|Page 8 of 28:||               |
|Index||271 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If you read the book continue, if not this may contain spoilers.
THEY MESSED UP THE DATE OF HER BIRTHDAY! AND AMMA WAS THE LIBRARIAN!! AMMA IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM WOULD POSSIBLY GO NEAR THAT LIBRARY! They never show Ethan's father. Lena is only in school once. Her vehicle is not a hearse (Not a big deal but would that detail be that hard to put in?) They only "use" the locket twice. Ethan doesn't even find the locket in Greenbrier with Lena, must I go on? This was the worst book to movie adaptation I have ever seen. I don't even think they TRIED to match up the movie with the book. I understand that they had a certain budget, but the fans or at least in my opinion, most of the fans, (The ones who read the book) probably rated this movie as terrible. Rant over.
Okay, so I wasn't stoked to watch a movie "with the forbidden love of
Twiight and the story- telling of The Hunger Games." But, I watched it
with my friend for fun. In comparison to the movies it's compared
to--Twilight, Beastly, Vampire Academy--I'd put this at the top. Full
of Easter eggs of strangely famous and quality actors in a low-quality
film? Jeremy Irons, while probably in a role representing a sink-hole
in his career, provided quite the suspenseful and engaging character.
The touch of Viola Davis, Emmy Rossum, and Emma Thompson really added
something to a movie I accepted low of.
The plot went as expected for a movie of this class, simple and predictable and made-for teenage girls obsessed with supernatural, romance-novels. However, I think the budget must have been extra high on this one, so it was not near as corny as I expected.
The Civil War stuff, as a historian, I can't comment. Maybe it was too much, but I felt like there were too many themes going on--the harshly, fictional conservative town, the pseudo punk rock style of Lena, Viola Davis overall, Macon's style, the southern accents, and the civil war connections...maybe just too much was happening.
Overall, my biggest complaint: The Accents. Too much.
If the Twilight films can become a cash cow then why not chase the same
dollars. Lena Duchannes is a new girl in a small South Carolina town.
Her presence arouses suspicion and outrage in this conservative
community as they see her something unnatural and unwelcome. Ethan Wate
a fellow high school student is fascinated by her and is the only
person nice to her. Ethan reads Karl Vonnegut books, is sensitive and
wants to escape the small town mentality and enter the big world out
However by mixing with Lena he will enter a world of magic spells, secrets, witches and dysfunctional families with vendettas going back to the civil war.
Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert are fine as the off beat pair who might have a lot more in common that they thought. Its the adult star power in the form of Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis, Emma Thompson and Eileen Atkins that elevate the film from being some copycat fodder. They bring some substance and form to the film but its still pretty lightweight stuff that is aimed at teenagers.
I actually didn't mind the movie. Never read the books but after
watching the movie I did go online to read up on the 4 novels, and it
is a bit ridiculous how far this first movie alone has strayed from the
book. You think if you like a book enough you want to make a movie out
of it, that you don't want to change the story line. J.K Rowling-smart
woman, wanted in on the screen play for Harry Potter, needed to approve
every decision etc.
I think the issue with movies like these is everyone is so into this "teen fiction" atm. Whether it's supernatural/magic based like this, twilight, Harry potter etc or more action based like the Hunger Games or Divergent. The big thing is writing for teens. It's getting annoying!
Do we all remember that episode of Family Guy where Brian writes that load of crap book in an afternoon in the style of that "new-age" "spiritual" crap. He was a struggling writer trying to write what he was passionate about- and got no where, then he wrote what was popular and got published and sold millions of copies,
From all the books turned movies that I've read Lord of The rings and Harry Potter were the only 2 well done series in my opinion-of what I've read.
I feel like people try to write what is popular, for the sake of sales. Not saying its. It smart business wise, but it doesn't often make for great reading or viewing.
Harry Potter was an 11 year reading journey of my youth, and it made for good quality. You pump out 2-3 books in a quick period, and this is what we end up with.
On ratings alone it seems that they will not be making any more of this franchise. It took ages for the 2nd Percy Jackson movie to come out. They have strayed so far from key story lines in this first movie, it almost makes it impossible to stay true to the novels in any respectable shape or form in the upcoming movies-should they get made,
I love the books. Love the story. But some very serious Hollywood screw-ups probably sank any chance for this to become a 4-film franchise And those flaws are: Emma Thompson. Jeremy Irons. Alice Englert. they sucked. not right at all. Emma and Jeremy are cartoonish. Alice is without charisma or beauty. They were trying to find another Kristen Stewart, awkward, slightly masculine. But it didn't work And the other HUGE flaw was combining the character of Amma with Marian. Amma IS the story. A tragic mistake. Good points: Alden Ehrenreich, he was absolutely fantastic! He gets all the love. The movie was gorgeous. Did a great job with its magic. Nicely captured the South, atmospherically. But as we've all said 9 million times. Get Southerners to play Southerners! Either way I still felt love for. I went to see it. I bought it. And if they make the next one, I will be there!
Well, I found this film a little bit too slow. Just like the US
Southern states are.
Since plot is based on a book, and I had no chance to read the book, I think they probably would not make a film based on a bad book. Since I read the rest of reviews on this film I assume (I make ass out of you and me) that the book is better then the film.
Actors did not fill my expectations, I fell them a little bit to wooden. The Lina actress is cute, but she kind of fell into other actors stiffness. I do not know, may be I am wrong.
Visual and special effects were excellent, but they are most of the time these days.
All in all if you watch this film try to stay awake.
Otherwise you might as well watch it, if you feel like it, you might be OK, it will not hurt you.
"Beautiful Creatures" is really just another spin on the first Twilight
movie, except with the roles reversed. Instead of the brooding Robert
Pattison, we get the attractive and somewhat mysterious Lena Duchannes
(Alice Englert) who lives with the curse of being different (she has
magical powers). You might say that Robert Pattison's Edward Cullen and
Alice Englert's Lena Duchannes are metaphors for high school kids who
do not fit in with the popular crowds and drift towards some form of
Goth culture as their preferred identity, except that this simple
metaphor is freshened up a little with special effects. Similarly
instead of Kristen Stewart's Bella Swan, we have Ethan Wate (Alden
Ehrenreich), a popular kid who becomes infatuated with the mysterious
Lena. Finally, if anyone has any doubts that they are seeing another
twilight film or, if you like, new wine in old bottles, this movie tips
its hat to Robert Pattison himself by giving him a cameo performance in
the film where he says very little.
My main problem with this film is that the scenes with Lena and Ethan are usually boring. This is not a reflection on the actors themselves. For all I know, Alice Englert and Alden Ehrenreich are each capable of wonderful performance if given the right scripts. But their characters are giving nothing interesting to say or do here and Alden Ehrenreich's character in particular is written in such a way that he does not seem bright at all. In fact, he could not even remember a verse from a book that he tried to recite to Lena Duchannes, even though he claimed that he memorized it.
Fortunately, the film is not a total wreck. Jeremy Irons is an experienced enough actor to know how to have fun with depicting the film's absurd character (Lena's uncle) Macon Ravenwood and we have fun watching him. Emma Thompson is also wonderful as the evil Sarafin who tries to lure Lena to the dark side -- which, to her immense disappointment, turns out to be Lena putting on a lot of white makeup and looking like a sexy Goth girl. Emmy Rossum is also quite good as the naughty Ridley Duchannes. But these stellar performances cut both ways: they safe the film from its descent into the abyss of total boredom, but they also become a big problem for this film because the formidable triumvirate of Irons, Thompson, and Rossum completely upstages the two protagonists, Ethan and Lena, and demonstrates in no uncertain terms how dull they really are.
My review would end here, except that someone would probably criticize me for failing to mention the special effects. Well my view on the special effects is this. If "Beautiful Creatures" was made in 1930, then I would readily concede that the special effects are awesome. But we already know, by 2013, that computers can do creative things with special effects. So if you are looking for special effects, then yes this film will deliver. But the special effects that you will end up seeing won't be anything that you have not seen before. There are no big surprises. There are no moments of awe. Like many people, I go to the cinema 3-4 times a year and yet I can still say that not one of the special effects in "Beautiful Creatures" surprised, interested, or captivated me in any way. What is more, what makes the special effects in this film somewhat underwhelming is that they are in service of a plot that is really nothing special. I have seen the formula of boy meets and falls in love with unusual girl (or vice versa), their love is looked down upon by the town, unusual girl encourages boy to forget about her and go on with this life (the first Twilight film had a similar plot), and the cliff-hanger where the love of the unusual girl and the boy might still be saved (except that the only way to find out if their love is saved is if you watch Beautiful Creatures Part II) many times before. I was hoping that just maybe there might be some spin on this material, some incredible plot twists, or maybe the two protagonists could have been written far more intelligently... but these hopes were disappointed. Films like "Beautiful Creatures" tend to ossify the Hollywood movie industry, when what we are really looking for when we go to the cinema is a film so different, so unique, and so other-worldly that it provides us with an alternative life experience. For all its special effects, "Beautiful Creatures" is not that film and if there is a lesson to be learnt here it is that even the most competently done special effects make little difference unless the screenplay is ready for production.
I haven't read the book and I have no idea when it was released. For
some it might be a factor to whether or not they'll like this depending
on the release date of the book and when Twilight was released. This
more or less in the same vain. It's beautiful people (some of which are
also "Monsters", sort of) falling in love with other beautiful people.
Of course having someone like Irons in this movie elevates it in the
acting department ... a lot.
There is not much story here (coming of age, loss of innocence and so on). Nothing surprising (apart from a little twist towards the end maybe) happens. But it does tick off all the right teenager boxes, they are looking out for. You could start judging it for some things or just try to enjoy it for what it is ... your choice
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I didn't read the book, so I don't know just how accurate it was, so
for all of you who did read it and found it flawed, please forgive this
I watched this movie for movie night grudgingly, it wasn't my pick and from the previews I had seen I wasn't much impressed with the plot line of the story or the nobody actors in the leading roles. But it just goes to show you that you cannot judge a book by its cover, (or a movie by its trailer.) The story-line was adeptly put together with the history of the "Castors" and the history of the main Revenswood family that left little to no plot holes or unanswered questions by the end of the film. But the real gem of this film was the cinematography.
Every shot was like looking into a canvas painting--Just beautiful. From the family's dining room to the alley way where Emmy Rossum posed like Jessica Rabbit. The artistic value of this movie was off the charts and even when the acting was off or the script was too gushy to be believed your eyes were treated to visual candy. The only actual problem I have with the story was Emmy Rossum's character. Ms. Rossum herself was lovely to look at and she was always on point with her acting but her character had no real part in the movie. I felt that they could have used her more in a way that would actually progress the story. But overall the film was really not that bad, even if it was written for thirteen year old girls. 6/10
I know, nobody cares about my life, also I don't want tell it, but I
have fill it with 10 lines, so I'll start from the beginning.
I have some friends fans of horror movies, paranormal, etc. They usually invite me and usually I accept because they don't have bad taste and also means a good night.
One day, I was invited to watch this movie, they didn't quite know what it was, but they were recommended very well, "a lot of terror", "with Vampires and Werewolves" (from Twilight this should be a sign of alarm). When I saw the poster, I had a bad feeling but I have faith in my friends "they couldn't be wrong"; also they despised my warnings and I accepted with resignation. When started and 10min later the reality was too obvious but my faith in my friends still made me deny. Of course, one more minute is enough to remove any blinders. The funny thing is: In Internet I have seen many people with the same situation, identical.
Anyway, if you want a summary of this movie just simply say:
===> It's like Twilight but without "homo" Vampires/Werewolves but with crazy Witches, I mean, it is better than Twilight.
Of course, I don't love this genre, But if you like the genre, it's a good movie, I guess.
|Page 8 of 28:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|