Reviews written by registered user
|16 reviews in total|
I do not like the stage version of this musical, I know, I know I don't
care that it is ALW's most famous musical it just was not all that for
me. AND I saw it with the marvelous Michael Crawford. He had a
wonderful voice then but by the time they finally got this film going
he was far too old to play the Phantom and honestly Christine on the
stage is far too old. No woman of her age in the late 19th century and
growing up in the theater would be so innocent, not possible! Emmy
Rossum however was FAR more believable as was Patrick Wilson(I ALWAYS
hated Raoul in the stage version)and Gerard Butler. Less vocal talent
than Crawford but a much stronger emotional performance.
The film looked, sounded and felt stronger than the stage version I saw way back when and I'm glad I went to see the film despite not being much of fan of the original stage version.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This show is NOT the marvelous cheese fest of the 1980's movie but a
more serious take on the premise. So far it is going well the cast is
pretty good except I'm not real keen on Zarkov, he seems too young and
is a bit MORE annoying than he should be. But I am please with Flash
and Dale they are both have good chemistry and are decent actors.
There are some connections they've added using Flash's Father that are new to the premise. And they do have some good bits of humor sprinkled throughout. We'll keep watching it for now...I'd like it if Ming was a bit more of the Merciless Emperor roll than your typical military dictator in a uniform type but the actor is doing well so we shall see.
I also hope they will be adding in some of the classic characters like Vultan and Prince Baron. Certainly this show is a huge improvement on much of the drek that is currently on TV so I'll keep watching it as long as they don't mess it up or cancel it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I was reading some of the reviews and this was certainly love it or hate kind of film. But there was review that made feel very sad. People, pay attention to what you are watching, one reviewer goes on and on about Borden's "clone" and we never saw Tesla make clone of him so this just didn't work for me. Borden didn't have clone he had a twin brother! Sheesh this person was not paying attention at all and many other negative reviews must not have been either because what I saw was an engrossing, deep and very dark portrayal of what anger and jealousy can drive people to do to each other. Bravo Christopher Nolan, I can not wait to see your next film!
This film is about the presumption that because Dodgeson cared so greatly
for Alice there must be something wrong with him because he was a bachelor
and not supposed to care for children or little girls. It has to do with
Victorian society and their ridiculous notions that a bachelor couldn't love
children the way a father would and that he must be ill. Mrs. Hargreaves
nightmares were from the implications and assumptions made by her mother
most noteably and only her sister seemed to really understand Dodgeson just
cared for Alice as a doting uncle or second father figure.
Dodgeson was suspected of unnatural love for children for ages but there has never been any evidience that he was such a man and that he just had a great love for children. And in Victorian England for a confirmed bachelor that just didn't seem natural to people. How sad that even today people still believe it even with no evidence to support it... pshaw!
Had he gotten married and had children of his own no one would have even thought such thoughts but because he was a confirmed bachelor...silly silly silly... This is a stunning film I don't care much for Peter Gallagher but the "what if" story of the real Alice's reactions to the assumptions of Dodgesons character by the adults of her childhood is splendid and beautifully told.
John Erik Hexum didn't commit suicide. Sadly he was playing with a prop gun loaded with blanks under the misguided assumption that blanks can't hurt you. He shot himself in the head playing around and sadly died. It was not suicide. But it did cause a huge shake up in the industry and changed the way shows and films handle their props and weapons on set. He shouldn't have died and if the props people in charge had been doing a good job and not let him play with the gun he wouldn't have. Very sad...very sad...but it helped to promote better safety for future shows. But we lost a wonderful talent when John died. And people wonder why folks are against guns in general..even "Safe" weapons aren't safe.
We all went to see this expecting a simple enjoyable chick flick. What we
got was a very well done film with some very talented young actresses and
some unpredictable plot twists! The previews and ads do not do this film
justice and while it may not be a masterpiece it is certainly a step above
your standard chick flick and well worth seeing!
B+ from me!
For about 30 years now I've been a fan of Pirate films, from Captain Blood and The Black Swan to even the Muppets Treasure Island I've pretty much enjoyed most pirate films I've seen, even Polanski's Pirates was worth watching to me. POTC is so far and away one of the best Pirate films I've seen, it has all the elements of the classic Swashbucklers made in the 1930's that so many folks have had a hard time emulating. Depp and Bloom reminded me of 21st century versions of Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power. They had charm, humor and a sense of fun and pure enjoyment for what they were making. Not so serious that it felt heavy like Cutthroat island, which was decent but still lacking in the pure escapist fun that the original films had. I think that is why this film is so good, Mr. Verbanski was able to give us a true sense of the world of Hollywood Pirates. I mean who'd want to see real Pirates? They were dirty, nasty, brutal murderers and had very little sense of adventure that you see in these films. Remember folks, this isn't history..it is fantasy! Hurrah for Disney, they've produced a film that sounded ridculous at first but became a true reminder of the Swashbuckling adventure films of old!
I'm sorry but I don't care how many people want to say Peter Jackson's stole
scenes from this film? What! Umm no the scenes people refer to are so well
described in the BOOK, you know that thing Tolkien wrote, that of course
they look alike. Get a grip here folks this film is awful! I saw it when I
was a kid when it first opened in San Francisco and the first thing I
thought was how can anybody SEE anything in this film? It is only when you
have Gandalf or Legolas that there is any light on the film to see by. I do
have to say I enjoyed Gollum, but that is IT. This film was horrible and
there comes a time when a director if he is forced to cut corners and
deliver an inferior product, like this film certainly is, that he should
I just laughed so hard when I saw Boromir and he looked like a silly cartoon
Viking with loin cloth and horned helm, what a joke!
Sorry folks but you could never change my mind, until Jackson made his films
the only way to really enjoy Tolkien was to READ the books.
I do say that the Rankin & Bass Hobbit and Return of the King though are better than Bakshi's film, not much, but definitly better!
It surprises me that some people think this is a horrible film. I was 3 when this film was released and for as long as I can remember I've loved it! The songs are fun, especially Hushabye Mountian, Chu-chi Face and Me Ole Bamboo. This movie is both light, cheery as well as dark and creepy, the Child Catcher to this day is one of the scariest villians I know! And know it is a fabulous musical in London! Hopefully someday it will come to Broadway, I'd love to see it on stage!.
This is a lovely, funny and well done romantic comedy. I have to admit I am impressed by the folks who continue to say they felt JG was too pretty to be Abby and that it just didn't ring true to them because of that fact. Well I'm here to tell you folks that this movie is closer to the truth than you realize. One of the things that DOES make this film soo good is that Abby is truly a lovely woman but is surrounded by main stream media and what it says beauty is, namely, Noelle, played admirably by Uma Thurman. Yes Abby is a beautiful woman, but as a woman who looks nothing like all the adds on TV or magazines like JG it is easy to see why she would think she isn't. And honestly I know way too many men who would pass her by in favor of the Noelles of this world. I have a beautiful friend who is very similar to JG and she has had the same problems Abby has in this movie because of perceived images of beauty. THAT is the message this film is trying to make that Abby is beautiful and the media has put too much emphasis on stereotypes. No I don't think they should have hired an UGLIER actress that is simply ridiculous, the film was not about an ugly woman but a beautiful woman who has fallen into the trap of "THINKING" she is unattractive! Watch the movie again folks, you'll see what I mean.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |