Reviews written by registered user
ksarkies

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Really enjoyable but what happened to Olivier?, 28 January 2009
7/10

I found this a really enjoyable movie, about two children (about 13 years old?) finding a romantic friendship, and seeking the help of an older man to fulfil a dream that required them to overcome a number of obstacles. It is the childlike simplicity of the story and of their relationship that appeals.

Unfortunately Olivier was disappointing, despite his reputation as an actor. He was quite unable to play the part of an elderly Frenchman. He was certainly doddery enough, but seemed very unsure of his role, and often did not speak his part clearly. I suspect that putting on a convincing french accent was not one of his greatest talents.

Ken

18 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Most disappointing, 31 December 2008
2/10

Even my wife was disappointed, which is saying something. Agatha Christie could not be classified among the best authors but she could put together an entertaining and well constructed mystery story. To adapt her books to film obviously requires some modifications and we can tolerate even mixing Jane Marple and Tuppence. But many changes made for this film were just unnecessarily destructive of the Christie characters. To have Tuppence as a plonk sponge and Tommy represented as arrogant and stupid are totally unacceptable to Christie fans. Tommy barges in to a lawyer's office making threats of prosecution before the poor guy could open his mouth, and simply to obtain an address. This is just crazy. I couldn't believe that this could be put in a serious film. Beyond that, the vicar was totally unbelievable. In reality he would not have lasted two weeks in a parish. This shows to me that the screenwriter is simply out of touch with the real world.

Geraldine McEwan is a delightful actress, as are many of the others actors who have appeared in the many enjoyable English films that we love so much. We have come to regard the English film industry as a paragon of top quality film entertainment (well, mostly anyway). It is a crying shame to see this sort of trash being released with these excellent actors playing parts in it. To the sponsors of these films, can we urge you please to be a bit more proactive in quality control.

Ken Sarkies, Australia

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
So this is The Mummy 3!, 15 September 2008
3/10

The joy that I felt when this movie had finished was like the joy that one feels after having sat in the dentist's waiting room for 2 hours and now the tooth has been pulled. I am so glad that I won't have to ever see this again. I'm also glad that Rachel Weisz decided not to take on the movie part as it would have reduced my esteem for her too much. The movie basically had a very, very thin plot. I mean, the good guys have to kill the bad guys and guess what happened? A large percentage of the time was spent with the characters engaging in quite pointless violence. They rarely spoke; most of the time they yelled or screamed at one another. Their fascination for guns and explosives was tiresome (they should have know from the previous two episodes that YOU DON'T KILL MUMMIES WITH GUNS!!). It reminded me of the time we played cowboys and Indians as children, running around purposelessly in circles going bang! bang! and very quickly tiring of it.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Amazingly Good, 21 July 2008
10/10

I'm not a movie fan and only tolerate going to movies because I love my wife who likes me to come. However I was surprised when this movie finished to find that I had not once become bored - a new experience. It's a while since I read the book and I couldn't remember the details, which is probably A Good Thing. My impression of the movie though is that it kept fairly close to Lewis's understanding of the way God is and how he treats us. The movie may disappoint those who are looking for a Superman/Batman style. The heroes are not superheroes, nor are they anti-heroes. Instead they have to face up to trusting in one they know is watching after them, but whom they cannot see and who does not make the way forward obvious.

(Edit after reading the book again) The most serious criticism of the film is the way Peter's character was totally misrepresented. It is clear that the film authors have not understood his maturity as shown in the book. Most of the changes between the book and the film centre on Peter's modified character, which has been changed from a gracious and chivalrous leader to a belligerent, impetuous, bumbling and rather stupidly stubborn person who seems to have learnt nothing from his previous encounter with Aslan.

1 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
We tried hard to enjoy it but it didn't work, 3 July 2008
3/10

We are great fans of British movie and TV offerings; the sense of humour is usually quite subtle and very funny, and the detective shows, while often highly improbable and unrealistic, are entertaining. We sort of expected something from this show along the lines of the sadly missed "New Tricks". Apart from a few good lines that never really made it to a chuckle, we found the show to be confused, poorly acted, and basically silly. The main actors seemed to be trying their best and generally doing a good job, but the script seemed to get in the way.

Obviously it will appeal to some people, and for those who consider that the qualities of "unusual" and "artistic" are more important than entertaining, then they will probably give it a high rating. For all others, I recommend giving it a miss.