Reviews written by registered user
|22 reviews in total|
OK, it wasn't the original series. *NOTHING* will be the original
series. That said, it was a worthy followup.
Let's get the honesty part out of the way. I am a major fan of The Munsters. I thought the update "The Munsters Today" was horrible - because it violated the basic premise of the show. In "The Munsters Today", a good part of it had to do with the Munsters wanting to be "normal" - Eddie even changing his clothes and hairstyle. The main premise of The Munsters is that the family believed that they *WERE* "normal". That was it's charm.
In this version, the Munsters were what we knew and loved. They saw themselves as the average family. It gave us a bit of background to their being here. I *LOVED* Eddie actually changing into a werewolf - and Lilly biting someone on the neck.
I wish this had gone to series - it would have almost made up for "The Munsters Today". I wouldn't have had the chemistry of the original cast - but it did have a good one of it's own.
The Munsters aren't dead ... they're just waiting to rise again - and I can hardly wait.
First, I want to say that I really like historical dramas. This leads
me to a bias, however. A good historical drama needs the feel of the
period it represents.
Marie Antoinette completely fails at this. Costumes were good, but there was no real feel of the excesses of the French court that led to its downfall. The score was - in my opinion - an unmitigated disaster. It didn't know what it was trying to be. Ranging from anachronistically modern to occasional strains that *MIGHT* have been intended for a past period, it detracted rather than enhanced the experience.
Ms. Dunst is a good actress - but she wasn't allowed to show it here. She looked like she was sleep-walking through the film.
Not surprisingly, it took great liberties with history. Certainly not unusual in such a piece, but the inaccuracies seemed to be based in an attempt to show Louix XVI in a poor light. The sad part is that he *WAS* a poor king. It would have been better to properly portray him.
I give it a 3 out of 10.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Phantom is one of my favorite plays of all time. The story and music
are nothing less than breathtaking. As a result, I was thrilled when I
heard it was going to be on the large screen. Perhaps my expectations
were too high, but I was disappointed with the translation.
I thought the time split between the Paris of 1907 and 1870 was unnecessary. It was established in the opening scene, and that was sufficient. I know they did it to lead up to the ending which was modified from the play ... but that was the part that I found most disappointing.
I thought the ending from the play to be much more satisfying. To me, the play's ending kept the mystery alive; the ending in the film had the air of finality - if only because it was 30 years after the events in the film. It might work well for those who haven't seen Phantom on stage, but it simply didn't work for me. The mystery was over.
I find this to be a common fault of plays that are translated to film. Those translating seem to think they need to make changes to the play - forgetting that the very reason they're making the film is that it's *ALREADY* a great story. No one takes a mediocre or bad play to make a film. More often than not, their changes take away from the story instead of adding to it.
I gave Phantom (the film) a 6; Phantom (the play) is an easy 10++
Another user compared this to the original. Actually, I think this
adaptation of "The Yearling" is better than the original ... but the
original is by far the better film. While the acting in this version is
good - superior to many films made today - there is simply nothing to
compare to Gregory Peck and Jane Wyman from the original. It is not that
this version is in any way lacking, it is that the original set the bar so
high that it's not really fair to compare the two.
I thought Wil Horneff captured the part of Jody very well. I thought he was absolutely believable. Peter Strauss was very good as his father, but I thought Jean Smart was lacking as his mother. She had the emptiness that the part calls for, but needed a little more of the coldness that Ora Baxter showed in the book.
Jared Blancard completely missed the target as Fodderwing, in my opinion. The character should have a sense of mystical wonder and awe at nature which Jared simply didn't show. The part isn't large (relatively), but it is pivotal. Don Gift had it down perfectly in the original.
All in all, this is a very good film. It's great for the family and stands on its own.
This film is one that can touch the heart if you're open to it. Well acted and carried by the combination of Redgrave and Morgan (Trevor deserves better billing here) who have a wonderful chemistry together. Redgrave's character comforts Morgan simply by letting him be open - and true - to himself. It left me with a very good feeling inside ... and an urge to tell those close to me that I love them.
At the beginning, I had no expectations. When I identified it as a religious film, my expectations came in low. I found the film to be quite enjoyable, however ... even though I was predicting events before they were shown. This is definitely a film the entire family can watch together, and those are rare today. Performances aren't Academy Award material, but they fit the film quite well. Enjoy.
It stars Dan Haggerty, which should go a long way toward defining the
He's made a career from working with bears, so here they are. He's almost
created a sub-genre of family film in his own right.
That said, this one fits the mold very well. If you want something you can watch with your kids, this might just be the ticket. The main characters played by Haggerty and Miko Hughes are well acted. Some of the minor characters go over the top, but that's not going to bother the kids.
Keep your expectations reasonable (it's not "Casa Blanca"!) and you'll have an enjoyable evening. I give it a 5.
Irwin Allen was the king of disaster movies. It's not a surprise that he
would base one around a flood. The film was OK, but the disaster wasn't
main thrust of the film.
From the beginning, the story line revolves around Paul Blake (Martin Milner) trying to convince the mayor that the town dam was unsafe. Richard Basehart as the mayor did a good job in the mayor's role. Probably the best performance was given by Robert Culp as helicopter pilot Steve Branagan.
My main criticism is that for a film built around the disaster, the disaster itself seemed underplayed. Stock footage of floods (it was a TV movie, so probably not big FX budget), and a brief time for its depiction.
Watch for 70's teen idol Leif Garrett to have a small part in this.
I'm a fan of the genre, so I gave it a 6. Your mileage may vary.
I liked this film; it's fun to watch. It's not a great film, but how many
are? The computer graphics are good, the story is familiar but well handled.
What makes it work is Joseph Mazzello. I really haven't seen him give a weak
performance in anything, and he definitely carries this
That's also what I consider the film's greatest weakness. Joseph has to do most of his acting from the inside of a helmet using only his face and voice. He handles it well, but it's a shame we don't get to see more of what he can do.
It's a good film to watch with the whole family. I gave it a 5.
There's a little problem with "truth in advertising" here. The only thing
this film has in common with Rudyard Kipling's book is the title and the
name of the principle character (Mowgli). After that, there is no
It's a decent adventure story, but if you're wanting to watch "The Jungle Book", you're going to be disappointed. For that, I might suggest the 1942 version with Sabu or the 1967 animated version.
Jason Scott Lee acts the part very well, but I simply couldn't believe him as Mowgli. He just didn't fit that part. Most of the other characters were fine ... but, of course, they weren't characters from the book. I gave it a 4.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |