kellychitwood Reviews

Miss Potter (2006)

Exquisite Film

[10/10 · 12 August 2007]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS! I very nearly didn't watch this film, which was a freebie as part of a rental store deal. Thank goodness I reconsidered, for I would have missed one of the most charming motion pictures in recent memory.

Virtually everything about "Miss Potter" is perfect...from the opening scenes of her carefully selecting a brush and mixing paint to the bittersweet conclusion that brings with it quite a surprise regarding Miss Potter's role as a conservationist. In more than one way, she was a woman ahead of her time.

The cinematography is glorious, the acting smooth and unforced (who would have guessed that Renee Zellweger could sound so very British?), and the plot superb. One of the most enchanting and clever bits is the very limited but judicious use of animation. When Beatrix is creating her animal characters, they become quite real to her, and we are treated to glimpses of life from the drawings themselves. Overdone, this approach would have turned the movie into a Disney cartoon, but happily, inspiration was tempered by restraint, and result is delightful.

Surely one of the loveliest moments comes when Beatrix and Norman dance, with Norman (Ewan MacGregor) singing the words to the music box tune, "Let Me Teach You How To Dance." The song is reprised at the end of the movie, only then it is, "When You Taught Me How To Dance." Perfect lyrics in every way and a melody both sweet and haunting.

Frankly, I think the critics who panned this film have become so self-important and pseudo-intellectual that they can't tell a great film when they see it. It has become unfashionable to be enchanted, which is a shame, because this troubled world NEEDS the kind of magic that Beatrix Potter wielded and that "Miss Potter" brings to life so exquisitely. Absolutely a 10 out of 10!

Thérèse: The Story of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux (2004)

Embarrassingly Bad

[1/10 · 30 May 2006]

Ridiculous, stilted dialogue, wooden acting, less-than-one-dimensional characters...it's hard to see how this film could get much worse. Boy, am I glad I got this one for free on a rental store coupon, because I would hate to have wasted any money on it. For some reason, this turned up as a "New Release" in the video store, and I thought I had somehow managed to miss it in the theatres recently. Not so; it came out in 2004 and evidently was deserved ignored.

Having read and been impressed by "The Story of a Soul," the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux, I hoped to see a professional rendering of her story that would expand my understanding of the saint. As a devout Roman Catholic, I was disposed to like the film and was pleased to see that the Vatican had endorsed it. What a disappointment! I do wish the Vatican had stayed out of it; it is positively embarrassing to have the Church associated with such an amateurish and poor production. This kind of tripe gives films with religious subjects a bad name.

The sole redeeming feature is a rather nice musical score, composed by a cloistered Carmelite nun.

As several reviewers have pointed out, the life of St.Therese could yield rich material for a film. Unfortunately, this isn't the one. If you want to learn more about St. Therese, read her autobiography or visit a Carmelite monastery. If you want to honor her, make a donation. But don't waste time and money on this smarmy, pretentious, and utterly unworthy film.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

The Best Yet

[9/10 · 29 November 2005]

What a grand movie, and what a relief that the cinematic Goblet of Fire captured the spirit of the Potter books this time around! Unlike the screen version of Prisoner of Azkaban, this movie "gets it" with regard to what is and is not important. While almost all of the book's sub-plots had to be omitted, just about everything important made it into this film, even if the way it was included was altered slightly. The changes were believable and the none of the essential elements of the story were lost. I add my voice to those declaring Goblet of Fire by far the best of the Potter movies.

I don't usually comment on special effects, but it would be a crime to ignore them in this case. I knew exactly what to expect from all the scariest parts of the movie, but even so, I was gasping and clutching my husband's hand during the dragon task and the graveyard scene. Amazing stuff. I had the advantage of seeing the movie in IMAX, and it felt like I was flying right along with Harry. If you have the opportunity to experience the film in IMAX, do it. It will be worth every penny. I really wanted to just buy another ticket and see it again, right then!

Excellent acting all around...Madame Maxine was not quite what I had pictured, but she worked. The kids improve with every movie; Daniel Radcliffe was superb in the scene immediately following the graveyard experience. I wish that we could have seen a little more of him and explored a bit more deeply the emotions he portrayed so well. If I have one criticism, it would have to be with Michael Gambon's interpretation of Dumbledore. He seems overly harsh and dictatorial, and I don't see him building the rapport with Harry that the character requires. I almost wonder if he has read the books. He is adequate, but Dumbledore really needs to be exceptional.

All in all, Goblet of Fire is a joy to watch. I plan to return to the theater at least once, and I'll certainly be adding the DVD to my collection. An absolute must-see for all Potter fans.

The Million Dollar Hotel (2000)

Why...

[1/10 · 5 September 2004]

...was this movie ever made, why did Mel Gibson appear in it, why did a number of other talented actors appear in it, and WHAT were those who gave it more than a "1" smoking or drinking when they reviewed it? The only one of those questions I can answer is the one about Gibson, and I can only assume he owed somebody a BIG favor! If you take a look at the box office return on this dog, you will see that I'm far from the only person to feel this way. It took $8 million to make this strange, meandering, pointless film; it made around $12,000. Ouch! I rented this movie because Mel Gibson was in it, and I figured I couldn't go wrong. Looks like there's an exception to every rule. Don't waste your time or your money!

The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004)

Clean, fun fairy tale

[6/10 · 21 August 2004]

How refreshing to attend a non-animated, G-rated movie and enjoy it! As a 41-year-old woman attending with an 82-year-old friend, I expected a light, pretty, romantic fairy tale, and that's exactly what I got. Never saw the first movie, but the "catch-up" work at the beginning made that a non-issue.

Surely, no one would go to this movie expecting to find the meaning of life portrayed on the screen. Come on, folks, this is a Disney princess flick with Julie Andrews and a G-rating; is anybody expecting deep philosophy?

Chick flick? Of course! Especially appealing to young (under 18) chicks? Definitely! Enjoyable to other adult women and men who just want a happy trip to fantasy land with no worries about sex, blood, or blue language? Absolutely!

Take this film at face value and you'll enjoy it. If you can't do that, don't bother seeing it. There are plenty of other "profound" movies out there to inspire, teach, or depress you! Go for a good time and you'll have it.

King Arthur (2004)

King Who?

[17 July 2004]

CAUTION: SPOILERS!

Having seen and been disappointed with virtually every film ever made about the Arthurian legend, I went to "King Arthur" with few expectations, but the "hope springs eternal" attitude. While I found it a vast improvement on the cartoonish "Merlin" and the ho-hum "Excalibur," "King Arthur" falls squarely into the category of "good material, shame about the movie."

While I am not a scholarly expert, I do know a little something about Arthur, both the historical figure and the legend. One thing this film DID get right was the time period. The historical Arthur did indeed live in the 5th century. However, he is generally acknowledged to have come to adulthood well after the Romans left Britain, and it is virtually certain that he was NOT half-Roman, as this movie suggests. No big deal? Maybe, except that this movie's plot hangs on Arthur's supposed inner conflict between his Roman and his British self. Take that away, and the whole story crumbles.

Just for the record, the historical Arthur is pretty generally acknowledged to have been the son of King Uther and Queen Ygraine, both of Britain, both undeniably royal, which makes the movie's flashback to Arthur's apparently humble childhood quite inaccurate.

But enough about the historical stuff. Most people who see the film won't have any idea of the "real" story, so the inaccuracies won't spoil it for them.

So many potentially good characters here, only one decently developed: Arthur himself. Yes, he was the focus of the movie, but that doesn't mean that the other characters should only have been along for the ride. So much could and should have been done with Lancelot, Guinevere, and Merlin, for heaven's sake. Merlin is one of history and legend's most fascinating characters, and he only shows up as an also-ran in this movie. No one has ever done justice to this character in a movie, and it's a shame, because developing his relationship with Arthur in a realistic way would add fantastic depth to any telling of this tale.

Noble knights, yes, "King Arthur" has them. Location and scenery, ok. The bad guys getting theirs and the good guys winning, yep. But as another user has commented, plug in some other names and you'd have just as good (or mediocre) a movie. Nothing spectacular at all. I enjoyed it on a superficial level, and I'll probably rent it eventually, just to figure out who it was (besides Lancelot) that died in the end. That's another character problem...the other knights' personalities are so underdeveloped and they look so much alike that it's very hard to tell them apart.

All in all, I'm glad I saw it, but it's not the movie I'm waiting for. Not until somebody turns Mary Stewart's magnificent Arthurian trilogy into a series of movies (much like LOTR) do I think we'll see the ideal Arthur movie(s).

Peter Jackson, can we talk?

Five out of ten.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Super Movie, But Only If You Haven't Read The Book

[5/10 · 9 June 2004]

WITHOUT considering the book(s), POA is probably the best of the Potter movies so far. It looks and feels more real than either of the first two, thanks in large part to improved special effects and striking scenery changes. Somehow, the spirit of Potter's world is more believable than before. It kept me engaged, excited, and talking to the screen, which is pretty remarkable, considering that I'm 41.

BUT YOU CAN'T CONSDER THIS MOVIE WITHOUT THE BOOK(S)! Throughout the film, vital plot and character information is sacrificed at the expense not only of this story, but of all Potter stories to come.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

The most glaring omission is the failure to identify Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs. All are major characters who will play important parts in the rest of the Potter saga. Why and how they came to make The Maurauders' Map touches on a key element of their personalities, as well as their relationships to Harry and among themselves. As it stands, viewers could easily believe Lupin when he tells Snape that the map is just a Zonko's product.

The POA book also sheds some light on why Snape hates Harry, Sirius, and Lupin so much...we need to know this! It is critical to future character interactions, and it adds depth and motiviation to Snape himself.

More illuminating points that are omitted: How did Sirius (A) stay sane in Azakaban; (B) escape from Azkaban; and (C) know where Wormtail was? We see the newspaper clipping of the Weasley family, complete with Scabbers, in Egypt. That clipping has ONE purpose...to answer the above questions. But after a fleeting glimpse, we never see or hear about it again, and the questions remain unanswered.

Padfoot: The movie creation is far too menacing and utterly unlike the shaggy, boisterous Padfoot of the books. Next movie, Padfoot must survive on hand-outs as "a lovable stray." The creature we see in PoA would inspire even a dog-lover to get the gun, not the left-over roast beef! And again, considering who Padfoot is, his animagus form should not be monstrous.

Harry's Patronus: Beautifully executed on-screen, but tell us why it is a stag! In that answer lies a wealth of character expansion and emotional attachment for Harry, Daniel Radcliffe, and the viewers! Something that should be wonderfully moving is just superficially pretty.

All this leads to one huge question: WHERE WAS J.K. ROWLING WHEN THE SCREENWRITER AND DIRECTOR WERE BUTCHERING HER BOOK? Has she given up all creative control? If she doesn't step in before Goblet of Fire is released, lovers of Potter's wizarding world may riot at the box office, and the gloomiest predictions Professor Trelawney can dish out will be warranted!

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Masterpiece

[10/10 · 26 February 2004]

"The Passion of The Christ," produced and directed by Mel Gibson, provides an unequaled opportunity to experience firsthand the final 12 hours of Christ's life, including the crucifixion, arguably the most pivotal events in human history.

Cinematically, `The Passion' is a masterpiece. The remarkable acting is especially impressive because the actors convey so much without dialogue. The subtitles and foreign languages do not interfere with the film's message. The use of flashbacks on the part of Jesus and Mary provide both context and poignancy for the events currently unfolding. The makeup necessary to create a beaten and wounded Christ is so realistic as to be almost too perfect. Certainly, these bloody images have already drawn criticism for being extremely graphic. Breathtakingly creative camera work and a few carefully chosen special effects make the supernatural aspects of the film at once believable and unnerving.

Professional film critics and early movie-goers warn of this film's violence, and rightly so. The brutal nature of `The Passion' makes it unsuitable for children. But the very brutality of "The Passion" speaks eloquently against violence. For Christians to fail to see this film on the basis of its violence is, frankly, an act of cowardice. Anyone professing to believe that Christ sacrificed himself for humanity's redemption needs to understand exactly what that sacrifice meant. With excruciating intensity, "The Passion" forces Christian viewers to comprehend the terrible cost of salvation.

The brouhaha about "The Passion" fueling anti-Semitism deserves but one comment: Only someone actively seeking persecution will find it by viewing this film. For the vast majority of movie-goers, "The Passion of The Christ" will spark not hatred, but humility and will likely result in some unprecedented soul-searching.

Mel Gibson tells the story of "The Passion" as one inspired, even compelled, to do so. Clearly, he means to arouse a world of complacent Christians to a sense of what their redemption cost. For non-Christians, Gibson aspires to promote inquiry into the life of Jesus, founder of one of the world's great religions. It seems unlikely that Gibson will care whether this film wins dozens of awards or none. Neither does its money-making potential seem important, except as an indicator of the number of people it reaches, for Gibson himself has said that he felt making `The Passion' was something of a divine commission. If such is true, then surely his Creator must be saying, `Well done, thou good and faithful servant.'