Sorcerer’s Stone: Robbie Coltrane/Richard Harris/Maggie Smith/Alan Rickman/John Hurt/Julie Walters/John Cleese: 4 stars
This one is a little childish, but it is in keeping with the book, which is good. It is meant for kids, so it is very fun loving and family friendly. It brags a magnificent cast of ace British actors, and not one falters. Even the young actors are good, keeping up well enough with the experienced adult actors. It is long, but it is very easy to look over that problem. And a tip-of-the-hat to Maestro John Williams’ score is needed.
Chamber of Secrets: Kenneth Branagh/Jason Isaacs/Toby Jones/Mark Williams: 3.5 stars
Just like the first in the series, it is a very light-hearted movie. The ending gets grim, also like the previous film, but it is still very family-friendly. Kenneth Branagh is surprising perfect for an egotistic, blubbering buffoon of a wizard. Jason Isaacs is creepy and very suave as the evil Lucius Malfoy. And the chemistry between Mark Williams and Julie Walters (Arthur and Molly Wealsey) in this film and the other films is quite fantastic. The only major flaws are the music and Dobby, the house-elf. The music is disappointing, it being a rehash of the previous films music. And Dobby looks and sounds too childish and fake to be real. It imagined a house-elf much grittier and having not so quite a high of a voice. But again, it is a good movie, but not as good as SS.
Prisoner of Azkaban: Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, Emma Thompson, Julie Christie (brief cameo), and Michael Gambon: 5 stars
Michael Gambon takes over for beloved and deceased Richard Harris. He is good, in fact he is great, but he cannot compete with the memory of Richard Harris still ripe in our minds. But the cast has many great new additions. The new cast members are all fantastic and everyone is perfect for their respective roles. The movie is the best in the series. It is visually stunning, with the best visual effects, music, cinematography, acting, and story. It is emotional without it being too overbearing. Alfonso Cuaron did an amazing job at directing this film and I can only imagine what some of the other films would be like if he continued. Granted, it is not a 100% to 90% adaptation from the book, but it is still quite good.
Goblet of Fire…: Miranda Richardson/Brendan Gleeson/Ralph Fiennes/David Tennant: 2.5 stars
…or The Guide to Dating for Teenage Witches and Wizards. This is the worst film of the series. Here we are introduced to Emo-Harry and Emo-Ron. We get too much of the teenage-high-school drama then we do of the story and what is going on. And they both do this with ridiculous, long haired haircuts. What was the director thinking? The new actors are particularly good. David Tennant deserves much more attention than he has previously gotten. His character was underused which is really disappointing, considering how well he did. And people may disagree, but Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort was brilliant. It was one of the few things that Mike Newell (director) and the producers got right. One other problem was how mediocre the score was compared to John Williams’ magical (pardon the pun) score was. The normally gifted Patrick Doyle had big shoes to fill, much like Michael Gambon did, but did not meet up to the expectations.
Order of the Phoenix: Helena Bonham Carter/Imelda Staunton 4 stars
We still have Emo-Harry, but Ron is back to his normal loving self. Emma Watson continues to grow as an actress in this one (she always has done a good job). And the two new cast members are delightfully evil, more so for Helena. Well shot and well told, this movie did a good job at shortening the long book and keeping the major points in (however they still left out many other plot elements). And get ready for a tear jerking ending like the previous ones.
Half Blood Prince: Jim Broadbent/Helen McCroy 5 stars
We don’t see much of Helen McCroy, Narcissa Malfoy (Draco’s mother), but she is good and I wish I could see more of her work. Jim Broadbent was an interesting choice for the role of Horace Slughorn, but he did prove me wrong and did a good job. Helena Bonham Carter returns even better. This is the second best film of the series. Many elements of this movie could have brought it done, because there is not much at all in way of a story, but David Yates (director) does a good job at convincing you that there is stuff that is happening. The high school drama is back, but they handle it very well (which this is the way Mike Newell should have done for Goblet of Fire). The only major problem is Tom Felton. Here he could have shined very much, but he shows that he is the worst actor in the series (worse than Daniel). This movie is all about him and Snape, but his ability to act is this much : -
Continue on to read my review for harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I: 4.5 stars
Bill Nighy/Rhys Ifans
I am not going to be a part of the Deathly Hallows craze. Part 1 was good, don’t get me wrong, and definitely one of the better ones, but it was not great.
There are several problems with the seventh outing. The major one is the pace of the film. The film kept maybe too close to the book in the way that they left it slow. The beginning and the ending are faster and much more upbeat; however the middle could have been picked up much more. The suspense of the middle lacked, and the urgency, moved forward sluggishly. The beginning moved fast and tried to get them on the road really quickly, and then the makers took their time once on it and didn’t continue the pace.
Other problems dealt with an unmentionable scene that occurred close to the end (those who have seen the movie may be aware of what I am talking about). Also, we do not get much of a chance to mourn for the dead as much as we do for a certain character at the end of the movie. Certain characters die, and it is pushed aside to further move the story. Another major problem is the final scene. It came too quickly, without much warning, and ended just as quickly. And the genious of an actor, Bill Nighy, gave a forgettable performance and a rather weird opening speech. People who haven't read the books would feel "Who is this guy? Why do we care about him?" The beginning moved too fast and we saw very little of the characters that are introduced. We do not know what is really going on because there is too much going on.
The movie wasn’t all bad. There were good things: the music was good (still not as good as John William’s scores), the scenery shots were marvelous, and the expository scenes didn’t feel out of place. And like all six films before it, the best thing about the movie was the acting. This series has become the epitome of ace acting. Daniel Radcliff, who I have not cared much for before this film, finally matches up to Emma Watson and Rupert Grint (who both have always been as good as their adult co-stars). But who really shines in this movie is Rupert. This man has grown so much as an actor. I predict that he will be among the greats of my generation. He will go on and do amazing things with his acting career.
One other plus was Dobby. One of the few characters that I have never really cared for (both in the books and the films), Dobby really does look good in Deathly Hallows. He never looked or sounded like I quite envisioned him from the books (and Kreacher), but they did a better job that they did with the past movies.
All in all, it is a good new film. It may have problems, but it has improved the story and characters. The main problem is that it is fast where it should be slower, and slow where it should be fast.
I am not going to be a part of the Deathly Hallows craze. Part 1 was good, don’t get me wrong, and definitely one of the better ones, but it was not great.
There are several problems with the seventh outing. The major one is the pace of the film. The film kept maybe too close to the book in the way that they left it slow. The beginning and the ending are faster and much more upbeat; however the middle could have been picked up much more. The suspense of the middle lacked, and the urgency, moved forward sluggishly. The beginning moved fast and tried to get them on the road really quickly, and then the makers took their time once on it and didn’t continue the pace.
Other problems dealt with an unmentionable scene that occurred close to the end (those who have seen the movie may be aware of what I am talking about). Also, we do not get much of a chance to mourn for the dead as much as we do for a certain character at the end of the movie. Certain characters die, and it is pushed aside to further move the story. Another major problem is the final scene. It came too quickly, without much warning, and ended just as quickly. And the genious of an actor, Bill Nighy, gave a forgettable performance and a rather weird opening speech. People who haven't read the books would feel "Who is this guy? Why do we care about him?" The beginning moved too fast and we saw very little of the characters that are introduced. We do not know what is really going on because there is too much going on.
The movie wasn’t all bad. There were good things: the music was good (still not as good as John William’s scores), the scenery shots were marvelous, and the expository scenes didn’t feel out of place. And like all six films before it, the best thing about the movie was the acting. This series has become the epitome of ace acting. Daniel Radcliff, who I have not cared much for before this film, finally matches up to Emma Watson and Rupert Grint (who both have always been as good as their adult co-stars). But who really shines in this movie is Rupert. This man has grown so much as an actor. I predict that he will be among the greats of my generation. He will go on and do amazing things with his acting career.
One other plus was Dobby. One of the few characters that I have never really cared for (both in the books and the films), Dobby really does look good in Deathly Hallows. He never looked or sounded like I quite envisioned him from the books (and Kreacher), but they did a better job that they did with the past movies.
All in all, it is a good new film. It may have problems, but it has improved the story and characters. The main problem is that it is fast where it should be slower, and slow where it should be fast.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Zombieland: 5 stars
Zombieland is one of those movies that is just good, violent fun. Though it may be filled to the brim with swearing and gore, it is just plain fun. Woody Harrelson and Emma Stone and Jesse Eisenberg and Abigail Breslin are all great in this movie (in order of awesomeness). And the humor in this film is so dark and twisted that you cannot help but laugh.
Woody Harrelson is the best thing about the movie. Forget about Emma Stone (one of the hottest girls I have ever seen on screen) and Jesse and Abigail. If Woody Harrelson was not in this movie and they got someone else, this movie would not have done so well. He gives the single greatest line in the movie (If you haven’t seen the movie, please don’t highlight the next few words. Wait until you have seen it: "Where are the *bleeping* Twinkies!" Also, Bill Murray was great.
The other thing that made this movie great was the screenplay. The narration by Jesse Eisenberg was brilliant to say the least. The one-liners said by Woody are hysterical. And the situations that these four people are put into are also fantastically outrageous. And another thing of genius is that we never know their true names: they are just city names that each person is headed to.
If you can get past the mindless zombie gore and the swearing (all of you guys), this is a movie for you. I highly recommend it, except to those who don’t like the aforementioned reasons.
Woody Harrelson is the best thing about the movie. Forget about Emma Stone (one of the hottest girls I have ever seen on screen) and Jesse and Abigail. If Woody Harrelson was not in this movie and they got someone else, this movie would not have done so well. He gives the single greatest line in the movie (If you haven’t seen the movie, please don’t highlight the next few words. Wait until you have seen it: "Where are the *bleeping* Twinkies!" Also, Bill Murray was great.
The other thing that made this movie great was the screenplay. The narration by Jesse Eisenberg was brilliant to say the least. The one-liners said by Woody are hysterical. And the situations that these four people are put into are also fantastically outrageous. And another thing of genius is that we never know their true names: they are just city names that each person is headed to.
If you can get past the mindless zombie gore and the swearing (all of you guys), this is a movie for you. I highly recommend it, except to those who don’t like the aforementioned reasons.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Sorry, My Followers
I apologize, my followers. I am having a difficult job right now balancing my movie-watching, school, work, family, my social life, and my blog. I have been watching plenty of movies over the past few weeks or month (however long it has been). I will try and update it once a week again. I hope to see more movies in theatres for the rest of the year. I plan to see Unstoppable, next Harry Potter 7 (you will get brief reviews for the past 6, but not too long), Narnia 3, Tron: Legacy, and True Grit. I also hope to watch The Tourist and The King's Speech during this time, but I don't know. If you have not seen the trailers for these movies, I highly recommend you go to YouTube and watch them. I also have a few movies that are on DVD that I will post. I still havent done my Zombieland or Resident evil reviews. I also will do a review on Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2, Fight Club, The Early Years of Matt Damon (Rounders, Talented Mr Ripley, Legend of Bagger Vance, and Good Will Hunting), No Country For Old Men, Seven Years in Tibet, and Ridley Scott- The Best of the 80s, 90s, and 00s.
So I humbly ask for you pardon and if you will be so kind, spread the word about my movie blog if you enjoy my insights. And I plan to do better for the next few weeks.
Yours truly,
RJ Engle
So I humbly ask for you pardon and if you will be so kind, spread the word about my movie blog if you enjoy my insights. And I plan to do better for the next few weeks.
Yours truly,
RJ Engle
The Next Three Days: 3 stars
Do not let the marketing fool you: The Next Three Days is not an action film. It is more of a suspense movie with romantic and action interludes. Paul Haggis, the director of this movie, does a better job than most directors do nowadays with mixing the tear-jerking parts with the heart-racing parts with the suspense. Where the movie lacks, Crowe and Banks make up for.
This film has to start off slow. It hits the viewers with a big scene and then leaves us wanting more. We do not get much more in the terms of vengeful, prison-breaking moments until the end. The whole film is about this man willing to do anything for the woman he loves. Russell Crowe was perfect in this role, but the movie wasn’t perfect for Crowe. The long drawn out scenes were only bearable because of these two actors and no other reason.
Other problems for The Next Three Days were the other two, so called, “main” actors. Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde, both usually good (and are in this), but their screen time is so limited that the viewer leaves feeling used. I thought, “Cool! Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde in an action film! I’m in!” But it is wrong on both accounts. With barely five minutes of screen time, I do not even understand why they bothered with this film.
Do not get me wrong, I am stating the bad things about this film, but there is still plenty of heart in this movie and many moments to look forward to at the last thirty minutes of the movies. I think a more appropriate title for the movie would be The Next Thirty Minutes. The movie is also shot very well, complimenting the story telling and the performances. I say see it if you are a Russell Crowe fan, or just wait for it to come on DVD.
This film has to start off slow. It hits the viewers with a big scene and then leaves us wanting more. We do not get much more in the terms of vengeful, prison-breaking moments until the end. The whole film is about this man willing to do anything for the woman he loves. Russell Crowe was perfect in this role, but the movie wasn’t perfect for Crowe. The long drawn out scenes were only bearable because of these two actors and no other reason.
Other problems for The Next Three Days were the other two, so called, “main” actors. Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde, both usually good (and are in this), but their screen time is so limited that the viewer leaves feeling used. I thought, “Cool! Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde in an action film! I’m in!” But it is wrong on both accounts. With barely five minutes of screen time, I do not even understand why they bothered with this film.
Do not get me wrong, I am stating the bad things about this film, but there is still plenty of heart in this movie and many moments to look forward to at the last thirty minutes of the movies. I think a more appropriate title for the movie would be The Next Thirty Minutes. The movie is also shot very well, complimenting the story telling and the performances. I say see it if you are a Russell Crowe fan, or just wait for it to come on DVD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)