night in. I don't think I've got any in my collection. But once in a while, i rather like them, and dawn of the dead really fitted the bill. I actually wanted to see Shaun of the Dead, but it wasn't available.
Because I haven't ever seen the first one, I'm not going to be all judgmental about which film is superior. I really enjoyed this one. It was tense, funny, sad, gory and exciting all in turn. And it didn't leave you chance to breathe between each incident. OK, a lot of it was terribly predictable, but the agony it made you go through before you saw it happen made up for that - i am, of course, referring to the zombie mummy and baby incident. Plus all the stuff with the annoying girl and her stupid dog was rather irritating, but not overwhelmingly so.
The whole zombie thing is rather interesting though, isn't it? The mindless unstoppable mob, relentless in their pursuit of blood and their pound of human flesh. . . sounds like your average daily mail reader to me!
Zoolander (2001)
confirms every bitch thought you ever had about beautiful people
**SPOILERS**
I've seen this film a few times now, and whilst it doesn't floor me each time like it did the first, it's still hilarious. Stiller and Wilson seem to really work well together - actually, what's the thing there - are they best friends or something?
Zoolander is an hour and a half of satirical silliness, poking fun at the stereotypes of a business that doesn't actually need satire to be funny. Derek and Hansel are 'brainless pretty boys without enough brains to fill a teaspoon' (Thanks JKR!) but their hearts are in the right place. I've always had a bit of a thing for Stiller, but even I have to admit that it's pushing it a bit to accept him as a male model - ditto Wilson. But that's one of the things that makes this film so great. I could go on - there's the cameos, the 'walk-off' the gasoline fight . . . . dammit, just go and see it yourself! You won't be disappointed.
The French Connection (1971)
yawn, yawn, and yawn again
**SPOILERS**
I watched this film on the recommendation of a friend, and got terribly excited about all the blurb on the box. 'Gene Hackman won an Oscar! Oooh, looks like this will be great!' How wrong I was. Maybe I'm not looking at this film in the correct light, after all, it's 'gritty realism', documentary style, car chase and violence was probably cutting edge in 1971, but it certainly didn't do anything for me. There seemed to be very little plot, and virtually no characterisation - who is Doyle? What was that incident where someone got killed? I've got the sequel to watch, but I really don't know if I can bear to. And another thing, can an American cop really commandeer a civilian car? And how does the civilian get redress if it gets wrecked?
Chocolat (2000)
delicious, but like Cadburys chocolate . . . not the good stuff
**SPOILERS**
If you only watch Chocolat for one reason, make it this one. Johnny Depp. He's not required to do much but smoulder, but by golly, he does it well.
OK, now the girly gushing stuff is over, I have to say that this is a 'nice' film. It won't set your world on fire, it won't change your perceptions, or make you go out and take a stand against something. What it will make you do is eat chocolate. I actually had to stop the film and go out and buy some. Hallstrom seems to do evocative very well - in all the scenes in the Chocolaterie, you can practically smell it.
Juliette Binoche seems to fit effortlessly into village life in fifties France, Judi Dench is delightfully irascible, and Hugh O Connor benefits from having lost that awful nose he had in the three musketeers. And although Carrie Ann Moss performs well, it's just too weird to see her out of leathers.
I enjoyed chocolat, but you have to be in the right mood for it. If you want to waste a couple of hours on a happy ever after fairytale, then go for it. Otherwise, don't. It will just spoil your appetite.