Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Just want to put my two cents in...(possible spoiler)
12 November 1999
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard much about this movie (who hasn't???) and had been impressed with what I'd heard. Fright without gore, film without script, eerie without special effects that cost more money than it takes to feed a small country for five years. I liked that. I was really looking forward to seeing this. In fact, I was so pumped about this movie, that I bought it for myself without watching it first. I have never done that in my life. Just thought I'd let ya know. I had planned to watch this movie on Halloween night, but unfortunately, it didn't work out that way, so my husband and I watched it about four days later. Here are the results, for anyone who cares to know:

My husband fell asleep half-way through it, and when he finally did see the end, he didn't seem all that affected.

I almost had a heart attack by the end of the film, and was not able to sleep for the following two nights.

Therein lies the problem with this (in my opinion) wonderful movie.

I was reading through the reviews on this page before I decided to add my humble opinion, and it would appear that about 90% of you feel that you have been royally ripped off and that you deserved better than this movie for the amount of money you spent on the movie tickets, popcorn, cola, and gargantuan chocolate bars you consumed in your boredom. I am not surprised by this reaction. After seeing this movie, I actually expected it.

Most horror movie fans are used to being visually splattered with gore, and being audibly goosed by high violins and loud bass (not to mention being visually tantalized by young starlets in barely-there clothing screaming before being sliced into chicken salad). Those of you used to this sort of horror are accustomed to seeing all of the action, knowing who the bad guy is (or knowing that there IS a bad guy), watching the blood spurt all over the screen, and generally having a gay ol' time at the expense of the poor folk retching in the back row. Scares are bloody, fright is gory, fear is something that is associated with a sharp instrument, lots of violins, jumping out of nowhere so as to slice up some pretty young filly (or handsome young stud, now -- see? Women's lib IS making a difference!) with gratuitous use of blood bags, special effects, snappy editing, and sheep's intestines. This is not a bad thing, only different. My husband is one of you. My theory is that this is the reason my husband and you were napping in your seats and throwing popcorn at screen when the inconclusive ending made it's fateful appearance.

I, however, am one of those sensitive souls who feel queasy at the sight of a paper cut. I am unable to watch "Paramedics", or even "M*A*S*H", due to the danger of seeing some form of blood, dismemberment, or mutilation on the screen. I admit it, I'm a wimp. I am not ashamed of this, but it, unfortunately, means that I am unable to be scared in the way that I wish. The sort of horror movies that I like haven't been made since Hitchcock died. I prefer my horror to be performed offscreen. I find my imagination is more terrifying than ANYTHING that modern movie-magic gurus can possibly create. All I need is a scene of a closed door, in a dark hallway, and to hear a person screaming on the other side of it, to keep me awake for days to come. I can only imagine what sort of horrors that poor individual is experiencing -- imagining them is much more terrible. If I SAW them, I would spend the rest of the movie in the bathroom tossing up my popcorn, thereby wasting $7 on a movie ticket. This is why this movie affected me so. A dark night in a forest, alone in a tent with no supplies or weapons, and you can distinctly hear voices and screaming, the high-pitched laughter of children, the cracking of twigs under unseen feet...I dare anyone to tell me that if it were them, they would not be peeing in their jeans. And as for the reviewers who feel the emotion of the three characters is out of place here, let me ask you this: you're lost in a forest for over three days, weird, unexplained things have been happening to you, night brings strange sounds, morning brings you signs that you're not alone out there...would you be a cool cucumber? Or would you be crying hysterically, holding yourself, rolled in a little ball and rocking back and forth, begging for God to deliver you out of this place? I find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly look me in the eye and tell me the former. You'd crack. You know you would. You're only human after all...horror fan or not.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's not that bad...
6 November 1999
So far, I've seen two completely different points of view in the comments for this movie. One was so-so, the other thought it was completely awful. Well, I would like to add a third: I thought it was charming.

"Charlotte's Web" is my absolutely favourite story, and one of the most treasured books in my personal library. This movie, while far from perfect, does stay very true to the original story (which, in case Negative Nellie may have missed, Disney does NOT do -- even though I love Disney, too).

It's true the animation isn't the best, but you have to realize that "Charlotte's Web" was made in 1973, WAAAAAY before the computer-animated wonders of the '80's and '90's. The animation in the '70's was still stuck in the Saturday-morning-cartoon format, where, instead of animating every single cel, the animators would animate every third or fifth cel. It saved time, money, and you still got animation -- just not very sophisticated animation. Disney and Max Fleischer were really the only ones that were trying to push animation beyond the extremely confined limits it was once stuck in. So you can't really fault the movie for that, it was a common fault 20 years ago to get stuck in a rut. (It's still happening today, or hasn't anyone watched "Godzilla", "Armageddon", or "Starship Troopers"? Just because the animation is more advanced doesn't mean that it isn't becoming redundant).

Other than the animation, "Charlotte's Web", taken from a purely entertainment level, is really not that bad. I still enjoy watching this movie, and the voice actors actually closely match the voices I've made in my head for the characters in the book over the years. Especially Templeton. His scene when he comes back from his night of gorging at the fair cracks me up. "In case you haven't noticed, there are over 8,000 eggs in that tiny little sac." "This HAS been a night!" HA!

The songs seem a little out of place at times, but on the whole, I still find this movie very enjoyable. It's not deep, it's not profound, it's a piece of mindless fluff, with some very nice performances from the voice actors and a lot of very cute moments. It's children's fare, folks, so just take it as such, and it's a lot easier to take. I liked it. So there.
31 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Lovely, simply lovely
29 September 1999
This has become my all-time favourite romantic comedy, beating out even "Sleepless in Seattle". The script is wonderfully witty and all of the actors (Andie MacDowell excluded) are a joy to watch. MacDowell seems incredibly out of place here, however, and I believe that her part could have been portrayed much better. Hers was the only character that I had a difficult time empathizing in any way with, although I tried. She seems very stand-offish, and almost sleepwalks throughout the movie. Hugh Grant, on the other hand, plays this role so naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if he was just playing himself (and from what I've read, he probably was). The true kudos for this movie, however, belongs to the scriptwriter, who had the presence of mind to include a deaf character who actually contributes something to the movie other than a "humorous" minority. David is a true, natural character, who has the ability to love, laugh, joke, and express himself without needing some stupid sight gag, like having him walk into a bus because he can't hear the horn or something. You actually care about this character. "Ahem" Hollywood scriptwriters, please take note!!!

The true gem of this movie for me had to be Simon Callow as Gareth. Rarely have I fallen in love with a character because of his love for life, his zest, his wit, and his hidden tender side (it seems hardly beside the point that his relationship is homosexual, and it works beautifully), rather than his chiselled good looks and muscular chest. How refreshing that a character such as Gareth could be so wonderfully played, when it could have so easily been turned into a campy, ridiculous charicature by many of the popular actors churning out movies today! Enjoyable to the very last scene, I laughed out loud (rare for me, especially when watching a show alone), I cried, I fell in love, and every time I watch this movie, I want to embrace my husband and never let him go.

Watch this movie, and you'll fall in love all over again. It's "the definitive icebreaker"!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Magical...simply magical
26 June 1999
Ah, Gilbert & Sullivan, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways! This movie is pure fantastical enjoyment. The cast is an absolute joy, especially Kevin Kline as the Pirate King. Kline is truly one of the most over-looked and under-appreciated actors of our time. His ability to convey his characters through body language, facial expression, and voice is unparalleled. He is one of my favourite actors, and he plays the Pirate King to the hilt -- what a lark!

The vocal talent in this film adaptation of the stage play is phenomenal! I have never heard a more beautiful, powerful, yet sensitive male voice as Rex Smith's, and Linda Ronstadt is, of course, pretty as a picture as Mabel. Angela Lansbury may not have as fabulous a voice as the rest of the cast, but her characterization of Ruth more than makes up for it. Tony Azito absolutely cracks me up as the Chief of Police, those "undaunted men in blue" make me laugh every time.

The one person that everyone seems to forget, however, is the one whose performance I enjoyed even more than Kline's -- and that's saying something. George Rose as the Major-General is perfect, and I never laughed so hard at an individual character as I did when he was tiptoeing through the tulips with the pirates in close pursuit! What a hoot!

This movie is truly a classic, and it's a shame that it's been so overlooked. I finally managed to tape it off the TV one night, since I've never managed to find it on video (other than for rent), and I've watched it so many times, I may have to re-tape it soon. All of the subtle (and not-so-subtle) G&S jokes are a true joy, and the music is pure magic. If you love musicals, you HAVE to see this movie!!
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I'm not saying it's bad...well, okay, yes, I am.
22 March 1999
Soooo, lemme get this straight... If I wanted to make a Batman movie, all I'd have to do would be to cram as many Batfoes as possible into a story so thin, it'll break the first time someone sneezes, throw in lots and lots and lots of rubber, add a weepy element, say, make the butler croak, mix in some "sex" appeal (alleged, anyway), whisk briskly with a LOT of faith in audience disbelief, and voila!! A piece of crap.

I have watched dozens and dozens of movies in the course of my life, some good, some not so good, some really bad, and some I wished I'd never seen. I have never, never once in my life claimed that I have seen the worst movie ever made. Well, I have finally seen the worst movie ever made.

I wanted so badly to like this movie, I really did. I'm a huge fan of the series, so I came into this movie with an open mind, honest. I STRAINED to find something to like, and I think I succeeded...I really liked Arnie's fluffy slippers. I have all three of the previous Batman movies, and while I was disappointed in the second, I have to say that it was a thousand times better than this unbelievably pompous, bright (I mean colour-wise...I got a headache watching all of the friggin' neon in this movie), and terribly acted sequel. Oh, the acting, don't even get me started...

What is it with the villians in this series?? In the first movie, the Joker was able to take Batsy on by himself...and did a pretty bang-up job of it, too. The second and third ones had to bring in TWO villians to take the Long-Eared One on. Just to keep things fair, though, they gave Tall, Dark, and Exploited a partner, Robin, in the third one to help with the butt-whuppin'. (After all, Two Face had TWO personalities...that counts, right?) In this gawd-awful mess, however, they needed not one, not two, but THREE (count 'em, folks!) villains to take the guy in the funny rubber suit. So, naturally, they have to even the score even more here...ergo, Batgirl. And the most disappointing example of the Lady in the Silken Mask I have ever seen. Alicia, how could you?! In this shlock, Batgirl is nothing but pretty moving scenery. The only time she gets to shine is when she's kicking Poison Ivy's six-foot (six-foot????) butt, and even that's marred by the atrocious dialogue. Furthermore, the writers had the unbelievable gall to pointlessly change Barbara's relations, from Commissioner Gordon's daughter in the comics, to Alfred's niece, just so they could try kacking the old guy off in an effort to add a humane element. What????? I'm not going to waste any more time talking about this film...it's not worth it. Blah.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Whoa...
22 March 1999
I first saw this movie, or at least the tail-end of it, about a year ago on a late-night movie channel. It was around two o'clock in the morning, I was channel-flipping, and I had no intention of actually staying up to watch a movie. However, I came across the end of "Suddenly, Last Summer" during the incredibly affecting scene where Catherine finally explains what happened to Sebastian...and I was frozen. My headline for this comment is absolutely right...it was all I could say.

Whoa.

I have not watched another movie that affected and disturbed me so deeply as this movie. Elizabeth Taylor, looking incredibly beautiful here, is breathtakingly wonderful in her semi-demented role as Catherine, and Katharine Hepburn steals every scene she's in. My hat's off to you, ladies -- you are undoubtedly the queens of the silver screen. I was finally able to watch the whole movie (well, except for the first ten or fifteen minutes, anyway...I always seem to come in a beat too late...) a few months ago, and I'm still reeling. By the end of the movie, and the most powerful climactic scene in dramatic history, I was shaking with dozens of different emotions running through me. I was filled with first pity, then hatred, then anger, then fear, then disgust, then relief, then anger again, then frustration, then...well, you get the idea.

I have never seen a movie that reached inside me, pulled my heart all over my chest, and actually left me emotionally exhausted as this movie did. Sheesh, and I thought "Streetcar Named Desire" was powerful...

If you have loved any of Tennessee Williams other works, or if you loved Hitchcock's psychological thrillers ("Vertigo" and "Rebecca" come to mind...), I highly suggest you see this movie. Even if you didn't, I guarantee that the ending of this movie will NOT disappoint you -- even die-hard action/shock/horror/drama fans will be freaked out by it. Truly a classic, and a fabulous work for all involved to be proud of.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed