Reviews written by registered user
fishbone-5

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
15 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

great plot cliff notes on a over-long book, 6 June 2004

There has been a lot of criticism of this film's pace, with reference to the development of the plot in the novel from which it was adapted. I, on the other hand, felt that the novel developed rather slowly. Lots of idle time spent on non plot related details, which are fun to read, but are not needed for the movement of the plot. This film takes the opening point of the book, the ending point of the book, and plots it's own path between the two, including and connecting those essential entries from the book that work on film, and disregarding the rest. To me, this is the way that screenplay adaptations work best. I sincerely hope that this formula is used for the next film - as the 4th book is "war and peace" length, and would require a 4 hour movie. The basics of the plot, however, can be told in 20 minuites, leaving a good amount of time for fun and jokes and special effects and mood and - well, everthing that made this one so fun. What is very cool about the Azkaban film in the influx of some new creativity to the series. The mood shots and film style, the moving cameras and center fades, the talking shrunken heads.... none of that is in the book, but it is very cool.

great plot cliff notes on a over-long book, 6 June 2004

There has been a lot of criticism of this film's pace, with reference to the development of the plot in the novel from which it was adapted. I, on the other hand, felt that the novel developed rather slowly. Lots of idle time spent on non plot related details, which are fun to read, but are not needed for the movement of the plot. This film takes the opening point of the book, the ending point of the book, and plots it's own path between the two, including and connecting those essential entries from the book that work on film, and disregarding the rest. To me, this is the way that screenplay adaptations work best. I sincerely hope that this formula is used for the next film - as the 4th book is "war and peace" length, and would require a 4 hour movie. The basics of the plot, however, can be told in 20 minuites, leaving a good amount of time for fun and jokes and special effects and mood and - well, everthing that made this one so fun. What is very cool about the Azkaban film in the influx of some new creativity to the series. The mood shots and film style, the moving cameras and center fades, the talking shrunken heads.... none of that is in the book, but it is very cool.

Blade (1998)
Go, Wes, Go, 9 September 2001
8/10

I remember seeing this one in the theatres when it came out, having no idea what it was going to be about and being so pleasantly surprised that I vowed to buy the video when it came out.

While I won't go too far into dissecting this film, I will say that I gave it an 8/10, for all the reasons you can read in the other user's reviews.

What I will say is this:

The first 10 minutes of this film are incredible. It's as close to a textbook audience grabber as I've ever seen. I once put this movie on at a party, where everyone was winding down and getting ready to leave. I just wanted to see what would happen if I showed them the first ten minutes.

Everyone, who watched the opening, stayed to the end.

Not to be confused with...., 9 September 2001
7/10

Do you remember the TV series, "Young Indiana Jones"?

Not very long lived, if I remember correctly.

The point is, the films that spawn the shows are not the shows. They are films, and live on as such.

I for one, do not like the TV show spawned by this movie. My wife watches it religiously and can recite the season's happenings much like the Saturday paper soap opera summaries.

I did, on the other hand, love this movie, and still do. It's funny, exciting, and well made. Donald Sutherland and Kristy Swanson are wonderful together.

Very entertaining stuff. Not to be confused with....

Nadja (1994)
3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
A real sleeper gem, 9 September 2001
1/10

Really, this is a sleeper.

I was drinking all the coffee I had in the house just to try to stay awake and it wasn't working.

This movie is bad and boring.

Many users have given the film rave reviews for its story, its look, and it philosophical script. These are likely the same people who understood and loved "Lost Highways".

You see, when Wes Craven includes a character named Van Helsing, it can be a bit of a gas. It is funny, mildly relevant, a bit respectful, and ultimately lost in the wake when the film provides some genuinely frightening moments. When this movie puts Peter Fonda on the screen as the drunken, acid-laced Van Helsing, you want to laugh. But, the movie takes itself so seriously that funny is not a viable option. And the fact is, there is not one sequence in the film that can elevate the pulse above comatose, let alone frighten.

The story is a mess. The wonderfully philosophical script may be thought provoking for some, provided they do not possess anything more than a third grade education. For those of you who were unfortunate enough to have manage you way into the fourth grade, look not to this film for intellectual stimulation. Fans of Anne Rice's vampires may not mind that the monsters are written as more fascinating than frightening. However, these vampires are just plain confusing. Is Nadja's brother a vampire? Who knows? He never drinks blood. Is Nadja's slave a vampire? Who cares, he's a compete bore.

Rarely do I feel the need to really trash a film. However, I actually bought this video based on the high ratings given by IMDB user comments, and hope that these words may save someone else the same fate.

Read a vampire story. Watch Buffy re-runs. Twiddle your thumbs and count the cracks on the wall. Do what you will, but avoid this movie.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not a classic, 6 September 2001
4/10

Overall, in the slasher film department, this is fairly bad. The screenplay has but one punch, and it's fairly predictable. For gore fanatics, a majority of those who will rent this movie, there's not much to see here. The budget must not have allowed for much out of the special effects department. The suspense is pretty lame. I guess it got an average of 5 from the users because it's not a complete failure of a film.

Dead Alive (1992)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Truly, a sight to behold, 6 September 2001
8/10

My father turned me on to this movie. He claimed that it was the goriest movie of all time. I'll have to agree with him. Never before nor since have I seen something so disgusting.

It's a lovely thing.

Of course, this director has moved on to bigger things, and promises a great career. But, in my family, we'll always remember Nigel and his lovely momma.

Rat Race (2001)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Old fashioned family fun, 26 August 2001
9/10

There is but one scene in this movie that I felt was out of the scope of G rated taste. And, the film could have cut the scene to no detriment.

Other than that, this is one good, clean, and very funny movie. It's going to be compared to "It's a mad, mad....world" all over the place, so let's go with that comparison. My dad showed me Mad, Mad world when I was a youngster, and I loved it. This film is that kind of fun. Kids and parents alike can love this movie.

Traffic (2000)
A Very Good Film, 4 March 2001
8/10

Perhaps the only complaint that I can find after watching "Traffic" is that the final blow is never dealt. If this movie is meant to show us that the war on drugs is silly and costly, it could have easily pointed us to that as an inescapable conclusion, but it never does. It edges to that direction delivers some powerful punches, but never a knock out. Which, as I sit here thinking about it, may be the whole point.

Casting, filming, performances, scripting... all way above par. Steven Soderbergh has proven himself with this film. Its scope is awesome.

The exception to the genera rule, 4 March 2001
8/10

Now, I've seen a lot of martial arts movies. From the comedic to the serious, from heavy action to light romantic, I've seen quite a few. Some of us have. And, after watching many martial arts movies, one tends to lower the bar in looking for a meaningful story or statement in the film. After years, that one or two lines about the brother or honor, or some avenging desire becomes good enough, and we call it a meaningful martial arts movie.

This is the exception. For those not fans of the genera, rest assured that there is more to this film that the jumping, flying, and kicking. Michele Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat's performances and chemistry are as touching as any I've seen in any film for some time. This is the kung-fu flick that you can take your date to with no shame.

As for the jumping, kicking, and fighting: It's top notch. Many stateside fans of the Wo-ping Yuen's work on "The Matrix" don't realize how toned down the choreography was for that movie. This is a good chance to see it in full glory, and it is the best work of his that I have seen, brough more to light by Ang Lee's beautiful vision. But if you've never seen "Black Mask" or "Iron Monkey", be forewarned: these people fly. The first time you see it, it will look like Peter Pan. But, keep watching, it gets very fun.


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]