Reviews written by registered user
ARTaylor

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 5 of 6: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
56 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The "Aliens" of the Halloween Saga, 11 November 2008
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the only sequel worthy of the John Carpenter classic. Why? Because they brought it back to the suspenseful origins and made the series truly scary again.

The problem with the series was that it forgot what made the original so scary. The original was scary because of suspense. The audience knew Michael was doing something and the others didn't. The others were more like Friday the 13th and about gore and blood.

Plus the series, like Friday and Nightmare on Elm Street, was getting out of hand. Halloween 2 was a typical sequel, mostly copied the original but had some good moments. The following movie was so awful it should not be spoken of. H4 was decent, it was a lot like a suburban Friday and should have ended there. H5 was where it got weird with the psychic girl and really should have ended. And H6 was plain awful. Not surprising, Friday and Nightmare went through the same thing.

But then Scream came along and took slasher movies to their origins. A powerful but not mystical villain, focusing on characters and not how they die, and most importantly using suspense instead of gore. The first following Halloween movie follows suit excellently. No psychics. No ancient cults. Just good characters and a scary villain.

The best part is that is ignores H4-6. Lets face it, Jamie was only created because Curtis didn't want to do endless sequels and only seemed to cry. Don't mind her going away.

Like the original, blood is kept to a minimum. It's about the people not simply how people die. It also returns to the idea that the audience knows more than the characters, encouraging them to yell at the screen.

The movie provides the most realistic evolution of the characters of any of the sequels, taking many notes from James Cameron's 1986 Aliens. Like Ripley, Laurie is still haunted by the previous movie. She has nightmares that it's going to happen again. To deal with it she's overprotective when it comes to her son and a full blown alcoholic. A natural progression when someone was been through that ordeal. John is tired of never being able to do anything because his uncle may still be out there. And no one believes Michael is still alive because he's been dormant for twenty years, but that would fit him since he didn't do anything for fifteen years under Loomis' care.

There are other Aliens inspirations. Laurie going back into the school after her son has left mirrors Ripley going into alien hive. Laurie standing there with the ax is very much like Ripley in the power loader facing the queen. Laurie's journey is very much mirrors Ripley's. The tortured soul struggling to find peace, and finding it by confronting and destroying her own worst fear.

The ending makes a perfect end to a trilogy. I don't care what Resurrection says, if you watch closely only the unstoppable killer Michael Myers would move that way and no one else. That moment between Michael and Laurie where you don't really know whether he's trying to make one last attempt to kill her or if he just wants to touch his only sibling. This is also the first time Michael is clearly dead. He survived being shot and lived through the explosion in two different continuities. But only decapitating him saw the true end. Michael's dead. John believes his mother. And Laurie can finally relax. It is a stunning conclusion that resolves all the issues.

It's just sad that they had to follow this with the awful Resurrection, which completely ruined this fantastic ending and went back to being a gushing blood fest. And then that Rob Zombie abomination.

It's a shame more sequels aren't like this. Most are quickly put together just to make a few bucks from those who enjoyed the first. This was put together not from the desire for a few easy bucks like most horror sequels. But for the desire to revisit a classic and continue the characters. As good sequels do. I only wish they could have gotten John Carpenter to do this. This could have been a lot like Wes Craven's New Nightmare, the only Nightmare sequel worthy of the original.

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Incredibly Fun And Terribly Annoying At The Same Time, 5 November 2008
7/10

This is probably the most fun I've ever had with a Spider-Man game. This is the first time since Spider-Man 2 that I've really felt like Spider-Man swinging through the city, and the controls are vastly improved from that game. I do miss the Splinter Cell style missions from Spider-Man 1, but the free-roaming environment gives you plenty to do.

The controls are simple, anyone can do it. It's not like Marvel Ultimate Alliance where sometimes you have to perform combos to defeat enemies. You can, and it's fun, but if you don't want to you can defeat just about any villain with simple punches.

The graphics are pretty amazing. The Incredible Hulk game also uses this large sandbox environment. However, after about three blocks it everything disappears in this green haze. No loading time but no scenery. This game fixes that. You can see details all the way across New York. No haze/fog/mist/etc. And up close things look pretty decent too.

But there is a problem with the graphics, they use the same thing for the cut-scenes. Now, Gears of War can get away with that because their engine is so top notch it made it's own notch. Why didn't this game go the same route as MUA? MUA has spectacular cut-scenes. Sure the graphics are good, not spectacular, but what few cut-scenes they did use with the in-game graphics looked just plain awful. But those cut-scenes like the opening or Nightcrawler escaping just looked so theatrical and amazing. This game could seem far more cinematic if they did that.

I don't care for the decision making. It's too obvious. Either, red (good) or black (evil). They should have done like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic where you make a decision and then find out where it put you. This game makes it too easy to be either good or bad. There were times in KOTOR where I thought I was doing good but ending up with dark points because I didn't know how it would end. Any game that allows you to make decision and have multiple endings should do the KOTOR way, not this one. Because there's no surprise.

The story is lacking. True it's a video game, but in this day and age story lines are becoming more and more necessary thanks to Halo, Half-Life 2, KOTOR, and even MUA. Those games had great story lines where you almost couldn't put them down until you found out what happened. In fact you could enjoy those stories outside the video game medium. With the invasion, Venom, and the choices this could have been a huge, grand epic. Instead, if this was a comic book it'd be over in two, three issues like it didn't matter. You don't really feel the emotional impact from any of the characters. If you're going to make a comic book video game you should use a Kingdom Come or House of M sized story. Grip the audience and don't let go until it's over.

Now there are some glaring problems which also make this an annoying experience too.

The voice actors are just a pain to listen to. When I first started playing MUA, I did not like any voice actors except for Fury and Doom. I thought Spider- Man was too whiny, Thor had no command, and Wolverine was too gravely, etc. By the time I finished I loved them all. They just grew on me till I couldn't imagine anyone else doing the voices. This game does not do that. None of the voice actors fight the characters. If they had subtitles, I'd turn off the voices. The only one I like is Wolverine, because he's been doing Wolverine sine MUA. They couldn't do that for Spidey and the others from MUA?

Exploding cars are like the balloons from Spider-Man 2. It seems like every other battle I get in there's an exploding car. Unfortunately I'm always two blocks away fighting some goon. By the time I find out there's an exploding car, turn around, and get anywhere near it it's already over and I'm getting 10 black points for it all. Or what's worse is if the exploding car knocks you away and by the time your character gets up you're getting the black points. It's very frustrating if you're trying to be good.

Climbing buildings is annoying. Incredible Hulk was very simple: get near a building, press one button, and you're on it. It doesn't automatically make you jump up nor leap across the street. You just get on. This game uses one button too but it sends you running around the side for some odd reason. Sometimes I get on a building but I end up running in some odd direction. I don't understand why you have to get on and run too. Why not just get on and then some other button lets you to run?

I've been fighting the camera more than I have thugs. Especially on the sides of buildings. There are times when it glitches so bad that I'm either looking straight up or straight down (no in-between) and neither helps whatsoever. I had heard there were camera problems with Spider-Man 3 but I had hoped they would think about that before making this game.

If you bypass the flaws you'll have a wonderful time. At midnight I certainly am. Comic book-gamers should definitely play this. Casual gamers may be put off but should at least rent it. Those who loved Spider-Man 2 will certainly enjoy this. I'll eagerly await a sequel, but hope they learn from their mistakes.

37 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
How to Make a Classic Comedy Unfunny, 4 November 2008
1/10

I used to watch shows like Beetlejuice, Real Ghostbusters, and even that lousy Mummy show. Sure none of them used the movie's actors, recycled some jokes, and were pale imitations of the movies they were based on.That least they did not try to literally recreate its source. They expanded on, and sometimes alluded to, the movie. And at least those shows were meant for children.

This show, however, is by far worse. I don't know who this one's meant for. It's too adult for kids and too stupid for adults.

I had high hopes too. Great movie. Mel Brooks coming back. Plenty to draw on thanks to Star Wars Clone Wars.

The most noticeable problem is the voice acting. Sure you got three actors returning from the film. However, none of them seem all that interested and their acting falls flat. The rest are just lousy. Those other shows at least got voice actors who sounded like the movie's but weren't just imitating, these are just trying to be the movie characters.

Why is Rino Romano even getting lead roles in series? Didn't anybody watch Spider-Man Unlimited or The Batman before hiring him? This man has no range. He's so blah.

It started off with a whimper by simply trying to quickly recreate the movie. Turning classic gags into such brief moments that no one can care about. Why not just start off after the movie like those other series? And none of the jokes were funny. I can still watch the movie and laugh out loud. With this show I was wincing as they said the same exact thing. No one seems to have good comedic timing. Lorenzo Music may not have been Bill Murray but at least he had comedic timing.

The animation looks like some flash video that some kid posted on some website. They really couldn't get anything better in this day and age?

Fans of the movie, skip this show. Haven't seen the movie, skip this show and watch the movie. Unless they undergo some drastic changes this show is going to disappear quickly and quietly. Not that I'll be missing it.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Forget the Theatrical Version, Watch the Alternate Ending, 18 October 2008
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Simply put, the theatrical ending is the happy, Hollywood ending. The alternate (note that it's also the original) ending makes the movie make sense, better captures the spirit of the book, and is just better.

I enjoyed the movie in theaters. Perhaps because I never read the book nor seen the other versions so I had absolutely no expectations. Since then I have read the book (a must read) and at least seen Last Man on Earth (no masterpiece either). Though I realize what the movie did wrong I still like it.

From an adaptation standpoint, it's really lousy. Except for the name, a dog, and creatures that come out at night there's very little in common. That's not necessarily bad. It's an updated version of an old book written in a different time with a different mode of thinking. This does bring it to modern times. As a movie, it's good. Not great, just good. The first half is a great movie, it's the rest that falls apart.

Neville is enjoyable, though the dog seems to be the best character. You can tell that his quest to stay sane may actually be driving him insane. The scenes of isolation are fun. The scene in the building is definitely scary. Sam's death is sad. I think if they had actually shown what happened to his wife it would have ruined the scene(s). The CGI used to make NYC empty looks fantastic. If the movie had kept up the first half it would have been great.

The movie starts to descend when Neville attacks the Darkseekers on the seaport. First, the CGI for the creatures is terrible. Why is it that CGI looks worse 14 YEARS after Jurassic Park? I heard that they actually did go with make-up and prosthetics but it didn't look convincing so they went to CGI. Could it really have looked that much worse? The creatures are fine in the dark when you hardly see them. But they're simply not scary to see especially so clearly. It's not scary when it's clearly not real. And why are they suddenly superhuman? Why are they jumping and climbing like Spider-Man? Adding Anna and Ethan makes it weird(er), not simply because of the plot holes it brings up. Showing up at just the right moment seemed like deus ex machina, not that the scene really was going anywhere. It's almost like they didn't know how to end it so they added those two and this Vermont colony to give it some semblance of an end destination.

Then there's the big climax. Where do I begin?

It needs to be put into context. Originally, Neville realized that the creatures had made their own society (much like the book) and gave back the female. He apologized, they all left, and he realized he had been the monster. That version humanized them, proved Neville wrong about human behavior being completely absent, and explained a great deal of their behavior. But the studio didn't like that so they came up with the feel- good ending the theaters saw. Then they really were just monsters, mindless, uncompromising, wanted only destruction, and Neville is the undoubted good guy. The Hollywood ending. The lousy attempt to copy the ending to Smith's earlier movie Independence Day.

But it doesn't make sense. It needlessly created more plot holes. How could they remake his own trap? How can the Alpha-Male control the others or the dogs? How can they plan an attack? Why are they so against him suddenly? Even by Hollywood standards, having Neville blow himself up to save humanity is too narcissistic. And going to Vermont is like the theatrical ending to Blade Runner. It's completely out of sync with the dystopian world seen before that.

The reason it was changed: the Iraq War. The movie is a response to it, but the different endings give different responses (think the minor change in the ending to the '78 Body Snatchers remake versus the original). The original ending brings into question our (USA's) true role there. That maybe, the US could be the monsters just as Neville is and our enemies may have some motive beyond total destruction. The theatrical ending is pure patrioticness. "We will fight and we WILL win." We are undoubtedly good and they are undoubtedly bad. Yes, because Heaven forbid that humanity (specifically America) isn't absolutely perfect and our enemies aren't simply monsters. How dare the line between good and evil isn't clear cut and (shockingly enough) blurred. Notice how the colony is so over the top Americana with the perfect little white church and the large US flag in the background. It's completely designed to pump you up and make you feel good. This undermines the theme of the book and the fact that humanity did this to itself.

The alternate ending doesn't fix all the movie's mistakes, but it makes it far better. If it had ended as originally intended it probably would be seen in a better light. I recommend to anyone to see the alternate ending. Even if you didn't like the theatrical version it's worth a look. It gives the movie an entirely different tone and at least touches on the book's themes. Theatrically, it's a 5 out of 10. Half is good, half is bad. The original ending kicks it up a few notches so the ending has some saving grace.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Much Like Superman '78, Too Much, 30 July 2008
9/10

The movie is good because in many ways it is similar to the 1978 Superman film. It has the same pace as the original. It follows the same format. John Williams' score is one of the best of any film and this movie offers only minor changes to it. However, that is it's drawback.

It's just too much like the original. I like the '78 movie. I like this movie. But it feels like I'm watching the same movie. Not in the sense of Gus Van Sant's Psycho where it literally is the same movie shot by shot. More like Wolfgang Petersen's Poseidon. Like if I put the two films next to each other they could almost line up. The scenes they both have. The way they're played out. It's all too familiar.

Lex Luthor is probably the most obvious example of where this is a problem. Kevin Spacey is a great actor but in the end he becomes an imitation of Gene Hackman. Back in the late 70's Hackman's Luthor was great, straight out of the comics. However, over time the comics changed and so did Luthor. He went from just a mad scientist like Hackman's to a billionaire who rivaled Bruce Wayne and eventually became president. We've had two movies where Luthor's whole scheme was trying to get land, we didn't need a third. If they were going to update the series, they should have updated the characters. Spacey would have been great as a sneaky businessman who has in hands in things but can never be caught.

Although the films are very similar, there is one difference that I don't like. Kate Bosworth makes a rather stale Lois Lane. Margot Kidder had this certain personality that made her a great Lois. She could be cutthroat and aggressive but she was always likable. Kate Bosworth always seems angry and has the same expression. She has that cutthroat attitude but doesn't have that charisma Kidder had.

I like the film. I like how it was written, directed, and acted. I loved X-Men 1 and 2 and I can't wait to see what Singer does with the series. But I just wish that Singer would stop trying to remake Superman '78 and make his own movie for the modern age.

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Nicholson Passes On The Joker Crown, 30 July 2008
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ol' Jack's Joker was dark, creepy, funny, and disturbing. A far cry from Cesar Romero. He was cinema's best Clown Prince of Crime. But Ledger's Joker surpasses him in every single way. He's scarier, more disturbing, has more humor, and even more memorable quotes. Sorry Jack, but to quote Prince from Batman '89 "there's a new prince in town."

Ledger basically steals the movie. Every scene he's in is exciting and perfectly made. I once found myself wanting Joker to pop up just because he was always so good. He's so good that you never even think of Ledger as you watch him. You never think of Brokeback Mountain, A Knight's Tale, or the guy who unfortunately died. You only see the psychotic maniac from the comics. It's such a shame that Ledger died thus eliminating Joker from any other sequel, unless they recast which would be quite controversial and not the same.

The story is engaging. Largely based of The Long Halloween, except that Joker is pretty much the only freak villain. That's my personal favorite graphic novel and I loved how they adapted it. I liked seeing a villain before he became a villain so you can get to know and feel sorry for him. I only wish that we saw more of Dent before he got scarred.

Fanboys certainly will love it. Nolan brings a seriousness to the movie. It all feels like it could happen if someone just went out and did it. Personally, I still love the Burton films. They're both equally good in different ways.

As good as the movie is, it's not perfect. It does have it's problems. It does seem like the movie is about half an hour too long. Some things could have been simplified or streamlined. It has that The Lost World problem where it reaches a couple points that are like an ending but keeps going.

One problem I had with this, and Batman Begins, was the lack of memorable music. Elfman had such a classic score that I can hum the tune months after not watching the movie or listening to the soundtrack. But I watched the movie today, and listened to the soundtrack on the way, but I can barely remember any specific song. The music is good, don't get me wrong. I like listening to it and it sets the mood. But it's like whipped cream. Good and adds flavor but nothing substantial.

Joker monologues at the end. Didn't they watch The Incredibles where Syndrome talks about villains who monologue? It's one of those things that's been parodied so much that it seems silly when it does happen.

I don't care for Two-Face's motivation at the end. The Long Halloween handled him so much better. The movie, he's out for personal revenge. While in TLH he was finishing the quest. The whole novel Dent's trying to take down Falcone and once he's Two-Face he just does it without the law. It was like he was a twisted version of Batman, doing what needed to be done but not necessarily in a good way. I love the idea that Two-Face is an evil version of Batman. But this movie he was just evil. And I certainly don't like that he allowed himself to be manipulated by Joker, that Two-Face did what he said to. Two-Face should do these things out of his own twisted sense of justice, not because a psychopath said to introduce anarchy.

The Bat-Sonar seemed too fantastic an idea. Hooking up every single cell phone in the city to make a sonic map of everything? I can see listening in on every phone to find the Joker but using it to see just disconnected me from the reality of the movie too much. And it looked like it was out of a Wachowski Brother's movie, confusing to look at.

Overall this is a must see film for any Batman fan, comic book reader, or even a casual film fan. It's fun, exciting, and every minute is entertaining. It's nice to see that audiences are taking movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man seriously, and not just viewing it as guys in spandex fighting other guys in spandex. I wouldn't call it the best movie ever. And I can't clearly say it's the best Batman movie (Burton had a certain quirkiness). But it's better than 95% of the films being made. This movie is going to be remembered for decades to come.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Indiana Jones and the Unnecessary Sequel, 15 June 2008
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me say this right off the bat, this movie has enjoyable moments but in comparison with the original three it's pretty bad. I enjoyed it as long as I didn't think about it. Once I left the theater all I could think of was what was wrong with it.

It's really a shame too because Last Crusade's was such a perfect ending. We found out everything we needed to know about Indy. He saved his father, his faith, and the world. Even the ending was fantastic with the four heroes riding off into the sunset. Very rarely does a sequel manage to match or even surpass the original.

This, however, was a disappointing follow-up. First of all, aliens. Really? Indiana Jones was always about mysticism and spirituality. Those mysteries of the ancient world. Those things that lie beyond our own existence. Not green men with big eyes in flying saucers. Spielberg's done enough with aliens with Close Encounters, War of the Worlds, and A.I. Indiana Jones is supposed to be fantasy, not sci-fi.

There's too many characters. In the end many don't do anything. Mac betrays Indy but does little else. He's so underdeveloped that you don't care when he dies. Mutt provides humor but besides sending Indy on his adventure does little for the overall story. Oxley is literally dragged around and just takes time away from Indy.

There's also so many unnecessary parts of the movie. Like the atomic blast that was a cool special effect but provided no character development nor furthered the story in any way. There was stuff they started but did nothing with. Indy lecturing Mutt on quicksand was funny and felt like they wanted to do more of Indy being a teacher in the wrong situations, but they didn't. Indy and Marion spend little time together and does no justice to the lovable bickering from Raiders. The big scene where the Feds thought that Indy may be a commie was historically relevant but went no where. Which is odd because Indy does seem to be helping the Russians. At first he tells them no then a minute later he's all "Get me a map."

Worst of all, there's too much CGI. The backgrounds. The stunts. But it's the most noticeable with the ants. The ants just weren't creepy because we could tell they weren't real. Raiders freaked us out because that was a real cobra in front of Indy. Temple made our skin crawl because those were real bugs. Crusade made us squeamish because those were real rats. I know it would have been impossible to get millions of ants for the movie. But what about scorpions (that they had earlier in the movie), or bats, or some other creepy-crawly that could have freaked us out? The ants weren't creepy because they weren't real.

And the movie doesn't really do much for the Indiana Jones character. Raiders showed Indy at his smartest. Temple showed him at his physically strongest. Crusade showed him at his wittiest (and comedic) best. Except for being a father and marrying Marion (which I didn't care for, he should be like James Bond and have a new girl in every flick) there was nothing new with Indy.

This movie just lacked that "fun" factor that made the originals so great. It had the Indiana Jones elements but it didn't have the Indiana Jones flavor. I think it's because George and Steven grew up and aren't making the same films from twenty, thirty years ago. I read one critic say that the movie is good if you never saw an Indiana Jones feature before. That's certainly true. Maybe it'll draw in those people who haven't seen the others, all five of them.

Say what you will about Temple of Doom. I personally love it as much as I do the other two. But for once there is an Indiana Jones movie that is clearly the worst.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Kubrick vs King - A Comparison, 10 December 2006
9/10

Let me say this right off the bat, the Kubrick version is the superior movie while the King/ Garris version is the superior adaptation.

What's wrong with the Kubrick version?

His misses out on certain very important plot elements. Jack seems to be crazy from the beginning. Jack's alcoholism is not as known as it should be. The Overlook only seems to be haunted in one or two scenes, the rest could be cabin fever. The breakdown of the family is not so clear, Jack and Danny don't seem to really love each other as much as they should. Differs greatly from the book.

What's right with Kubrick's version?

Superior directing. A very definitive style. Classic scenes ("Here's Johnny!"). Excellent acting. Danny seems to really be his age. Wendy really seems to be scared. Jack really does seem crazy when he's supposed to be. A very good horror movie in general. The hotel is much more imposing. Foreboding music helps to set mood. Differs greatly from the book (I'll explain why it's in both later).

What's wrong with the King/Garris version?

It suffers from many TV-Movie problems. The actors aren't quite as good. They use CGI when puppets, wires, or trick camera shooting could be equally effective. CGI looks out of place. Danny talks like a twenty-year old, although the same problem was in the book. Jack is fine when it comes to being Mr. Every Dad but he doesn't seem to be crazy when he's supposed to be. Jack's transformation doesn't seem so gradual as it should, Wendy says "You're old drinking habits have all come back" when the book shows each one pop up. It's the book, very little is changed so if you've read the book you pretty much know exactly what happens.

What's right with King/Garris' version?

It's not a remake of Kubrick's movie, it's a movie version's of King's book. It's the book, if you loved the book and are a die hard fan you'll love this. Very little is changed. Minor subplots are changed but movie works well without them. You get pretty much everything the Kubrick version left out.

Which one?

It depends. If you loved the book and are a die hard Stephan King fan then watch the Garris TV miniseries. If you are a regular movie fan or a Kubrick fan then watch the Kubrick version. Garris' is for the book fans. Kubrick's is for the non book fans.

Final Thoughts.

It's not really fair to compare the two movies. Each one has their own pros and cons. Kubrick's is more of a movie using the basic premise of the haunted hotel and the father who goes crazy. It's meant to be a movie that's not just a page by page adaptation of the book. Which you got to admire Kubrick for doing that. He did something that even those who memorized the book would be surprised and scared. But Garris did something that the die hard Stephan King fans can love. It depends on who you are. It is definitely not fair to compare the two since they are both very different from each other. Both are good in their own separate ways.

177 out of 207 people found the following review useful:
King vs Kubrick - A Comparison, 10 December 2006
8/10

Let me say this right off the bat, the Kubrick version is the superior movie while the King/ Garris version is the superior adaptation.

What's wrong with the Kubrick version?

His misses out on certain very important plot elements. Jack seems to be crazy from the beginning. Jack's alcoholism is not as known as it should be. The Overlook only seems to be haunted in one or two scenes, the rest could be cabin fever. The breakdown of the family is not so clear, Jack and Danny don't seem to really love each other as much as they should. Differs greatly from the book.

What's right with Kubrick's version?

Superior directing. A very definitive style. Classic scenes ("Here's Johnny!"). Excellent acting. Danny seems to really be his age. Wendy really seems to be scared. Jack really does seem crazy when he's supposed to be. A very good horror movie in general. The hotel is much more imposing. Foreboding music helps to set mood. Differs greatly from the book (I'll explain why it's in both later).

What's wrong with the King/Garris version?

It suffers from many TV-Movie problems. The actors aren't quite as good. They use CGI when puppets, wires, or trick camera shooting could be equally effective. CGI looks out of place. Danny talks like a twenty-year old, although the same problem was in the book. Jack is fine when it comes to being Mr. Every Dad but he doesn't seem to be crazy when he's supposed to be. Jack's transformation doesn't seem so gradual as it should, Wendy says "You're old drinking habits have all come back" when the book shows each one pop up. It's the book, very little is changed so if you've read the book you pretty much know exactly what happens.

What's right with King/Garris' version?

It's not a remake of Kubrick's movie, it's a movie version's of King's book. It's the book, if you loved the book and are a die hard fan you'll love this. Very little is changed. Minor subplots are changed but movie works well without them. You get pretty much everything the Kubrick version left out.

Which one?

It depends. If you loved the book and are a die hard Stephan King fan then watch the Garris TV miniseries. If you are a regular movie fan or a Kubrick fan then watch the Kubrick version. Garris' is for the book fans. Kubrick's is for the non book fans.

Final Thoughts.

It's not really fair to compare the two movies. Each one has their own pros and cons. Kubrick's is more of a movie using the basic premise of the haunted hotel and the father who goes crazy. It's meant to be a movie that's not just a page by page adaptation of the book. Which you got to admire Kubrick for doing that. He did something that even those who memorized the book would be surprised and scared. But Garris did something that the die hard Stephan King fans can love. It depends on who you are. It is definitely not fair to compare the two since they are both very different from each other. Both are good in their own separate ways.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Three Parts Of A Magic Trick, 21 October 2006
8/10

The Pledge:

Christopher Nolan, the brilliant man who brought us Memento and Batman Begins and soon The Dark Knight, brings us The Prestige. Starring Hugh Jackman, Wolverine from the X-Men movies and soon to have his own film, and Christian Bale, Batman in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. The movie is about two rival magicians Rupert and Alfred, Jackman and Bale respectively.

The Turn:

Their rivalry is something more than two competitors. It becomes about revenge. Eventually one of them discovers an amazing trick. Soon the other becomes obsessed with finding the secret. Everything he does becomes about finding the secret to the first trick. Later he finds an even better trick. A trick so astounding that not even the man who builds most of the tricks can understand it.

The Prestige:

Trusts are broken. Loyalties are tested. Loves are lost. Watch the movie carefully. This one requires you to pay attention and follow along. The movie is told in a non-linear format, even more so than Memento. There are subtle clues in almost every scene. This is no movie to text-message, make out, talk with friends, or even go to the bathroom during. Each and every scene helps to build to this mystery of what's going on. Missing one scene means certain confusion. It's not something you can half pay attention to. Even if you do pay attention you might just have to see it again just to see all the build up to the final trick.

The Response:

Amazing. Though if you found Memento confusing you may want to skip this one. But if you're a Christopher Nolan fan or always like a good mystery you will be sure to enjoy this one. Enjoy this one while you can. Movies with this level of excitement do not come around too often.


Page 5 of 6: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]