Reviews written by registered user
|112 reviews in total|
Anyone who saw the original Wonder Woman movie, as bad as it was,wlll
find the original far superior to this piece of crap even though the
newer version is full of cinematic gimmicks which the original did not
have.Lind Carter was not the greatest actress but compared to Gal
Godot, Carter was by far the best Wonder Woman. Besides Carter is
beautiful, Gadot is very unattractive. I suspect that those who exalt
this film are feminists.
And compared to the original movie, this one is badly directed. It lacks cohesiveness and credibility. It is as others have noted, a badly flawed flick. If you go to watch it, don't have high expectations because you will really be disappointed. The flick got a lot of undeserved praise.
The only reason I went to see this flick was to take my 14 yr. old granddaughter and my 17 yr. old grandson. My granddaughter loved the movie, my grandson was bored by it, thought it was a waste of time. But I can understand why anyone who is still a juvenile at heart might enjoy this fantasy. Also, why viewers who were not old enough to watch the original Wonder Woman had nothing to compare the latest flick with the original. It is like the James Bond movies. The original Sean Connery versions were by far the best but as the movies went on and new actors became James Bond, they couldn't match Sean Connery. Likewise Gadot is no Lynda Carter. And I don't mean to compare the James Bond movies with the DC movies because the DC movies including the latest Wonder Woman are not even close to being in the same class as the James Bond movies. It is like comparing the Untouchables with the Brahmans.
Another thing that one has to wonder. Wonder Woman was not released until June 2, yet there were so many reviews written prior to that date. So is someone stacking the deck in order to get people to watch the flick?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The only redeeming quality about this movie is the excellent acting.
Otherwise it is very mediocre. Supposedly it is based on a true story
but it probably took a lot of liberties with the story to sell messages
that never were in the original story. And the foul language used too
frequently in the movie probably never happened in real life because it
is completely out of character. The movie is not PG-13. It should have
been rated as "R".
I am not a Catholic and I have a lot of issues with the Catholic church but this movie is a vicious and undeserved attack on the Church. It really takes things out of context. That the Church took in unwed pregnant mothers, helped deliver the babies, raised the children and put them up for adoption is very commendable and charitable. That they charged adopting parents a $1000 was justifiable. Charity doesn't come free.
But the main point of the movie was to condemn the Nuns for refusing to help the mother find her child after it was adopted. There is a good reason for that and in many countries and states, that is the law. Once the mother gives up her child for adoption, the adopting agency is forbidden from disclosing any information about the whereabouts of the adopted child. There is a very good reason for that. It provides stability both for the adopted child and the adoptive parents. But primarily it is for the benefit of the child.
That also explains why the mothers while in the convent were only allowed to visit their child for an hour a day. While it provided an opportunity for the mothers to see their children, it did not allow enough time for the children to become bonded to their mothers which would have complicated their adoptions. It was a wise move.
Having said that the nuns could have treated the mothers much better. It was not Christian of the nuns to condemn the mothers because they had engaged in extramarital sex. It would have been much better if the nuns had followed Jesus' example and teachings. Jesus loved and forgave sinners telling them o and sin no more." Had the nuns did that, they would have really helped the women.
But as much as I have admired Judi Dench as an actress, it is a shame she took on this role and it doesn't speak well of her.
Delightful story perfectly told by Disney - a show suitable for
everyone. Not a great movie fan but this was top notch. Didn't even
recognize Emma Thompson and though not her fan, she did a superb job.
Hanks was also great but occasionally, he sounded like Forest Gump and
that may have cost him the Oscar. But all the actors and actresses in
the movie were tops and contributed to the film's success.
Perhaps it is the Disney magic. Mary Poppins was a stellar motion picture so it made "Saving Mr. Banks" even more interesting. But it wasn't just a story about Mary Poppins - it was a story not only about its author but also a story about Walt Disney and it told a lot about the man and why he was so successful. That in itself made the movie a winner.
This is a movie I would like to see again and again. It is a classic.
The movie is a very distorted view of Moses and the exodus of the Jews
from Egypt through the wilderness to Palestine. A wise old sage once
told me that if you can't tell the story right, don't tell it all.
There is only one story as it is told in the Bible Chapter Exodus and
that is the story. The way it is told in this movie about Moses, it
ain't the way it was written. It is a mockery of the original story It
is pure blasphemy and nothing but an attack on the Bible and religion.
No right thinking Jew or Christian should watch this movie. It is
obvious that its producers do not understand in the least the spiritual
message the story the Bible tells.
For example, where "a snarky, querulous 13 year old boy" becomes the voice of God rather than "an unseen voice in the clouds." This shows the producer's lack of understanding of the Scripture. Moses was praying in a very humble and unselfish way for guidance from God and his prayer was answered. When God answers our prayers, the answer comes out of nowhere and the clouds simply were a metaphorical way of stating that. Anyone that has had that experience knows this but obviously the producers of the movie have not, so not believing in that that God's voice could come out of nowhere, they substitute a boy.
Not only that, the movie adds to the story and in so doing becomes quite silly at times and that is another reason not to watch the movie because it is just another effort to undermine and distort the story of the exodus.
Although the movie is based on a true story, a story that is very
interesting, the producers couldn't leave it alone. Instead, they
tampered with it so much that they made such an interesting story,
The only bright spot in the movie is Forest Whitaker. Given what he had to work with, he did a superb job of playing Eugene Allen. Allen was a humble man and Whitaker captures that humility. Originally, Denzel Washington was selected to play the part but it is unlikely that Washington, as good an actor as he is, could portray a humble man.
One of he big weaknesses in the film was the supporting cast. Oprah Winfrey was miscast as the butlers wife. That really distracted from Goines. Oprah came across as much too strong a personality as if the film was centered around her instead of Goines and her acting was mediocre. In real life, the story was about Allen, and not about his wife, but Oprah made the film as much about her as Allen. There are two explanations for writing the story to include Oprah. Either, the producers wanted her star power, or more likely, they needed her money to produce the film and had to cast her in the movie to get it.
Other than the strong performance by Whitaker, about the redeeming thing about the movie is that at least viewers are aware of the basic theme of the story, as fictionalized as it is, is that there was a butler of color that served eight presidents, was invited by one president to an official dinner, and got to see a man of color elected president. But we all could have learned that if it had been made a TV documentary rather than a crappy movie.
My granddaughter wanted to go to the movies. Despicable 2 was sold out
so we went to watch the Lone Ranger, who always was a favorite of mine.
What a waste of money. It had none of the charisma that the original
series had. Those who like it probably never grew up with the Lone
Casting Johnny Depp as Tonto was the biggest mistake the producers made. Everyone knows he ain't no Indian. And he is not built like the traditional Tonto. The only role that Depp could play in this movie would be that of a villain.
The movie got away from what made the Lone Ranger successful. But the producers probably afraid that if Tonto played the traditional role, some of my Indian brethren would be offended so they tried to make him the hero instead of Lone Ranger's buddy. Hey, I always loved the fact that Tonto was the Lone Ranger's sidekick. He was playing a hero. Movie just proves that when a successful formula is abandoned, it is usually a disaster. Silversrone might have pulled it off but Depp never had a chance.
It was one of the worst Westerns I ever watched. I made a mistake in not reading the reviews before I went but that is what you get when you go on the spur of the moment. This movie deserves a razz berry.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite novels. It was required reading
in American Lit. However, the movie is mockery of F. Scoot Fitzgerald's
novel. The novel left much for the imagination with its powerful
imagery. This movie sucks. It is like a comic book version of the
original novel leaving nothing to the imagination. It is only what the
movie maker imagines, not what Fitzgerald had in mind. As for the cast,
the last person that should have been cast as Gatsby is Leonardo
DiCaprio. He not only doesn't fit the image of Gatsby, trying to make
him Gatsby is like trying to drive a square peg through a round hole.
And he doesn't even come close to acting like Gatsby.
If a viewer had read Fitzgerald's book and then walked into this movie without knowing that it was supposed to be based on the novel, one would not have recognized the movie. Perhaps a viewer would have believed it was some sort of sequel.
While the earlier Great Gatsby with Robert Redford was not perfect, at least it strongly resembled the novel, which this last version does not. So if someone wants to see a movie version of the Great Gatsby, watch the Redford version. Don't waste either your money or your time on this wacky version. Best yet, go read the book which I am doing again. That is the only benefit I got from watching the movie. It got me to read the book again which after this stinking movie, made me realize how good a writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald was.
After reading all the rave reviews of this movie, I decided to see it.
It did not live up to the reviews and it certainly is only a poor
copycat of the John Wayne version which won the Academy Award.
I never was a fan of John Wayne. Never impressed me as an actor (although I do have his autograph which I obtained when I was young) nor did nor did I like his politics. Nevertheless, I found that he was perfect for the role of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit and played the role masterfully. That movie was extraordinarily entertaining as was the followup "Rooster Cogburn."
The entire cast of the original movie is far superior to that of its copycat. If you know Rooster Cogburn, you know that Jeff Bridges ain't no Rooster Cogburn. If you watched Kim Darby play "Mattie Ross" you know that Hailee Stein field ain't no Mattie.
The original movie could be shown to children. I would not show the copycat to anyone under 17 years of age. Some feel the movie is a very authentic Western, however, I grew up in the old West and in those times you would not hear some of the language used in the copycat version. Also some of the scenes are unnecessarily gruesome despite their realism. The original version shows that a great Western movie can be made without overdoing the language and the gruesome scenes, which are added for shock value rather than to enhance the reality.
The only reason that I can find for the copycat movie to get such rave reviews is that most screen critics hated John Wayne because of his right wing politics and they are pumping Bridges and the copycat movie in order to diminish John Wayne.
It is often said that a picture is worth a 1000 words. In some ways
that is true about this movie, and in other ways it is not.
For those unfamiliar with Alzheimer Disease (AD), it was educational. For anyone who has had to care for a close relative afflicted with Alzheimer Disease or Parkinson's Disease, the movie depicted the hopelessness one feels when having to care for the afflicted persons, who know how devastating these diseases are, and for which there is no cure. In this sense the picture is worth a 1000 words but the picture distorts time in that the progressive deterioration caused by AD takes place over a period of several years while in the picture it happens in a period of about four months.
The screenplay begins and ends in a winter. There are no other seasons depicted. It may have been that because the film was shot on a tight budget, which did not allow the filming to include the other seasons, and that may be why the time line was so unreal.
This screenplay written by Sarah Polley was based on a short story "The Bear Came Over the Mountain" by Alice Munro, published in the New Yorker Magazine in December 27, 1999. Unfortunately, Polley butchered the story, which was tightly written and very interesting, and for this she was unjustly nominated for an Academy Award. She also did a horrible job directing the picture, One can read the short story in about 15 minutes. The movie lasts 110 minutes and yet leaves out some of the most important parts of the short story so that the viewer never knows the complete story and it makes the movie disjointed. Polley often uses quotes from the short story in the screenplay but they lose their meaning when the material from the story on which the quotes are based is omitted. For example, the dialog that ends both the movie and the short story, was based on events that occurred earlier in the marriage between Fiona (Julie Christie) and her husband Grant Anderson (Gordon Pinsett) which were vaguely alluded to in the movie but much more explicitly detail in the story. Thus, the conclusion lacks any punch. It was the same earlier events which set up a discussion between a nurse (Kristy) at the nursing home and Grant, in which she tries to explain the close relationship between his wife and Audrey, another elderly patient at the nursing home. If one had read the story, the explanation had real meaning but in the context of the movie in which the material supporting the explanation was omitted, it had little impact.
Making the movie harder to follow was the decision to use flashbacks, jumping back and forth between a conversation Grant had with Marian and other parts of the story, leaving the viewer disjointed and confused. Flashbacks would have been more effective had they been used to tell about earlier events between Grant and Fiona that set up the story as was done in the short story.
There are also two sex scenes in the movie that were not in the short story. The first is unreal and the second one detracts from the whole theme of the story which is Grant's absolute devotion to Fiona at the stage of their marriage. It really detracted from the secondary message which depicted AD. It was "off message."
The movie has a very confusing ending which leaves a viewer bewildered. It left too many loose ends. It leaves the characters (and the viewers) in a predicament. The predicament was in part a result of a gratuitous sex scene, and partly because much of the last part of the movie was a gross departure from the short story so that the movie ending made no sense at all. Had not. The parts of the short story Polley chose to omit could have been included in the screenplay without lengthening the movie had not Polley wasted so much time on meaningless diversions from the short story.
Another problem with the movie is that the nursing home is rather luxurious. It is not the type of nursing home that one would find for patients with ordinary income. Grant and Fiona were not wealthy. Grant was a retired professor who was forced to retire early on a reduced income and they lived in a home that Fiona's parents had left Fiona. So there was no explanation as to how Grant was able to afford the cost. Yet we know that it was expensive because Marian, the wife of Audrey, who Fiona befriended, took Audrey out of the nursing home because of the high cost.
While Polley used much of the dialog from the short story, she added some of her own. At one point Grant meets Marian, the wife of Audrey. When they departed in the movie, Marian says to herself, "What a jerk!" referring to Grant. That is not what happened in the short story. When he departed he felt depressed that he had not succeeded in persuading Marian to send Audrey back to the nursing home and he said to himself "What a jerk, she would be thinking now." In the short story, that ended his relationship with Marian but that is not what happened in the movie. What followed in the movie ruined the movie.
That does not take away from the superb acting performances of both Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsett, which for no other reason, makes the movie worthwhile watching. It is unfortunate that Sarah Polley did such a miserable job writing the script and directing the movie so that a 1000 pictures were not worth the last three words which are the essence of the story. Which proves that film making often is unable to project the power of the written word.
I usually don't watch love stories but this was an exception and it is
an exceptional film. Even my wife enjoyed it. I wonder how I never
heard of it when it first came around. Set in the upper Mid-West just
after World War I, it is the tale of a German mail order bride who
speaks no English, and of her heartfelt struggles to be accepted in the
community, which is still suffering from a War spawned hatred of
Germans, and to get married. It is a period piece which accurately
describes conditions as they were at that time, except we never see the
outhouse, a common fixture on farms until running water became
If the picture has any shortcomings, it is that if you don't understand German, you never know what she is saying. Sub-titles would have been helpful but then perhaps viewers would not grasp the difficulty of the situation if they knew what was being said. Another one, is that the story, which is told in flashbacks, just doesn't go far enough with the part just before she is to get married. But the beginning and the endings mesh together very well and leaves a viewer with a sense of completeness.
|Page 1 of 12:||          |