Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
I don't get it.
23 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Why do so many people hail Cuarón as if he's doing something genius with this film? He altered the beginning to add some stupid joke with the wand lighting under the covers (Lumos Maximo would shoot a flare out of the wand. Lumos simply lights it up. - Read the books). And as a 3rd year Harry shouldn't have any trouble with the spell to light his damn wand. It's a dumb joke and it's not even funny when old man Dursly comes in grunting with his weird splotchy cheeks. Who did the make-up on this, btw? This is the worst make up job on everyone except the main cast that I have ever seen in a Harry Potter film. Really, except for the kids and the main teachers everyone seems like they are just plastered on and shoved into the background. Just keep them out of focus. It'll be fine. Sorry, nope. I noticed.

Next, let's talk about the annoying change of Tom the barman/innkeeper at the Leaky Cauldron from a mild mannered Englishman to a weird jokey hunchback. Again, Mr. French, this is not funny. I don't know who you are trying to amuse but this is just sad. You don't make fun of the physical disabled anymore. Don't you know that? And then there's the Knight Bus shrunken heads with Jamaican accents. Yes, because you're not being racist at all by assuming all shrunken heads would come from places with people of darker skin. And did you read the books? This scene wasn't supposed to be about comedy. It was more about the dread of being completely alone with no one to help. Instead Cuarón again chooses to add some more awkward humor that simply isn't funny and is really just as offensive as Jar Jar Binks.

And then there's the change to the Fat Lady. Suddenly she's become a wanna-be opera singer who can't sing and breaks a glass just to pretend she can? What? That's not funny and it's not even focusing on the discussion between the kids, which should be the focus instead of this unfunny change to a painting that's already been established in the series. No. Just, no. That's poor direction, even if it was just written on the script he was working from. Sorry, but any good director would actually at least take the time to watch the first two movies as part of their research and to at least try to make his movie match the first two for continuity. I mean, for cripes sake we have continuity directors listed among the crew. Tell me what do you guys do? Because it doesn't seem to be working here at all. And again, right after the Fat Lady, another annoying thing added for a stupid reason. Apparently the director found it necessary to show that all the paintings were connected by adding a giant snake slithering through all of them. Just one thing. Who painted a picture of a giant snake and where is that hung in the damn castle? No one! That's who. And nowhere! Seriously? And why is there a painting of a monkey in a cage. Who paints a monkey in a cage and hangs it in Hoggwarts Castle? Oh, I know. Some weird Mexican director who thinks he is more clever than he really is. Come on, man.

Okay, okay. I've been harping on the affects and comedic changes a bit. Lets switch gears here for a sec and I'll tell you a few things I did like. The acting was very good, apart from Tom that is. And the director's work with Oldman, Thewlis and Gambon was remarkable. I really loved the new iteration of Dumbledore. And all the Professor Lupin stuff was great, right up until he turned into the dumbest looking werewolf I've ever seen on film. And this was after such a great addition with the Dementors. Really, the version in this film was better than any of the following films. I don't know why they decided to go more standard "grim reaper" in the rest. The look of the Hoggsmead and the Shrieking Shack were spot on, right up until they again showed some stupid shrunken heads, This time a parody of the Fates from Hercules. Do you have any jokes that are your own, Cuarón?

Oh, I must mention Buckbeak, the Hippogriff. This looked great and was all well done right up until we do the magical ride around Hoggwarts part just for the sake of adding some fast moving adventure to the scene. I mean, it's fine. It was fun and looked great, but it made no sense and when you think about it it's the worst teaching ever. Really? A teacher just has you put your hand out to greet him then just lumps you up on a flying creature's back and shoos you off like you've ever even ridden a horse before? Harry hasn't, btw. He hasn't ridden anything but a bus and a train in his whole life and you're letting him take off on a dangerous creature he just met and could easily fall to his death from at heights of up to 200 feet over the damn school grounds? Are you freaking insane? You are so fired it's ridiculous and it wouldn't take Malfoy's insipid whinging to make it possible. Seriously, it also totally breaks up the continuity of the scene. I mean, he takes off flies around, comes back down and Malfoy says, "I can do that!" and gets bitten? I mean, come on. Oh yeah, and those dumb Monstrous Book of Monsters. LOL :D I don't get it. You're trying to give this a darker tone and then you're filling it with jokes intended for a five year old? Couldn't have the scene as it was in the book been enough, instead of the goofy chasing it around and stomping on it crap? And why was it spouting pieces of paper everywhere it went? Was it eating itself? Gah!

This brings me to one of my favorite additions made with this movie, which is a bit of a blunder in itself at points when you think about things in later films (I won't get into that), but the Marauder's Map was just beautifully done, with the multi-fold pages and the pop-outs and the moving ink it was exactly as it was described in the books. I don't know if the director had much to do with that though. I'm pretty sure those effects would have been the same regardless.

And then another complaint, the Whomping Willow. While I like that it changed with the seasons and began using it's growing willow vines as whips, I think the whole riding the tree crap was overplayed and ham-handed. A simple chase and dodge would have made more sense than the wild ride followed by a very convenient or extremely lucky drop into exactly where you wanted to go by the whipping tree branch you're holding onto.

And then we get to that dumb looking were-wolf again. Man, is that thing horrible. It doesn't even look like a wolf. It hardly has any fur. It's all skinny and gaunt. I mean, wth is that? It looks like a were-weasel. And let's not forget he completely changed the layout of Hoggwarts for no reason just too add all kinds of stupid clock references. Hello, we know the time turner is a big thing in this film you don't need to keep pointing it out to us like we're a bunch of 5 year olds.

Some say all these decisions were artistic and that makes this the best of the Harry Potter films, but I'm sorry. I completely disagree. Changing things in a film that is supposed to fit in with a series for the sake of your own art is not a good thing for the series. It doesn't work. It doesn't fit and it doesn't make for a good part in a series. You don't have a guy come in to do an addition on your home and let him run wild with the design just because he has a vision and end up with this weird slat roofed, brick thing sticking out of your hard tile roofed, stucco house. It's the same with film. Look at what you're working with. Make it match that. You wanna make art? Make your own stand alone films. Don't try to play with a team if you're not a team player.

And then I come finally to the last badness. The worst scene in the film and simultaneous one of the most important. That part where Daniel Radcliff said to the director "I wanna try something my way." And the director said, "Okay." And then actually used that cut. OMG it's horrible. He looks horrible. It makes him look like the worst actor in a B movie and this is not a B movie. The scene, can you guess it? It goes like this.

Hermione: "Harry, what is it?" Harry: "He was their friend.. and he betrayed them. HE WAS THEIR FRIEND! I hope he finds me. 'Cause when he does, I'm gonna be ready! When he does, I'm gonna kill him!" And then he does this stupid lip thing and heavy breathing, which is supposed to read as anger but reads more of overacting. Really, you should have shot more than one take Cuarón.

That's all. I'm sorry, but I disagree with the majority on this one. This was not a good Harry Potter movie. It was barely acceptable and obviously the studio agreed because Cuarón was not asked to continue working on the films.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
They should have warned us about subtitles!
22 January 2007
While this was a fine movie with great cinematography and direction as well as fantastic set designs and CG effects, I think that the movie company should have warned viewers that they were about to see a subtitled film. Not doing so makes it seem as though I was lied to when I arrive in the theater, get comfortable and then realize I have to read the whole damn thing.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't mind subtitled movies. when I'm prepared for them (Brotherhood of the Wolf). But when I go to movies I generally don't bring my glasses because I don't expect to have to read. There are certain movies I will plan ahead for and bring my glasses to. The Labyrinth of the Satyr (I call it this because that is what the title actually translates to) would have been one. I just feel that letting the audience know would have been more honest. I felt tricked into watching his movie and I know several others felt the same way.

Also, I have to wonder why Del Torro felt it necessary to have characters smash, cut and shoot each others faces so much throughout the film. Was it really necessary for every head shot be shown up close and not shooting the head but rather the face every single time? Was it really necessary to spend all the money on CG just to do that "sewing my mouth back together" scene? I get he was trying to show the violence of the real world from which this imaginary world has sprung, but really, couldn't that have been done in a less moronic and disgusting way? I mean the brain is not in the face after all. Shooting someone in the cheek cannot guarantee you hit the brain and killed them.

A reminder also, most people can tell the difference between a Mexican accent and one of Spain, even those that don't speak the language. Having so many Mexican and other Hispanic actors in a movie that is supposed to be set in pre-colonial Spain is utterly ridiculous. Sorry to say that this is Del Torro's worst mistake. The common South American belief that all Hispanics actually are Spanish has taken him on track of Historical Revisionism which only tells people what they want to hear instead of what is actually true.

This movie could have been a 9 or 10, but sadly it loses points for misleading the audience and inauthenticity. Therefor only a 6.
0 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rest Stop (2006 Video)
8/10
Some people apparently don't get it. (Possible Spoilers)
8 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The movie starts out slow and seems to be your basic Texas Chainsaw or Hills Have Eyes wannabe at first. But when things really get going you realize that there is more going on than meets the eye. KZL 303 seems to have been around for years, murdering "sinners" who come past this Rest Stop. He is the punisher of the wicked according to the RV family of roadie freaks. And anyone who stops at this Rest Stop is gonna get what's comin' to him. Victims appear and disappear. Damage to KZL's truck is magically repaired. Everything makes his victims wonder if any of it really happened before they die in extreme pain and are trapped in KZL's very own purgatory forever.

This movie is much better than many of these comments make it seem. There are definitely some underlying plot lines that are not obvious at first. The plot holes people seem to see are not actually plot holes. There are answers to the questions but you have to watch carefully. First of all KZL 303 is definitely not human. There are some demonic or inter-dimensional qualities about him and his actions. Same goes for the RV freaks. They seem to live to follow KZL and help him scare his victims senseless. It was much better than Jeepers Creepers. I would watch it again and again.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong WRONG!!!
29 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is full of action and super powers, yeah. Okay. But unlike the other X-Men films, this one shreds the stories of nearly every character in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

First of all, let's start with the fact that Nightcrawler has been deleted. Yes, deleted. Not only is he not in this film his disappearance is totally unexplained. Nobody even mentions him in passing. It's as if he never existed at all.

Second, let's look at the fact that Scott Summers is killed right off the bat, ruining any hope for a continuation of the epic love story between he and Jean depicted in the comics.

Third, let's look at how the powers of nearly every newly introduced mutant in this movie are totally wrong. Calisto's power was that she enhanced the powers of other mutants around her. She was a mutant power booster and battery not a super speed chick. Also, Calisto was unattractive and proud of it. She wasn't some cutesy bebop chick. Jean Grey as the Dark Phoenix should have had advanced control of telekinesis and telepathy as well as pyrokinesis. That's right, FIRE control. She wasn't supposed to be turning people to ash with a microwave-like ability. It was supposed to be FIRE. What's the matter couldn't get a real enough looking flame? Spent too much making the stupid magnetic bridge scene? And then there's Juggernaut. No, he's not a mutant first off and his power has nothing to do with him being in motion. Plot point, he was Professor Xavier's Half Brother, ungifted by mutant powers he grew jealous of Charles and began searching for a way to be more powerful, better than his brother. He found a mystical power source, a magical crystal he inset into a helmet that turned him into the Juggernaut, an unstoppable war machine from an era of long forgotten magiks. That sounds like it could be a movie in itself doesn't it? Doesn't it!? And let's not forgot, Juggernaut is not 'bloody' English. And then finally let's look at Kitty Pryde, aka. Shadowcat, one of my all time favorite characters from the comics. We finally get to see her powers do more than walk her thru a door and what does Ratner do? He completely screws up the rules for phasing. When desolidified (phased) the person phased does not exist in space normally, however all objects they pass through do continue to exist normally. This means that when you unphase someone in the middle of say "a concrete floor", the floor would still exist as the unphasing individual became solid again. The floor, as it was there before the unphasing individual, would take precedence and become part of the individual's chest. This means that whatever was in his chest before would become whatever material the floor was made of. Juggernaut in such a case should have died instantly of shock. Not to mention the fact that his heart would have stopped anyway when it became concrete. This was very thoroughly explained in the comic books.

Once again Hollywood craps out a film where no one bothers to do any damn research. This movie is just the shell of the former films with a shiny, glossy, candy coating. Ratner ruined this franchise as surely as Schumacher ruined the Batmans.

Oh yeah, and killing off Professor X and then having him transfer his mind into a coma patient? What an inventive way to get out of having to have Patrick Stewart if you make another sequel. NOT. If you did a little research you would find that Magneto turned back to good and became the director of the school after Charles died. But oh, it doesn't matter what the comics did, does it? Hollywood sucks.

An 8 for action minus 6 for lack of research and poor writing and directing equals a 2 rating.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heroes (II) (2006–2010)
9/10
A very good start to a show that only promises to get better.
26 September 2006
Although the show's concept is sort of a ripoff of the X-Men concept of people evolving to have super powers, I have to admit it was enjoyable. The acting was all very well done as were the slices of life that introduced you to each character. The effects are kept very low-key making it more believable than the typical super hero show. There is a great underlying darkness that permeates as well, giving one the feeling that some very bad things are about to happen. My mom even liked it, and she usually just sticks to shows about cops and politics (like West Wing, Law & Order, and CSI). If you haven't seen it give it a try. It's a very good show so far and only promises to get better.

I will definitely be tuning in for the next episode myself.
353 out of 574 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Good beginning become total clap trap by the end
15 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The beginning of this film had me very intrigued. The whole opening with the crows and the rusty killer's truck was great. Though I did have a problem with the part where the kid slides down into the killer's lair. He had just seen the killer dump a body into the same pipe and drive off and yet when he falls in he doesn't land on them (as he should) and the body is neatly layed up on a table (who the hell moved it?). The lair itself was very creepy and gave a feeling of dread as you realize this killer has been doing this for decades at the very least. But then they get to town and the whole movie turns to crap when the goofy psychic is introduced. "I keep hearing this song while one of you is screaming (hey dumb psychic was it a male scream or a female one, they vary quite a bit). He wants one of you but I don't know which one. Then the killer turns out to be some creature with demon wings who eats parts of people to repair himself? What? How the hell does that work? He eats a heart, chewing it and everything and somehow it works perfectly when it arrives in his chest? Here's an idea, when writing a horror story remember to put some damn realism into your cheesy plot. It makes it easier to suspend disbelief if there is a feeling that it could be real.

I'm not going to go all into it but other than the first 10-15 minutes I hated this film. The whole concept of the creature became totally idiotic by the time it was totally explained. And the ending... ergh... why would this creature carve out the entire back of the skull and remove the brain if he only wanted the eyes? Oh, he wouldn't. The director just wanted the creature to look through the face like a mask for the end scene is all. It makes no sense and is totally idiotic. I don't care what anyone else says this movie is a total dung pile. Not waiting for anything more by this nobody of a director.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best Mobster Film Evere Made, bar none.
15 September 2006
Contrary to what Pete the Geek says in his comment this film is not a comedy. I suspect he is a fan of the old black and whites and so he believes this is a spoof of them which it is most certainly not. This is a pure drama with perfect dialog and excellent acting all around. The film basically tells the events that unfold around a Gangland war between the Irish and Italian mobs of the late 20s. Gabriel Byrne plays Tom, Leo's (Albert Finney) right hand man and adviser who disagrees with his boss's decision to protect the conman brother (John Turturro) of his girlfriend Verna (Marcia Gay Harden) and must work his own wily methods to protect Leo from this decision.

This is a masterpiece of modern film and definitely shows that the Cohen brothers can do anything with film. The dialog and accents are all perfectly executed in vintage 20s style and flare, the sets are absolutely beautiful and the costume work is so good you almost feel like you stepped back in time. Anyone who doesn't love this film should go back and try watching it again. The musical score alone is enough to make it worth while.
46 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I guess some people are just too overly sensitive and hateful to understand this movie at all
13 September 2006
This is the best performance Demi Moore has ever given in my opinion. She shows that despite her long time film career she is not the cookie cutter actress most people seem to want her to be. The accent she uses for this character is wonderfully eccentric and brings a realness to her that really makes her shine in this role. I loved her in the long blonde hair and flowy summer dresses much more then her typical costumes designed to show off her body. She was perfect as an out of whack psychic who can divine others fortunes accurately but not her own. This is a typical problem with true psychics by the way. The emotions they feel and the needs they have make it near impossible to accurately see their own future, hint: this is why you never see a psychic win the lottery. Demi is sweet and totally alluring in this film and anyone who says otherwise just has a grudge against her.

This is a wonderfully whimsical romantic comedy with great acting on all parts. Mary Steenburgen plays a perfect shut in turned night club singer and sings beautifully in my opinion. Jeff Daniels is perfect as the semi neurotic psychiatrist whose life is being turned inside out by this lovely psychic. George Dzundza is a great comic butcher and shows that he really has the chops to be a great actor. I think the problem with this film is just that some people tend to take it to seriously and want too much from it. I have watched it over 30 times now and I love it more every single time I watch it. I wish Demi Moore would play more roles like this instead of crap like GI Jane and Charlie's Angels. As for the lesbianism add in, I don't agree with homosexuality but I'm not going to force my sensibilities on other people. There are people that are homosexual, there is no getting around it, and as long as there are there will be some of that life style written into films. If you can't deal with it then just change the channel. Don't complain that Hollywood is trying to convert everyone because it simply isn't true. There is no homosexual conspiracy. Deal with it.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sky High (2005)
3/10
Liked it better the first time... when it was a John Hughes film.
12 September 2006
This movie is a total ripoff of Some Kind of Wonderful with superpowers tossed in and a stupid plot twist at the end. It's so Power Rangerish it made me want to change the channel even though I was playing it on a DVD player. There are a few jokes that work and a lot that don't. The CG effects are bad, the acting by most of the teens in horrendous, and the few cool lines are answered with cheesy lines by the supporting actors. Bruce Campell was great in his own cheesy way as usual but most of the other actors couldn't pull it off. It was nice to see Lynda Carter in film again but I think she could have picked something much better. The direction is horrible the script is a total ripoff and even the camera work is sub par. If you like to laugh at how horribly awful a movie can be then check it out. If you want to see a good movie check out the original "Some Kind of Wonderful" instead.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed