Change Your Image
rlparrt
Reviews
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Complicated
It's complicated. I think all of the casting choices were spot-on amazing, especially young Bilbo and Thorin (I intend to follow the actor's career for so long as he has one). I think the cheap laughs and bogus cameos were indeed cheap and bogus.
The Hobbit could have been made as a rollicking epic of a four hour film. It's a small book. I promise, it really is! Instead it's slooooowed down to a three part monstrosity of epic slowness!! Also...I think the exploration of various character motivations went badly awry here. Not just that they differed from the book, but that they differed badly. No one was looking to defeat a dragon; the dwarfs only wanted to pilfer from the hoard, hence why they're hiring a burglar, not a dragon-slayer. Thorin never apologized to Bilbo until the End. BUT that scene was pretty damn amazing to watch nonetheless. Bilbo exhibited far less martial prowess in the books, which wouldn't be such a sticking point, except...it's why he returned home the way he did - still a good person. He didn't kill a lot, if really any. Basically, these individual examples don't matter, except that they demonstrate an ongoing and unfortunate misinterpretation of the text, especially regarding why characters do things.
The need to give a face/name (white orc) to the otherwise faceless menace known as orcs or goblins is less troubling. The need to include the other wizard...sadly stupid. The fact that the Eagles didn't talk...probably for the best.
Overall, I will always be elated to see anything Tolkien in the mainstream cultural arena. I just wish it were better.
P.S. I Love You (2007)
What a godawful movie!
I knew nothing about the movie when I walked into the theater. Absolutely nothing. About thirty minutes later when I walked out with my date, him feeling bored and me feeling irritated and offended, I knew one thing: I hate this film.
It's a misogynistic piece of trash, implying that women who won't crap out unwanted children in a just-above-poverty level situation are cold and rejecting, but that men who would drag children into hopeless deprivation are saints who can say or do no wrong.
Ugh! Who believes such twaddle in 2008?
I don't. That's for sure!
Additionally, the pacing was uneven, though mostly slow, and the acting sub-par, especially for such an eye-catching cast.
Highlander: The Source (2007)
I can't believe a movie can end with that much of a let down
So what if Duncan fathers a child? Billions of men have done that. Literally! Dogs do it. Bulls. Weasels. Basically, all mammals can do what he just did. Why not have meaning in the ending, not just some shabby looking bimbette announce she's preggers? Just...ugh. So stupid, so worthless.
I think I hate Highlander now, and I have watched the show since I was a teenager, probably since it first started.
This movie was like a sick, stupid joke. What a waste of time!
This demonstrates what's wrong with society right now -- too much child-worship, not enough emphasis on accomplishment, independence, and uniqueness of the individual.
Premonition (2007)
SPOILERS: Good movie, but the ending sucked
Sandra Bullock is almost always great. She doesn't disappoint in this movie either.
The writing, however, does. Too many plot holes. Too little character motivation. Too much unintentional inconsistency. Like Linda (Bullock) does things even when she knows they are contributing to future unpleasant events. Why? And the ending seemed rather staid and pointless when compared to the rest of the movie. The progression of events did not improve her circumstances. Everything that the main character did or learned because of the 'premonitions' were essentially without meaning, and perhaps detrimental. What was the point? I suppose since she saved the guy in her last film, she couldn't do that again, but why did she need to end up pregnant? Come on! The movie definitely could have ended better -- maybe with her getting a job or becoming more empowered as a woman, not just knocked up and living off her dead husband's insurance money. Ugh...disappointing that women must still be portrayed that way in modern cinema.
Julian McMahon needs to give more in his performances emotionally.
Overall, it wasn't bad, but I don't think I would see it again. Entertaining, but nothing more.
Van Helsing (2004)
I've seen worse films, just not in a while
It's excruciating to watch three very talented actors (Hugh Jackman, David Wenham, and Richard Roxbury) perform in a film lacking such essential substance, character and plot development, and that has more special effects than acting in it. Basically, the movie is poorly plotted dross the like of which has not been seen since The League of Extraordinary Gentleman. Why did they bother hiring decent actors for this slop when they could have made the same film (with even more crap special effects) without wasting the talents of people who could (and yet didn't) act?
So don't watch this for a plot or even just an adventure story. Watch it because you like the actors, though a couple of the performances are wince worthy, or because you like special effects.
If I had paid for the movie ticket, I would want my money back. Rent it when it comes out (maybe), but don't waste time seeing it in the theater.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Spoilers. This was not what I was hoping for.
Spoilers!!!
I have never seen a film so badly rushed before. I know that only so much can be done with three hours and that the extended DVD will be better, but that doesn't make up for the fact that much of this movie was done in a poorly thought-out and hurried fashion. (I love the books. I may be a creepy Tolkien fanatic. Keep that in mind.)
The acting was all very good, when considering that the script was a hodgepodge of modern language and humor thrown into together with the wonderful and beautiful language that Tolkien originally wrote. Viggo Mortensen was a much more compelling Aragorn, but then, he didn't seem to talk as much. The four actors who played the Hobbits were terrific, especially Billy Boyd (Pippin) whom I thought seemed out of place in FotR. David Wenham deserved more screen time -- there is a large section of the book that would have given him this. His portrayal of Faramir was spot-on in my opinion. I never expected Miranda Otto to be a good Eowyn, but she did very well with the role, if only her parts had not been oddly and badly edited. Andy Serkis (Gollum) was brilliant as ever, and since he was really in the film this time, maybe he'll get that Academy Award (though his voice performance was better in TTT). Hugo Weaving (Elrond) gave a stellar performance too. He breathed a life into his role that may not have been there in the books, but certainly looks good on screen. No one acted badly in this movie.
The real problem was trying to stuff too many things into too short of a time frame. Something will inevitably be lost. But many of the things that were lost ('the hands of a king are the hands of a healer' stuff) were so interesting (in the book) while stuff that was dull (the fall of Osgiliath) took up too much time. I enjoyed a lot of the unnecessary stuff, but was it worth it to see Smeagol kill Deagol if it meant there was no time for Faramir and Eowyn to fall in love? Gah! That just sucked for me because they were among my favorite book characters. The animated version of RotK gives a more accurate picture of the book.
All of that to say, when you leave the theater you will feel as though you have seen a three hour trailer for the real movie (which will be out of DVD in November, I guessing).
Additionally, a lot of the battle scenes seemed shoddy compared to the bar set by Helm's Deep in TTT. It goes without saying that the most irksome deviations from the book were found in these scenes (the Oathbreakers helping to free Minas Tirith from the siege).
There was also a serious and consistent problem with stupid and inappropriate humor. It was a distraction from what would otherwise have been a much better movie. A lot of this centered around John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) whose character was never supposed to be a source of amusement. And there were also scenes that were humorous and shouldn't have been (Denethor on fire, for instance; Denethor being pummeled by Gandalf's staff; Denethor eating ... you get the picture).
The worst moment in the entire film was when Gandalf (Ian McKellan) hit Denethor (John Noble). I think that was when everyone should have got the idea that the director has/had no understanding of the books (if Haldir at Helm's Deep didn't do that already). It was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen, which now, unfortunately, also includes Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Celeborn (Martin Csokas) leaving Middle-Earth together. Read the books!
The best moment was when Arwen (Liv Tyler) asked Elrond to reforge the sword of kings (which is so far from the book that ...) and he starts to walk away. That was wonderfully done, mostly thanks to the caliber of the actors involved. Wonderful scene. Eowyn and Theoden (Bernard Hill) did a similar, far more book-consisted scene, though with far less ... something. I think the uncle-niece chemistry was wrong.
It was not a heinously bad film. It was not exceptional either because of how it was edited and directed. Some of the effects should probably win awards. Some of the actors as well. But it just isn't as good as it could have been.
Gods and Generals (2003)
If I had had the keys to the car, I would have left.
I have been surrounded by Civil War stuff my entire life. But never has it seemed so lifeless, boring, and pathetic. The dramatic aspects were overdone to the point of mild hilarity (although it was still not amusing enough to justify the incredible waste of time and money).
There was also an egregious number of subplots that simply did not matter and were not entertaining (Jackson's relationship with his wife, how much he liked children, his very off religiosity, the thing with the deserters, and many other time-consuming, yet boring things).
The characters were not at all believable. Jackson (Stephen Lang) was frightening, and I don't think that was what the film makers were going for. I never saw "Gettysburg" (and after this, I don't think I ever will), but I'm almost certain that Martin Sheen did a better job with Robert E. Lee, because Duvall seemed a little too Rain-Man-esque and, for lack of a better word, weird, not to mention stuttering and indecisive.
To be fair, I was really excited to see Bruce Boxleitner playing Longstreet, but I wish he had had a bigger part, though not for all the world would I wish that movie to be any longer.
Jeff Daniels, who played Chamberlain, was the only bright spot in the otherwise abysmal movie. Despite some of his rather pretentious speeches, he seemed substantially more genuine than the other major players.
If this had been a two hour film, none of these very obvious failings would be so terrible, but after nearly four hours ... they are simply obnoxious beyond compare.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Excellent film; only two gripes [spoilers]
Everyone is going to say that the director (Peter Jackson) is a genius and so was the author of the books (J.R.R. Tolkien), so I'll just agree and spare anyone who reads this comment.
The epic battle at Helm's Deep was fantastic. The effects were excellent, especially Gollum, though Treebeard wasn't too shabby. Edoras, the golden hall in Rohan, was beautiful. This film looked just as good as the first one.
The acting was superb, especially Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom). King Theoden (Bernard Hill) was also wonderful.
My only two tiny problems were these. The fact that Faramir, the supposedly wise and pure-hearted brother of Boromir, was not actually that much of a better man. That kind of sucked. And what the devil was Haldir doing at Helm's Deep (and why the #^%$ did he die there?). I loved the books (too much perhaps), and that was a bit of a departure. I seem to recall Rangers (and the apparently missing sons of Elrond) joining Aragorn later, but why elves at Helm's Deep? I know the film can't be entirely true to the book, but eh ...
Everything else, including the huge part Arwen had and the fact they they didn't finish the book within the film, was just fine, and the film as a whole was thoroughly enjoyable. I will probably go and see it again ... and again.
Family Affair (2002)
Just give it a chance! Family Affair does have its moments.
Almost anyone can comment on the fact that both adult leads (Tim Curry and Gary Cole) have stared in TV shows that failed, at three that I can think of. But this one is actually good, maybe even really good if the viewer can ignore the canned laugh track and the fact that it is really hard to do anything great with only half an hour. Sure, the characters seem really out of place on the WB, home of shows like Charmed and Angel, but maybe the idea of the family comedy/ sitcom is coming back. I never saw the original show, but this one is really very cute and charming. The chemistry is remarkably good, and the talent assembled is even better. Of course, the show is also up against Survivor and Friends, and because of that, I don't expect it to see the season through. Therefore catch it while you can! It is so worth it!