- Premium reviews
- Express reviews
- Reviews rated
- Ratings received
Once again the makers of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "Notting Hill" have topped themselves with "Bridget Jones' Diary", a Smart, Funny and Realistic Romantic Comedy. The Formula Still works combine an All British Cast with an American Leading Lady and watch the Characters and Chemistry Shine, but this one is a Little more Daring, Hugh Grant is cast against type as a Lecherous Philanderer... And it works Brilliantly. Renee Zellweger is cast against type as a Plump, Graceless Brit. And it works Beautifully. Colin Firth is cast as... Well, Colin Firth... And it works Perfectly. It's not quite the same as Helen Fielding's book, but it still gives the appropriate depiction of Bridget Jones, and does the book justice. If you've read the book, it won't be a letdown. I've seen the film twice, because one group of my friends couldn't make it to see it the first time I saw it and it was just as fun the second time. If I had one complaint with the film, character development wasn't as good as the book, such as in Bridget's parents and friends, but I guess you can't have everything. Rene Zellwegger did an impressive job as the insecure Bridget Jones. Colin Firth had an impressive role, but I think there could have been more to his part other than the love him/hate him bit that was Bridget Jones focus throughout the film. Bridget Jones falls in love with her boss (Hugue Grant) whom she gets mostly by wearing see through shirts and her inevitable charm. Further along the story to make things more complicated her ex boy friend (Colin Firth) tells her that he likes her exactly for who she is. I think she was mesmerised by that. Because they're always at each other’s throats. Reene Zellweger tackles the British accent amazingly well. Director Sharon Maguire Knows the Terrain, that's Blindingly Obvious. She has, in many ways, made the Perfect Romant ic Comedy, I Simply Cannot pick a fault. I Adored the Characters and Loved the Script which Literally had me Laughing Immediately and Constantly. From the Hilarious Starting Credits at the Train Station, the First Character to open his mouth had me in a Fit of Laughter, and During the End Credits it Doesn't Stop, as the Names roll, the Jokes just Keep on Coming. It's a film that keeps of Giving. If you are look for a good love story, funny film, or just a good film in general you should definitely see this one.
I love this film. Both Tremors and Tremors2: Aftershocks are brilliant. I will never get board of these types of films. They have a mix of horror and comedy that’s great for anyone who does not get scared easily. These films will put you at the edge of your seat as much if not more than the alien or killer films. Years after their first appearance in Perfection, Nevada, and those nasty man-eaters have reared their ugly heads in Mexico. So the Mexican authorities call Earl Bassett (Fred Ward), for help. Joining Earl this time is a goofy groupie by the name of Grady Hoover (Christopher Gartin). Grady refuses to take the life-and-death nature of this hunting trip seriously, until he witnesses the awesome power of the ravenous creatures for himself. When Earl and Grady learn of the true magnitude of this new infestation, Earl enlists the aid of indomitable survivalist friend, Burt Gummer, a one man army who comes equipped with enough guns and explosives to destroy the whole country. But the graboids are getting smarter, meaner, and uglier... This direct-to-video sequel may not be quite as good as the original, but it's pretty close. It would have been better if Kevin Bacon and Reba McEntire had shown up, but Tremors 2 still has that great mix of thrills and laughs that made the first film so entertaining.
The main dog, Lou, is obviously a plot to woo the audience with his charm. And of course, he bonds with his young boy. "Cats and Dogs" is one of those films that only appeal to children in my opinion. The cute fuzzy animals that provide the main focus are sure to satisfy the attention of any child, and the technological absurdity of the conflict between these to-all-outward-appearances docile house pets is sure to amuse any parents. Like "Shrek," there are many jokes which are intended for the adult perspective (mostly in the vein of mocking James Bond films) and, additionally, there are some spectacular special effects, which will appeal to all ages. "Cats and Dogs" is one of those films that, if it had come out maybe five years ago, would have been instantly hailed as a classic. There is a sort of "Wizard of Oz" or "Mary Poppins" wizardry to it, but the special effects that it employs have become so commonplace that "Cats and Dogs" seems sort of twice-viewed even though this is its first run. This shouldn't be construed as a severe criticism, remember that "Wizard of Oz" on its second viewing is far more entertaining than most films are on their first. There is probably nothing in this film that will dazzle you, but it will keep your attention, and there are plenty of laughs, so I recommend you go see it, especially if you have children.
Firstly, let me start by saying that fans of Harry Potter will most likely not be disappointed in the new film adaptation. It's VERY faithful to the book. In fact, it's a little TOO faithful. This film tries to be so faithful, in fact, that it ends up feeling overstuffed and a bit underdone. When I heard that the first Harry Potter book was being turned into a movie, I admit, my first thought was "they are going to butcher another great book into an awful film" It happens all the time, but then I saw the previews, and watched the press releases where J.K Rowling herself says that she couldn't be more pleased with the movie, and if the author is pleased... well I can't see how we wouldn't be. Let's start with the acting. It's first rate for the most part (although some of the child actors overdo it a bit, but not Radcliffe, who is perfect in the lead role). The veteran British supporting actors, however, shine brightly. Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltraine, especially, have amusing and highly memorable takes on their characters. The production design is phenomenal, full of beautiful and sometimes startling images. John Seale's photography is beautiful, as is John Williams score (reminiscent of his work on Hook). The visual effects rely heavily on CGI (computer-generated imagery) and consequently FEEL like special effects. A few highlights, however, include a ballgame in which the participants fly around the stadium on brooms and a troll who invades the school. Beyond that, however, the effects are simply serviceable and never completely convince us that what we are watching is real in any way. Chris Columbus' direction is, as usual, rather unimaginative. He misses several opportunities to find awe in the story, which it needs in order to hook the audience. Too often, the magic in the film is treated matter-of-factly and unsurprisingly. My biggest complaint, however, comes from the sheer length of the film. At 2 1/2 hours, it is simply too long for its target audience (as well as for the adults who will be taking the kids). Part of the problem is in the structure of the story. It's extremely episodic, with several scenes really having little or nothing to do with the main plot (which involves the stone mentioned in the title). In fact, so much time is spent on these sidetrack episodes; the main plot is given short shrift. Another part of the problem related to the length of the film has to do with the climax and what comes immediately before it. A live chess game (with life size pieces and real weapons) is a remarkable and imaginative set piece. But it's not the climax. Instead, the climax comes 20 minutes later and never lives up to the excitement level of the chess game (or the much early ball game). Following the rather rushed and under whelming climax comes another 20 minutes of "wrapping up," which feels like an eternity. One can look at Columbus' past movies and see this is a typical problem with him (Home Alone is a perfect example). In addition, the last 20 minutes of the movie seems like a commercial for the movie's sequel (which, despite reports to the contrary, WILL include the same cast, according to an article released today). So all in all, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is sure to be a huge hit for its first few weeks, when the ardent fans will stand in line for hours to see it. But once that first rush is through, I suspect its box office will fall off rather sharply. This is not the kind of film that kids will want to see more than once until it comes out on video, when they can pause it for necessary bathroom breaks. I think there will be a sequel to this film; I hope that it will be just as entertaining.
Bearing no resemblance to the endearingly campy original, this film is a complete disappointment. Mark Wahlberg cannot be faulted for this flop, but rather the director Tim Burton is to blame. I expected the visuals of this film to be stunning and gothic like in Sleepy Hollow, but rather I felt bored with the lacklustre scenery and lame looking apes. The attempt to sexualise the apes was so disturbing and awful that I could only chuckle to myself at the spectacle. Helena Bonham Carter's obvious attraction to the astronaut was completely odd, and inexplicable. Also, despite the misleading previews, there is NO romance in this film whatsoever, such a letdown. The acting was bad, over the top, one-liners that didn't make sense. It was like they tried to pick out types of scenes from big Hollywood movies like Gladiator and Braveheart, and they fail miserably. In a full audience, during most of the "serious" scenes, people were busting out laughing, because the movie was so ridiculous. It was boring, confusing, and did absolutely nothing for me. I was so disappointed in this film I am almost on the verge of never going to see another Tim Burton film ever - it made me that angry. Too man one-liners, too many cardboard characters, and what is the deal with making the humans speak English?? In the original, they just grunted, which justified why these intelligent apes use the humans as cattle. I find it a huge suspension of disbelief that these apes think humans soulless and less than animals when in fact they speak the exact same language that the apes do. Maybe it was some sort of comment on race relations, but it didn't work.
Robert Zemeckis has made a career out of melding excellent stories with great visual effects ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Back to the Future", "Forrest Gump"). He is a very versatile director who can adeptly shift from genre to genre. In this film, he again demonstrates his talent, creating a spooky supernatural thriller delivering some of the best suspense I've seen in years. The story by Sarah Kernochan ("9 ½ Weeks", "Sommersby") where the dead victim communicates with someone living to finger the killer is not innovative and has been done numerous times in various forms. What makes this film good is Zemeckis' presentation. It has elements of Hitchcock suspense with the benefit of modern technology and visual effects. Zemeckis' use of camera and sound produces extraordinary suspense and startling surprises that make viewers jump out of their seats. There is a lot of silence in this film with no background music which makes the surprises that much more dramatic. He peppers the film with false alarms so you never know if the build-up is for something genuinely scary or just the dog. Though none of the techniques is new, they are all used extremely effectively. The film creates terror with very little gore and violence, proving that the use of these techniques in horror films is overdone and unnecessary. Often what we don't see is far more frightening than what we do. The beginning of the film starts off as any film would, introducing the characters, and setting up plot points. There's also a false accusation, which makes you think the whole film will be about that one thing, but then an unexpected twist happens. And I loved the way they did that! I won't give away the twist for those of you who haven't had the chance to see WLB. Anyway, the middle is spent with mysterious goings on, and Pfeiffer's character trying to understand what's going on. As soon as she does get a grip on what's going on, she is determined to get to the bottom of the story. Which she does, in the end? I must say, if you see nothing but the end of this film, you will be blown off the edge of your seat. Of course it would be better to watch the full length of the film, but the ending is spectacular. The acting in this film is outstanding. Michelle Pfeiffer gives a brilliant performance as Claire; the overwrought wife who everyone thinks is losing her mind when she starts talking about communing with the dead. Pfeiffer takes her character right to the edge and her hysterical fear at the events that transpire is awesome. Harrison Ford plays an unaccustomed role, departing from his normal white hat hero. He shows great range by handling the sinister aspects of his character nefariously. Diana Scarwid also gives an enjoyable performance as Claire's best friend. Though this film doesn't redefine the genre, it is a fine example of frightening suspense under the guidance of a talented director. Be prepared for a heart pounding experience.
Trust me, I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, and I even went to the first showing the day it came out. And up until the title was shown, I enjoyed it. The part at the beginning with the middle-aged white people singing "Shake Ya Ass" by Mystikal was pretty damn funny. And I even liked the Exorcist rip off, especially James Woods as the priest. After that, however, things took a nose-dive off of Mt. Everest. The plot is that seven kids participate in a weekend long study at a haunted mansion (ala "The Haunting"). While they are there, strange things happen, and suddenly they are trapped inside the mansion (ala "The Haunting" and "House On Haunted Hill"), where they must confront the ghost so they can escape. During the duration of the movie, many movies are spoofed. Just to name a few: Hollow Man, Charlie's Angels, Mission: Impossible 2, and What Lies Beneath. None of this, however, was even remotely funny. The part I laughed at the most was when I was leaving the cinema, laughing about how I wasted money and 90 minutes of my life on this movie. I really thought this movie had the chance to live up to the first one, but it was nowhere near as funny or as clever as the first, which is still funny. If you haven’t see scary Movie 1 or 2, then I would only recommend the first, and to forget about the second because its not worth seeing.
I was looking forward to a slice of honest patriotism. What I got was "A Jerry Bruckheimer Production." "A Michael Bay Film." Pearl Harbor is not so much a film as an advertising campaign. One is constantly being sold something - whether it's the beauties of Hawaii or the "genius" of Roosevelt. There is nothing honest or dramatic in Pearl Harbor. The filmmakers, on behalf of the Disney Corporation, present the spectator with a series of finished products, whose positive qualities are absurdly exaggerated in order that these products may be purchased and consumed with the least amount of resistance. Pearl Harbor is a film that tries too hard to make too much money by giving us harrowing battles and Hollywood romance. Its real focus should be to honour those who died at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Michael Bay's flashy direction is quite evident here. In many of his shots it is quite apparent that he is "borrowing" from Titanic and Saving Private Ryan. Unfortunately, Randall Wallace's screenplay is overly clichéd and is chalk full of one-dimensional characters. The lines of dialogue are really annoying and melodramatic. The performances, like the screenplay, are also pretty bad. Ben Affleck needed more expression and emotion both in his speech and facial expressions. Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett aren't much better, when they try to be emotional it's painfully clear that their emotions are forced and fake. Cuba Gooding Jr. overplays his character but his screen time is minimum so he's not as annoying as he would be. Thankfully, Jon Voight is very convincing as President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He gives the best performance of the film. The pacing is both poor and good. The beginning of the film is rather slow. There's simply too much there and yet what is there is quite hollow. It tries to be funny and dramatic but it doesn't succeed at any of these. On the other hand , the editing for the battle scenes is appropriately face-paced and riveting. The CGI work was pretty good; the plane crashes were a little repetitious in their execution. The sound effects and sound effects editing are pretty good. John Schwartzman's cinematography is reasonably good. His use of the `shaky cam' technique is reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan. Hans Zimmer's melodramatic musical score suits the vast scale of the film nicely. With a little more care placed in the editing, better actors, and a tighter script; Pearl Harbor MIGHT have become the gem it was made out to be through its overly extensive advertising.
The TV reviews said that this was the scariest film this decade, so I thought I should go and see it. The start of the film was promising, but it just went down hill from there. The story is so un-amazingly cliché. About a brother & sister driving home from college on spring break. They get run off the road by a big scary old beat up truck with a big horn. They see the driver dumping a body down a sewer up the road. The brother decides to investigate and climb down a dirty rat infested pipe (who would really do this?) He sees some horrifying things at the bottom of the pipe & the brother & sister go to a town full of brain-dead people and get stalked by a crazy psychic. Some more chasing and bloody killings by the creature until a big shootout at the end...the creature gets away so that there's a possibility for a sequel which I hope will never ever happen. Any good reviews heard from this film were obviously paid for by the studios. Nobody in his or her right mind would ever recommend this film. I give it -10/10 and that’s being kind.
Fox hunting in my opinion cannot be classed as a sport. Dogs in a frenzy chasing a helpless fox – chasing it so far that the fox is worn out then when caught is savaged and ripped to pieces. Happy and jubilant the hunter with a foxtail rides in triumph to the local pub. Drinks all round lets plan another day. Yet out in the field a young fox has lost a parent, maybe they will start a new sport – hunt the human.
This is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. This film is a great film to watch and you have to see it. It starts off with Shrek's normal day in the neighbourhood, eating bugs, washing himself in mud, scaring off ogar rebellion groups. Then he meets donkey, a talking donkey that persuades Shrek to let him live with him. They go to the castle where the prince gives Shrek a task to go save the princess in the lost castle. When they save her they have to walk all the way back to the castle for the Princess to marry the prince, but the princess starts to fall for Shrek. What Shrek doesn't know is when night comes the princess turns into an ogre and she is very embarrassed about it. Now when Shrek falls in love with her she is about to marry the prince. At the wedding ceremony she turns back to an ogar and the prince doesn't like it and tries to attack her and Shrek, but of course the good guys always win. This is a movie for everybody, its short and sweet, and pretty funny at the same time. I wouldn't go to this film without the family.
Dr Dolittle 2 was one of the funniest movies I saw in 2001 so when the DVD comes out I bought it. This sequel was actually funnier than the first one although I have both films. Dr. Dolittle 2 is not a film you will struggle to enjoy. It is a crude, funny, warm and reasonably clever fantasy with heaps of potential and a storyline that allows the film to succeed thoroughly. Like Shrek, Dr. Dolittle 2 is not only a film for children. There is heaps of adult humour hidden in its crude, good-hearted storyline, including a Silence of the Lambs spoof and an interesting take on animal mafia. This film features some of the same characters that were in the first film. Most of the animal characters are different but lucky the dog and the rats are in it. The disc is loaded with extras such as 2 theatrical trailers and a lot of other extras. It also has outtakes. Now that I've seen this one I look forward to Dr Dolittle 3 coming out in a couple of years hopefully at least 3 and hope it will be as funny as this one. If you don’t want to buy this film then you must rent it.
I thought that Groundhog Day was a very original film - so if you are looking for originality, this is the one. As far as humour is concerned, Bill Murray is perfect for the role, being a "prima donna" weatherman who is too in love with himself to see that he is in a "dead end" job going no-where, and everyone hates him. The Film is, in many ways, like the classical shakesphere idea where the main character suffers the pain of self-realisation before he evolves or develops from bad into good, evil into angelic - take King Lear for an example. Going to the Annual Groundhog festival in Bill Murray’s case began a long process of ultimate salvation. He loathes this day with a passion due to his egotistic and selfish personality, and the very idea of him presenting an open air weather forecast, orchestrated not by himself but by a Groundhog (due to annual tradition, if the groundhog sees a shadow then the area is supposed to have 5 more weeks of winter, if the groundhog sees no shadow, spring sets it), is enough to make him curl up and die. If this isn't bad enough for Bill, he wakes up at 6:00am the following morning to the horrific realisation that he is "reliving the same day over and over and over again". Each day brings about some sort of change within his character, and Bill evolves into quite an interesting character by the time the film is through. The mere thought of re-living the same day again and again goes through many people's minds, and the writer of this film didn't fail to amuse on this popular fantasy Watch it and see how funny yet touchingly romantic and sermon like the storyline manages to be. Excellent, see it.
This film in my opinion captures the essence of the experience of the common soldier in an action to which his training and character are put to the ultimate test. If you cannot save enough pennies to visit Rourkes Drift, then go to a glen, or canon near where you live - where you are surrounded by hills and stand looking up at them around you and then imagine hundreds of Zulu warriors bearing down on you from all sides, and try to feel the courage and faith in comrades, training, discipline, equipment and superior officers which made the men stand and fight and survive. Then walk to the foot of one of those hills and imagine the courage and discipline which it took for the men to charge again and again into the disciplined withering fire of a regiment - whose brothers in arms in the not too distant future, albeit with better rifles, mauled and repulsed the flower of the Imperial German Infantry at Mons, with similar disciplined fire. This is the essence of the greatness of the film. You are there - feeling the action unfold around a band of courageous men facing almost impossible odds. These soldiers are no apologists of latter day political analysts wondering as to the reason of their being there, but soldiers of an expanding vigorous empire, sure in their faith of friend and training, in possession of a strong point with the equipment and mettle to defend it to the last. It is one of the ironies of combat that any prolonged engagement leads each side to come too value the courage and persistence of the enemy. We can see this developing as the film unfolds. I found this film a moving treatment of the action, its accuracy was impressive and it did capture the frenetic pace of combat interspersed with the boredom and the graveyard humour of the wait until the next attack. One of the ironies of military life, which this film gives one a true glimpse of. This film is more then just a film its true British history, and I most highly recommend this film to you .
This god strategy game has been in development for three years, so there's been a lot of build-up for its release. After playing the released product, I can say the people who made this have created a game with a lot of complexity, depth, and graphical beauty. You either love this game or you hate it. While at first the control of the camera angles and the many different modes of playing can be difficult - even frustrating - there's so much more to it that takes your mind off that. You can just do what you want, basically...there are some objectives, but there's a lot of freedom, too. You can explore these tiny little tropical islands as you try and convert people to your faith. You can fling rocks through the air, cast different kinds of miracles, and try to get your virtual pet 'creature' to 'amaze' people into believing in you. It's just very...unique from start to finish. Again, however, it can be a pain to learn. Sometimes the interface is not very intuitive. The manual is OK, but it doesn't really give any in-depth instructions on how to do things. So sometimes you end up with trial and error, and that can get kind of frustrating. And the spell symbol thing, where you trace various symbols with your mouse to initiate a spell, can be a little imprecise and tedious. Lastly, My computer is pretty fast, but I imagine a slower one would be a little less responsive and slower. This game is truly beautiful, with rotating and zooming effects all over the place - and that takes processing power, you know? And it definitely would not be fun to get it, get all excited, and then have it act jerky or what have you. Highly recommended. Give it a try. But remember, expect to be sitting and learning for a while. It's not fast-paced. If you don't believe in video games as art, then this game is as close to art as video games come - and you've got to respect that by taking your time.