Reviews written by registered user
|4 reviews in total|
Yes! Yes, I know a ten?!? Read on people: If you have no kids under the
age of 12, there is no point in reading this. If you have kids under 16
months of age, why are YOU sitting them in front of the TV in the first
place? This is for parents whose kids are at kindergarten or the first
elementary school years. If you are them, enjoy! You can chose to
believe or not, but we at home do not allow more than 120 accumulated
TV minutes for the kids. We keep'em busy, and we make them play for an
hour before they can sit 30 mins. in front of the tube.
But Lazy Town is NOT within those 60 minutes.
Lazy Town has a ten from both my wife and me because it makes something WE didn't think possible: both our kids are ACTUALLY jumping and running and doing push-ups DURING the show.
Our girl who is 5, wants to dance and jump like "Stephanie" (and she MUST be a gymnast her self!) and our not-even-2-year-old... man oh man!! He wants Sportacus to watch HIM! When ever "Sportacus" comes into the screen, my kids yells "DOOR!" Jumps off the couch and stars doing mock-cart wheels and one-arm push-ups, he places both hands on the floor and raises one of his tinny little feet as high as he can because he's standing on his hands. Then he lands on the floor again and leaps as high as his imagination can launch him back on the couch again -that is for the commercial break.
So you see, if your kids are going to copy EVERYTHING they are going to see on TV, would you not rather have them copying push-ups and high-kicks and jumps and asking you for "sports candy" (that's an apple).
Many more seasons please!
I'm sorry, but I have NEVER understood Woody Allen's genius.
I do not understand why he is so respected in the artistic cinema circles, nor why is he considered one of the all time great comedians, writers and directors.
I am sorry. I don't.
Enter Match Point.
Now THIS is something I can see the genius of... this movie is a tennis lesson, is watching Aggassi play Bjorn Borg the Wimbledon cup final. It is watching the ace serve hit the net, and dauntingly hovering in the air... and the stadium in sepulchral silence.
That is the movie. I guess that description IS a spoiler on its own.
Woody Allen plays a tennis match with our minds, with our morals and makes us wonder... Would I? You watch the movie and you are constantly asking yourself: Now, why didn't I think of that? Wait... Why did I ask my self that question? As if your reasoning was serving and your common sense wanted to return it, neither wanting to loose.
Then, the ball hits the net and hovers in the air. Then the movie ends and you have watched a great tennis match in the form of brilliant acting, superb directing, and genius stature story writing.
If this is Woody Allen's work, then I MUST re-visit his movies to understand why I missed the genius in the first place.
Pffft... No wonder, all his movies have been aces, and like an amateur tennis player, I couldn't even see the ball until the game was over...
In the match point.
I first saw this concert in 1987, fresh out of the box, in a friend's
house who was/is a die-hard-core I'm fan. I WAS HOOKED.
I have had the opportunity to watch live shows on arenas, theaters, stadiums, videos and bars; and the emotion, the vive, and the adrenaline that I remember from watching this video concert again and again -until I gave it back to my friend, has only been surpassed by one arena concert I have attended.
I've watched other Maiden concert videos (Live in Japan, Maiden England, Rock in Rio) and in those the songs were too fast, too slow, too "play-it-couse-we-know-how-to"... in Live After Death, the minute you understand that only such Churchill speech is the perfect oppener for a British band that gets an adrenaline rush by looking at their flag, you know you're in for a bang. A such bang you get from the first chord blasting out of what appears to be one of the loudest concerts ever heard in the Long Beach Arena.
Oh man... the way Dickinson plays the crowd... yes..! Plays the crowd! As if the 52k+ attendees were his musical instrument! Watching this, listening the way the crowd helped Maiden's charismatic front man tell his doctor in England "Doctor, Los Angeles... destroyed... my hearing!!" is reminiscent of Freddie Mercury's heyday singing "Now I'm Here" in front of a packed stadium, but on steroids!
The songs are played at the only-way-they-should-be-played speed, enough to make your head bang with force but not so as the singer crept through the lyrics to keep up; something that happens a couple of times on the other Maiden video concerts.
Murray's & Smith's playing is clean-flawless (eat your heart out rock guitar player-wannabes!). McBrian's drumming is relentless, and every time he turns to the camera looks at it as of asking "Is this all you've got Los Angeles?" And of course, Dickinson, that guy never got old did he? If you think that he is intense on stage... you're right! That man has not slowed his pace in the 20 years since then!
The image quality is great for a VHS, and the sound it top of the line for its day. It is only too bad that if you want to see it, you'll need to find it under a box full of stuff in your oldest uncle's attic or pay 60+ bucks for it at a collector's trade show, in godd condition enough for you to enjoy it a couple if times, if you're lucky.
I would pay the 60+.
I know no Maiden fan who is not hard-core. Maiden has that, all its fans are hard-core followers. If you're not in the Maiden Army, it's because you have not seen this video... too bad.
Like withfullforce666 said, "This film really should get the re-mastering treatment and released as DVD at some point".
If you're a rock fan, having this concert in your video collection is a must, because it teaches everyone the true meaning of the title:
L I V E . R O C K . C O N C E R T.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
See... that's the problem with reading a book which gets you so hooked
you go to bed at 3:30AM only because you HAVE to be at work full
throttle at 7am... you read it, you see it in your head, the movie
becomes uninteresting because it left our parts you liked in the book.
I have to give Akiva Goldsman (screenplay) some credit... the concept of overlapping images to refer to situations on the book was nice, and some of those even looked like the one I saw in my head as I was reading the book, so, yea... it was nice to see that I was not far off Dan Brown's objective of being as explicit as possible for the reader to be able to look through Langdon's-Teabing's-Neveu's eyes, but it provided no new entertainment.
My wife whom had not read the book thought that the movie made her think, but that Hank's performance was the seen-before type, not mediocre, but certainly not innovative. I was expecting to see a more suave Langdon, as Brown portrays a highly-sought out bachelor.
Spoiler (?) Sir Ian McKellen's performance as expected, yet Goldsman's version of Teabing was not as fun-to-meet as Brown's, leaving McKellen not much to work with.
Howard's work was great, -big "Directed by Ron Howard" fan here, but the book has been read by SO many people that creativity for improvement allowed limited space for Howard's own version, as it is customary to be done by movie directors who like boos and 'translate' them into film. Why you ask? Because no matter how he came up with his own version, movie goers who read the book would have eaten him alive; what people wanted to do was see the book on the screen, and that pretty much leaves no room for a director's version of the story Spoilers: Although I did not like it, because of the way the movie was presented, there was basically no other ending BUT the one Howard went for, yet it was a little too pink. In all fairness, I do admit that the book's finale was a little too pretentious... you know, a French, white Beyoncé-type, gifted code breaker named Sophie Neveu offers Langdon a museum-less, church-less, tomb-less, art-less, relic-less week in Florence after learning that she is a Jesus-descendant... a little too the-good-guy-always-gets-the-girl, don't you think? If you have the $$$ for the movie ticket, you can probably afford the soft-cover version of the novel, so the choice is really yours.
Bottom line? Read the book instead, but if you are not going to read the book, watch the movie so you don't feel left out of the loop at lunch time chat.