Reviews

Dario Argento probably wasn't trying to make a funny movie about The Phantom of the Opera. Probably wasn't, but the point is, he did. While the gore in the film is unnecessary, it is not as frequent as we may be led to believe. The film does start out fairly abruptly with a guy getting his upper half sawed off, and at this time you're wondering, "what the hell is wrong with this picture?" Other death scenes are fairly equally gruesome, but all are also expected, therefore lowering the "scary gore factor." Of course, then you see The Phantom. Now, of course, you're really confused by the blonde hair and lack of a mask. I wasn't complaining about his good looks, though. The acting on Julian Sands's part is sub-par but not horrible, while Asia Argento is somewhat better. The relationship between the two is not incredibly believable, a sort of instant-love instant-hate instant-sadness thing that just keeps the audience confused as to why Christine can't make up her damn mind. Andrea Di Stefano is likable as Raoul, but some of his scenes are just incongruous with his character.

The sexuality of the film is incredibly overdone. Argento seems to need to expose women's breasts as many times as possible, including a very large and very unattractive La Carlotta. The opium den/whorehouse scene pretty much makes the movie (along with the couple of really gory parts) rated-R because we are definitely talking full frontal nudity, both sexes, and if you aren't expecting it you are pretty much blown away.

However: despite its flaws in cinematography (annoying and constantly switching camera angles and a soap opera-like quality), below standard acting, strange and inconclusive love story, and numerous bits of unwarranted violence... there is something about this film that just makes me want to declare it a campy, a cult classic. It is absolutely hilarious to watch, though very disturbing at times. If you've got a twisted sense of humour and/or a love of the bizarre, then this version of PotO with a man sticking rats down his pants for pleasure is the kind of movie you will want to see! 5 stars out of 10 for just being fun, though about 3 stars out of 10 when watched "critically." But as I said above, "prepare thyself for camp" and you'll probably love it.

I saw the film today. What can I say?

Brilliant work on Alfonso's part, as far as the pacing and feel of the film. He cuts out a few things that would definitely have slowed down the plot, and for those who complain about that... well, we can't put EVERYTHING in the books into the movies, people. Get over it. And so overall, the timing was nice. Also, the feel of the movie - dark and a little more disturbing than the first two, which I like. Definitely the reason that POA was my favorite HP book, and I'm glad that it was translated well to screen. And of course, cinematography and special effects just added to it all. Excellent directing, editing, etc. And the music!...

The actors are all wonderful. I know some people were saddened by the lack of gorgeous!Lupin and Sirius... but considering how their lives have gone, who could blame them for not looking like Ewan McGregor? In either case, David Thewlis and Gary Oldman were perfect for their roles, and both put some real honest-to-god feeling into their characters, which was somewhat lacking in other films. They were both convincing as their respective people. And of course, that dynamic trio is back and better than ever! The thirteen-year-old teenage wizards are maturing very nicely with the film, a quality that I admire greatly - they aren't stagnant, they change and become better each time.

Overall, I did love the movie, perhaps more than the first. But I have one major issue with the movie overall: plot points. When I said before that I appreciated what Alfonso cut out to make the movie flow better, I was telling the truth. But what bothers me is that there are certain aspects of the film (details on the Maurauder's Map, Lupin's potion, Sirius and his murders) that are compressed and edited SO much that without having read the books, a viewer would find it difficult to understand some of these intricate details in the plot. So, I suggest the books be read first, if you haven't already (aren't you a little late). But as I've said, the rest is great, right down to the ending credits. 8/10 stars.

I chuckle when, every once and a while, I meet a person who for their own (twisted) personal reasons, is not fond of The Simpsons. Yes, for those who aren't too knowledgeable of American popular culture, many of the jokes are a dead-end and not funny. But still, you have the visual gags and wildly strange-looking characters and animation; though by far the cleverest jokes are the witty ones, not just what you see. Being young doesn't help, either - how are you going to laugh when Moe mentions the movie "Mistery," and you only have the vaguest clue who Kathy Bates is and you've never even seen the movie? But even when I watched this show as a child, I could appreciate the humour, even if not at all levels. The Simpsons - are America. Every horrible stereotype, every truthful fact, and every weird person, place or thing is summed up onto one show that has been bound, since its beginnings, to make fun of it all. If the show had a motto (excluding "D'oh"), it might be "We don't discriminate - we make fun of everyone, equally." And it's the honest-to-god truth.

Still don't like it? Hell, maybe you're not clever enough to like it. Maybe you don't have an open mind. Who knows?

Sure, after SO MANY years (are we talking fifteen already?) sometimes the show can be hard-pressed for laughs. But just as I think the average yellow American family may be losing its style, something pops up on the boob tube that has me laughing hysterically. If you don't have a taste for satire, maybe you wouldn't get me. But if you understand that the heart of The Simpsons in the American culture itself, and we really can be that dumb, or slow, or funny, or strange - then The Simpsons will live forever. Maybe they won't make a feature film - I'd like one, but I also don't want the disappointment (do we remember "Star Trek" the Movie? If so, than you know what I mean). Maybe it will go off the air in a week. But still, this show deserves the greatest respect for what it is, not because of what people think it tries to be.

I read the Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" in the ninth grade, and in the tenth grade we tore it apart from beginning to end. I loved that short story; I found it fascinating, the idea of a civilization where equality exists in its base form, and yet nothing is right. Then I passed by this movie during one of my many continuing stints in a Hollywood video store. I raised my eyebrows in surprise, then furrowed them in disgust, and passed on. You see, book/story-turned-film adaptations and I do not have a pleasant history. But eventually, I broke down. What the hell?

I was dazzled immediately. Of course, the story Harrison Bergeron, as compared to Sean Astin, is as I said, Drastically Different (with capital letters included). However, he acts the role of the confused Harrison wonderfully. The film is nothing like the short story - the only things they have in common are the name and the base concept. But what the filmakers did with that base concept is extraordinary, very much deserving of the 10/10 stars I rated it with. You cannot argue with a film that answers all of your questions that the book merely skimmed upon, and yet remains true to the story. All of the actors were amazing, and played their roles with amazing vigor. The film was homely; you could connect with these people and these places. It struck me as Oscar-deserving, and it was made for television! Please, if you have read the story and are wary of this picture, don't be. I was, but I broke down, and I'll never regret it. And if you haven't read the story, watch the movie anyway. You'll get it right from the humorous beginning to a near tear-jerker ending.

Thanks for making a film adaptation that I, for one, could enjoy.

I read Children of the Corn, and subsequently, watched the original movie. It was absolutely horrible, in my opinion. Another destroyed book-turned-film from Stephen King - they really should find a better way to adapt his excellent books to the screen. But anyway, onto this movie. I was fearful to give Children of the Corn another chance after watching the story butchered, but I was intrigued by 666, which includes John Franklin, the star, Isaac, of the original film. So hell, I thought I'd give it a chance. Couldn't get any worse, in my opinion.

I was right. It was a million times better. I know that the 2-5 sequels get off track as far as the original 'Corn' story, but 666 was right back on the basics of the story, from the creepy Isaac himself, to prophecies, to God. There is gore, of course, but you expect it and unless you have a weak stomach, it's not bad. I enjoyed the acting, especially Franklin, who reinvented my view of Isaac - I actually was liking the boy by the end of the movie! My only real problem was the bare brush-up they did on He-Who-Walks-Behind-the-Rows, who in my opinion was a very important (nightmare-causing) aspect. Otherwise, excellent job. As I said before, much better than the original. Try it out sometime.

I've seen this movie once, and I'll not rest until I've seen it again. To make myself more frank, my sister has (rather unwillingly) seen this movie four times in one week, and I'm jealous. I loved Pirates of the Caribbean the Ride at Disneyland/world as a kid, and when I heard about this movie, I couldn't wait to see it. Opening night my whole family went, and we were absolutely enthralled.

The opening scene with Johnny Depp is absolutely hilarious, and he makes a wonderful pirate, as, "That's *Captain* Jack Sparrow". He should play a pirate more often. He is a brilliant mixture of funny, strange, and exotic all in one, and keeps on dazzling throughout the entire film. Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbossa makes an awesome villain, eccentric and quirky enough not to be scary, but when he and his crew turn into a bunch of skeletons, it still was chilling. Orlando Bloom is an adorable Will Turner, showing a funny side but easily acting as a rival to Depp for attention on screen (though the award would go to Depp, he was beyond amazing). I was also very impressed with Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Swann - she was a tough heroine, didn't act like a girly screamer, and was funny as well.

The plot is good, the acting great in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Though rated PG-13 (one of the firsts for Disney), I would definitely call it a great family film for the older kids. I wouldn't be surprised if they made further adventures of the Pirates, and the best part is that it wouldn't be a sequel, just the continuing adventure.

Go see Pirates of the Caribbean (again) Today!