Reviews written by registered user

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

Beowulf (2007)
Would have been good if they hadn't called it Beowulf, 25 November 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is not at all a bad film, but as a person who cares dearly about academics, I was upset at how it diverged from the epic, and worse, how people may assume that the original story went the exact same way.

I watched this film with my British Lit. class after we had read a translated version of the original story. At first, the movie was quite true to the original plot, but things really started to diverge with the encounter with Grendel's mother. In the actual story, she is a hideous beast, just like her son, and NOT a beautiful, scantly clad sea-witch. In the story, another fight occurs, but not in the film.

From there, the differences only get bigger. In the movie, it turns out that Hrothgar and Beowulf both had sex with Grendel's mother, that the dragon is the offspring of Beowulf and Grendel's mother, and Beowulf kills the dragon himself, at the cost of his life. Those are all untrue to the story: In reality, Grendel's mother is just another monster, the dragon is completely unrelated to her, and Wiglaf helps kill the dragon before it can kill Beowulf.

This is not to say that the story itself was good. Indeed, its theme was far more complex than that of the original Anglo-Saxon epic, and the action, special effects, and acting were all commendable. However, the story is simply too different to be called "Beowulf." Had they called it something else and stated that it was their own story, I would have given a much higher rating.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Good movie, but I still hated it., 6 February 2010

It is impossible to say that this was a cruddy film. It was innovative and well thought out. However, for personal reasons, I found this film really displeasing. Call me ignorant, but there are two thing I hate in fiction. (Well, there is a third one, but its not shown in the movie)

1. Things that challenge my perception of the universe. This is a topic I hate thinking about. Yes, some other movies had multiple endings, but not to the same degree. And there was always one canon ending.

2. Movies that glorify (I.e. not villianize) criminals. The main characters worked for the mob. In two of the three scenarios, they engaged in violent crime. All of this was glorified by the movie's plot.

Yes, It was a good film for those who like to challenge their perception of the universe, but I like my little bubble very much, thank you.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A layman's Christmas Carol., 2 January 2010

I think the reason for the divide in reception is due not to the movie, but to the audience. I think this is more of a layman's Christmas carol, somewhat plebeian in nature. I have read the actual story and watched the movie. (and personally liked both) Do not get me wrong The movie does make an above average effort to remain true to the story; much of the dialogue was taken word for word from the book, and all three ghosts bore resemblances to their drawings in the book.

However, the movie also uses its special effects to create features not at all found in the book. The chase scene with the 3rd ghost is the best example; as hard as you may search the book, Scrooge does not try to run away. I think that scenes like these were made to appeal to our less intellectual, more action oriented masses without, in theory, disgusting the more educated people or the Charles Dickens fans. It failed in the 2nd task. While most of the literary "laymen" I have heard from liked it, those with background in Dickens were sort of....ya.

And about the whole "Disney Bomb" complaint.... That is why I liked this movie. This is the only Disney Movie I have seen that I truly respect, as it isn't all about rainbows and flowers. I am sorry, but Disney dumbs a lot of things down, and in the original book, there really were some dark moments.

Religulous (2008)
5 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
I agree with some of his points, but he goes WAY TOO FAR!, 27 December 2009

Before reading, keep in mind:

I am an agnostic. I believe in evolution. I dislike fundamentalists.

HOWEVER, Bill Maher goes TOO far. To say that religion is a bad thing and that even the moderates are entering something bad upsets me. Look at the Bhuddists! There are few atrocities that can be associated with them, their religious leader, the Dali Lama, said himself that you don't need to be a Bhuddist to reach enlightenment.

But going beyond that, the other religions are capable of good as well. Christianity, Islam, Judaism. All have been the banner for many charity organizations. They do not kill those who disagree with them. They do not say all others are damned to hell. The MAJORITY of religious people do not think that way. A few do, but they are not everyone.

Earth 2100 (2009) (TV)
7 out of 68 people found the following review useful:
A good cause, but I can't bare to think about it., 27 December 2009

I am a firm believer in global warming. This may be a good thing, except I also have an anxiety problem and will assume that the worst case scenario is the most likely.

Yes, this film states that this scenario will only happen if we do NOTHING, but that is little comfort. Simply reading about any post-apocolyptic story makes me very upset, and the fact that this setting is possible makes it even worse.

Yet that being said, my logical self is glad that you made this video. While I may be a firm believer, not everyone is.

Still, WHY? WHY? why does the future have to hold such potential for bad stuff?

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
A good film, but I still hate its guts., 27 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this in my Foreign Films class. Taking place in an isolated community of Scottish Bible Thumpers, Breaking the Waves stars a young, clingy woman who must have sex with lots of men if her husband is to recover from a horrible accident. In the end, she gets raped and dies, and the husband makes a full recovery.

Before going on, it is important to understand the movement this film was part of. This was one of the so called "Dogme 95" films. A group of directors got together and set up a cult like group where all films produced had to follow a strict set of rules, such as no tripods, no unnatural lighting, on location shooting only, etc.

In an artistic sense, Breaking the Waves was a good, emotionally challenging film. However, I, being somewhat Spock-ish, do not like emotionally challenging films. All the hardship and mental pain makes me sad. (In a bad way. I don't understand why people ever see sad movies, if sadness=displeasure and happiness=pleasure)

So...ya. I don't like emotions.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A fantastic portrayal of the Enlightenment's climax, 27 December 2009

It is safe to say that the American Revolution was the pinnacle of the Enlightenment. There, all the ideas the philosophes had proposed were put to the test. They passed the test. I don't mean to sound nationalistic to non-Americans, but I do feel this way.

We live in a very cynical time period. We are cynical about our governments, cynical about our past, and cynical about humanity in general. Yes, cynicism is good, but we should also keep in mind how far we have come. I am a history buff, yet I am going to say this: History needs its heros, for without them, it has no meaning to our inner selves. The documentary reminds us of how far we have come.

Yes, "Liberty: The American Revolution" could have had more facts in it, but that is minor. What amazes me is how it was able to show the ultimate goodness in the revolution, yet did so without making anyone a villain. The British are not shown as evil, just as being on the wrong side of history.

Another thing I liked was how the documentary had no dialogue that wasn't historically spoken. Everything the characters said was taken from letters, interviews, and so forth.

Yet I must say, my favorite part.......was the soundtrack. I bet you thought I was going to try to say something deep :) Well, it is true.

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
The entire series is a disgrace to true sci-fi/fantasy, 23 December 2009

Somewhere in Middle Earth, Saron is shaking his head in disgust at this latest addition to the genre that includes his own story.

Has anyone else noticed that most of the people who rave about this movie and the original Twilight tend to not be big scifi/fantasy fans? Only recent converts?

I am not surprised. The true fantasy fans knew better than to go see this film. All it really is is a love/action movie dressed up with vampires. Ha! I bet most of the viewers who liked this movie haven't even seen Lord of the Rings or the original three Star Wars movies. (Then again, I haven't seen Lord of the Rings, but I do not consider myself a true fantasy/sci-fi fan. Only a moderate one)

No, you can't just have werewolves and vampires and call it a high-fantasy (the true fantasy genre) film, just like how you shouldn't have a few aliens to call your film high-science fiction. (the REAL sci-fi)

Low fantasy drives me bonkers.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
How could anyone dislike this film?, 21 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this film in my Foreign Films class, and was touched. I normally hate emotional movies, but somehow, this was an exception. What I admired the most was that despite how it seemed like a fairy tale, the director tried to remain more so than others true to the actual event, and many of the things did happen. The singing really DID happen. The burials really DID happen. Another interesting part was the blend of source music (Music from the scene) and score music (music inserted afterwards)

Also, the film went to show the triumph of brotherhood over propaganda. Despite the fact that the citizens are taught how evil the "Huns" and so forth are, the soldiers who actually do the fighting learn otherwise. The French officer said it well, when he pointed out how that the men behind the lines who said things like "Kill the Germans" really didn't know the war itself.

The one thing I did not like was that they showed the punishment of the soldiers who took part. I would have preferred that the film ended on Christmas day. Then again, the most touching seen of all would be lost in that case: As punishment, the German soldiers were loaded onto a windowless train and sent off to the Russian front. However, right as the train started to leave, the soldiers started to sing a Scottish song.

Gladiator (2000)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
How history SHOULD have gone., 30 June 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am a history buff and fan of the Roman Republic and Empire. However, I have been disheartened on my Trip to Italy by its later leaders, such as Commodus, and so forth. Historical Films rarely break from the overall path History actually took, and when they do, it is normally a bad thing.

Here, however, I am happy. Commodus, who was actually a real emperor, was a meglomaniac whose rule marked the beginning of the decline of Rome. And in reality, his death was followed by chaos. However, to see not only that emperor die in such a way, but also for the film to depict the restoration of the Senatus Populusque Romanus (or SPQR) to power was touching. Normally, I scorn historical films for not being like what really happened. Now, it is the actual history which I wish was more like the movie.

Did this make any sense?

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