Reviews written by registered user
|27 reviews in total|
... and the best thing was that it WAS all hype, because that's what Baz
Luhrman set out to achieve. Remember Strictly Ballroom? Romeo + Juliet?
Well, then it should be no surprise that Moulin Rouge turned out the way it
did and if you didn't like the way it was directed and edited, you should
have known better from Luhrman's previous films.
The best thing about Moulin Rouge was the hilarious highs and the heart-wrenching lows and all that brilliant colour in between. People with their thumbs up have pretty much said what I wanted to say but I just wanted to chip in with a bit of "Moulin Rouge delivered everything it promised considering the cast and the director" to those who can't help but spoil all the fun.
My faith in films made from books has declined somewhat in the past few years and this is an example of why. Although Marchetti wrote the screenplay, some of the most important things lost their meaning. The film was a mere pastiche of the book. Obviously time constraints meant that they couldn't film the whole book but I thought that certain things could have retained some adherence to Josie's insecurity about her ethnicity and illegitimacy. As a film it was great, but people who loved the book will probably be disappointed.
I've been a Branagh fan for a while but until yesterday, had not seen
Again". How good is this film?!? I was intrigued the whole way through.
acting was superb, especially the main characters played by Branagh,
Thompson and Jacobi and the alternating between the present life and the
past (black & white) was a really clever effect.
I liked how the film unravelled in its own way, at its own pace, instead of employing cliches to handle difficult parts of the plot. I won't say anything more - you have to see for yourself.
What else can I say? Brilliant.
At the time at which I write, American Pie has not yet hit the Australian
box office. I, along with a few lucky punters taking part in a promotion,
was pleased to discover that the Mystery Movie at our local cinema was this
film (thank god it wasn't Big Daddy or Deep Blue). Anyway, I remember this
one time, at band camp...
What can I say? The whole thing is almost a conglomeration of cliches but I've studied films in cultural studies that twist familiar things to make them interesting and original - like American Pie. I think all the 'bad' guys (Stifler and Sherman) get what's coming to them, as does Jim though he's actually pleased. Everything works out rather nicely and surprisingly - I mean, how many people thought things were going to be resolved about halfway when Finch seemed to have everything under control, Jim has the Czech girl over his house, Oz had 'won' the girl and Vicky had finally decided to do it with Kev? But the film ploughed on and these situations started to change and I was like, so how are Jim and Finch supposed to get laid now? But with very clever twists it all gets resolved. Love this resolving that's running rife in movies these days!
Well, I must say it was an enjoyable film, utterly hilarious at parts (the apple pie is just one bit). You gotta love quotes like "Scotch in the cupboard on the right... aged 18 years - just the way I like it." (Stifler's mother) and little things like Jim's 'strip' which almost saved him from humiliation (the deftly aimed shirt). I'll shut up now. Go and see it or you won't know what anyone's talking about.
I remember this one time, at band camp...
Well, Branagh has impressed me once again. The whole film was rich in colours and emotions which was summed up so perfectly from the moment I saw everyone rushing to get ready when I thought - this is going to be a fun version of the play. I was right and it was. The acting was particularly good in the comic moments (Benedick not being able to sit on the chair after he hears that Beatrice loves him in particular) but Robert Sean Leonard I think, overacted a little. I'm not sure whether it was because it was Shakespearean because he's good in other films but he was too much for Claudio. An exhilarating film.
I saw Go! as a knot with no bows - a very interesting look at how teenagers
can get themselves into a tangle without any decoration at the end. The
format was excellent and Sarah Polley looks and acts like a young Uma
Thurman (Pulp Fiction already?).
Well, onto its parallels with Pulp Fiction, Go! reads like a younger sibling that's not quite smart enough or confusing enough to cream its elders but it is original all the same.
The action is racy (as you would expect from something named Go!) and the comic bits are actually funny which makes it enough to be called a comedy/drama. There are two sides to every character - one shown from another's point of view, and then from their own. Everyone is both a hero and a victim in their own right which makes Go! an exciting ride. (Not taken literally, Simon).
I read the book, saw the film - the film doesn't touch Heller. It has the
main events happening and the recurring theme of Snowden's death haunting
Yossarian but... it doesn't come close to the intricacies of the
Buck Henry has tried his best to make the film as funny as the book but instead of the satire of Heller, humour it transformed into something more outright, I guess so that people who wouldn't 'get' it in the book can laugh at the film. However, I began to think of things as tragic when in the novel they were funny (like McWatt flying into a mountain). Where's the dead man i Yossarian's tent? I even laughed in advance remembering the incidents in the book. So, I must say that this is a very poor adaptation of Catch 22, it loses the essence, the satire that was Heller's purpose for writing it.
Though I thought Shakespeare's play 'The Tempest' was crap, this film adaptation is even worse. I mean, if I hadn't have read the play beforehand, I don't think I would have known what was going on half the time. This film, though very artistic (the 6 out of the 6/10 I gave it is for the artistry) shows a complete lack of Shakespeare. Greenaway should have just changed the names and the plot a little and made his own film instead of calling it an adaptation of 'The Tempest'. It's also too much of a romp in the land of (sexual) fantasy to be taken completely seriously. Creative, but no banana.
I had to watch and read 'The Comfort of Strangers' for film studies and I
must say that though Schrader and the film did what it could to match the
complexities of the book, it didn't completely succeed.
The cast was strong but the casting wasn't - neither Colin nor Mary affected me like they did in McEwan's novel. Rupert Everett is a good actor, but I think he was a little too effeminate for this role. Richardson tried her best to be Mary, but I think she was too soft and dependent. Thumbs up to Robert and Caroline; they lived up to McEwan's characters.
Book better, go read it.
If you can get past the swearing and the exaggerated Australian stereotypes,
then this flick is probably your cup of tea. It has good actors, a brilliant
and neatly connected plot, some drama, some crime, some violence and a
splash of comedy. Nothing is really out of place in this film (we were
debating about the presence of the ghost but decided it had some relevance
in the fact that it was Jimmy's brother who was kind of 'protecting'
Anyway, my media tutor said it was 'Tarantino-esque' but I believed it was more unpolished in the dialogue with less meaning involved (not that it was analysis-barren). Also had more comedy, the stuff that is physically funny, not witty. BUT, this is not to take away for the brilliance of its plotline, the way everything is a karma (what goes around comes around) and how satisfactory the ending is in its neat little package. I also appreciated the fact that the romantic factor was minimal but important in the plot. Well done!
|Page 1 of 3:||  |