Change Your Image
TimidMice
Reviews
The River King (2005)
Another example of the book being superior to the movie
Yes, this movie is worth a watch . . . good story, decent acting and all that.
But, as seems to have always been the case in Hollywood, the directors/producers/studio took a perfectly fine book like "River King," altered some details they probably thought to be insignificant (i.e. Abe's father was dead in the book, yet alive in the movie ), and then, of course, change the ending. A 180-degree change so that the evil murderous bad guy in the book becomes merely nasty and spoiled, and the victim is made responsible for his own death. Why did the movie's makers find this necessary?
Raising Victor Vargas (2002)
Feels REAL
I don't know what life on the Lower East Side is like for a Dominican-American 17-year old living with his grandmother, younger brother, and younger half-sister, but my guess is that "Raising Victor Vargas" is closer to reality than 99% of the movies out there that would try to show this dynamic. Oh...wait, there AREN'T other movies that try this. No matter - "Raising Victor Vargas" is a wonderful movie. The acting (I've read that most of the "actors" are not professionals) is spot on...the awkward pauses in conversation between Victor and Judy, the angry/sad tirades of the grandmother - they all feel real. Most importantly, this movie shows people as they are in real life - their pimples, wearing the same clothes each day, an apartment that matches the families economic level.
Go see this movie.
Road to Perdition (2002)
Looks Great, Sounds Great, Ain't Great
There was a lot of great acting in this movie, and Sam Mendes and his crew should be commended for how beautifully pictured "Road to Perdition" turned out, but honestly, I left this movie completely unmoved. I didn't care a whit about any characters, save for Sullivan's wife and kids, and that was only because they were the only innocents.
I'm very surprised that I didn't like this movie - Hanks was good against type, Jude Law was creepy, and the kid was creepier. With about 20 minutes to go, however, it was obvious what was going to happen. Ten minutes later, I was ready to go.
Lots of hype doesn't make a movie "the best gangster movie ever," as I've seen written here.
Reign of Fire (2002)
Oh, Dear Lord...
This is a bad, bad movie. If you're going to make a movie where dragons awaken from an eons long sleep, and you set it in the near future, you need to have two things - there has to be full-bore action for the entire movie, and your tongue has to be firmly planted in your cheek. At the end of the movie, I walked out stunned because I had the terrible realization that this movie takes itself seriously.
There's some action in "Reign of Fire," and some of it is cool (and the dragons are pretty nasty-looking), but there is nowhere near as much mindless action as was needed. I'm trying to figure out a way to concisely discuss the many goofs and ridiculous aspects of this movie, but it is hurting my brain. I'll mention one - twice it is mentioned that the dragons have poor vision during "magic time" - after the sun has set and before darkness falls. That is the time they are most vulnerable. And yet, at no point in the movie does this factor into anything.
Oh God, I just spent 5 additional minutes thinking and writing about this movie....
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
High expectations lead to inevitable let-down
First off, I must say I was entertained during the entire movie - no little feat since my attention span is pretty short. I thought that the acting was superb (especially the kids and Alan Rickman). The special effects were, for the most part, exciting, though it was blatantly obvious when screens were used and some of the creatures didn't seem "real" (i.e. the troll).
The let-down, however, came because there were no surprises, and more importantly, little wit. Everyone who read the books will know exactly what happens, so that is to be expected, but it makes me wonder if going to later "Potter" movies will be worth it. The people I went to the movie with and I each preferred the images we made up in reading the books to the one presented on screen. My favorite element of the books is the smart side comments the narrator makes - something not easily achieved in film. I hope some artistic license will be allowed in later installments.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Ugh
First off, I should state that I believe a movie ought to be pretty darned good to go over 2 hours. A.I. isn't good enough. The characters are undeveloped and I found myself not liking any of them. Feeling sympathetic for a character, as I felt for David, doesn't mean the character was well-developed, however.
The last twenty minutes or so felt like old Steven decided to try and re-live the ET magic. It was tacked on and just...kept...going...on....
This could have been a very good movie - shorten it, spend more time developing the background (my lord, but the narrator was ridiculous - we all get the Pinocchio metaphor - how could we not?) and characters.
One question, though - didn't anyone consider that these adoptive parents would get bored with a kid who stays the same age forever - especially when their fake kid looks like all the other fake kids?