Reviews

Having read the book, the first thing that entered my mind when I heard they were going to shoot a film was: "How on earth are they going to put all that stuff into one movie?". And yes, that's exactly what's wrong with this film. Even though the actors are giving it their best, there just isn't enough time to explore the inner feelings.

Each period in Frank's life is told in such a short, compact way that you don't feel any emotion. E.g., you see a new-born baby and the next frame you hear it has died. You get no time to get attached to the baby, you didn't even get time to get to know the family, so you don't feel the pain they experience. And since in my opinion the book's strongest point is the way it conveys the feelings of loss, mourning, misery and also happiness, I must conclude that the film misses the point completely.

I still gave it a 7 though.

This movie will not appear in my all-time-greatest list. This doesn't mean that this isn't an entertaining movie. In contrast to what others write here, there *is* a plot and it's not even such a bad one at that (i.e. the way the senator gets the supreme power by the invasion of an insignificant planet, without revealing himself as the bad guy). I even liked the pod race, even though the outcome was obvious from the start.

However, the characters missed some depth and colour (except for Jar Jar, who had too much of the wrong colour ;-) The special effects were, although some of the best I've seen, too obviously computer generated and were maybe a bit cartoonesque. They missed e.g. the grandeur of the Imperial Walkers in the Empire Strikes Back.

Nevertheless, this is a worthy prequel to the well-known trilogy (if you don't let your expectations build up to high due to the hype), and will undoubtedly be followed and expanded in the episodes II and III. I'm looking forward to these!

This weekend I saw two films with Hugh Grant: "Nothing Hill" at the cinema and "Nine Months" at home. Although both films feature Hugh Grant as the clumsy Brit, the contrast between the two could not have been greater. Nothing Hill is very entertaining, endearing and humorous, while Nine Months is plain stupid. I'm glad I didn't watch Nine Months first, or I would probably have missed out on the little gem that is Nothing Hill.

So, if you want I nice evening out, go see Nothing Hill.

I guess the producers must have thought that the success of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" would make any film with Hugh Grant a goose with golden eggs. Well duh, this film is simply a waste of pellicule. The humour makes me cringe, especially the little number Robin Williams shows us with the gyneacological table. Tom Arnold was terrible too, a typical American stereotype. Anyone who can watch the scene with the deliveries without whimpering deserves a medal of honour.

I doesn't even deserve the 1 out of 10 I gave it.

This must have been the worst film I've ever had the displeasure to see. Lousy acting (e.g. the scene were Evelyn was drunk should be shown to every acting student as an example of how it should *not* be done) and a lousy plot (that mummy sure makes some stupid mistakes in the heat of the fight). The director messed up the mix of humour and adventure. It must be that the humour was aimed at 12-year old boys, 'cause I was sometimes ashamed to watch their wooden efforts. And I could go on like this for more than 20 lines. The only positive thing about the movie was the beautiful and scantily clad Patricia Velasquez as the pharaoh's mistress (Hey, I'm a red-blooded male; I have my weak points too).

I gave it a 1/10 (and that would have been a 0 if the voting system here allowed it)