LordSam-2 Reviews

The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)

Be warned, this movie is scary!

[5/10 · 16 February 2008]

First, the good parts. Amazing special effects, of course. They double cast Freddie Highmore flawlessly, so much that people who didn't know it were shocked. Additionally, my kids read the books and said it was an impressive adaptation of all five (!) of the books. Having not read them myself, the movie still felt coherent without missing any parts.

I can't recommend it highly, on the basis of its being far too violent, and sometimes downright gory. Now, I'm not a puritan; I like horror movies and my family likes action movies. But the violence was a little too close-up and the monsters too real for a movie described as a family film. We saw close-ups of cut-open eyes and exploded heads. My ten year old walked away disturbed and my three year old (I thought it would be okay by the trailers) spent most of the time with his head underneath my coat. This movie should have been PG-13.

Action can be good, even thrilling. Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Narnia all had great family friendly action scenes. The difference, I realized after thinking about it, is that all of the action in this movie was desperate. Not thrilling, just outnumbered, and kind of awful. When the good guys do win, it's sudden and almost random, so you feel less like cheering and more like just unclenching your teeth, glad that it's over.

In addition, the non-action scenes weren't fun either. The dialogue outside the action scenes was almost entirely the family being angry at each other. There may be two laughs in the whole movie. Even the "good" magical creatures had a kind of sinister look to them. There wasn't a lot to *enjoy* here. You may walk out of the theater saying the movie was "amazing" or "exciting," but you won't be able to say that it was "fun."

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

I didn't know what to think.

[27 July 2000]

If people ask me if I "liked" the movie, I won't know what to tell them. I want to say it was "great" because it was: it was intense, and compelling. The cinematography was better than great, but I expected that. The scenes were emotional, and I found it difficult to pull away from the movie at any moment. I loved the blurry, zoned out feeling that pervaded throughout.

However, I was left feeling purposeless. It was like Taxi Driver would have been minus the last half hour. When I got to the end, I kept thinking, is that it? What was the point? What is going to happen now? Wonderfully filmed, a great mood, but it didn't GO anywhere or DO anything. It was three days in some guys' life with no real resolution or climax. When the ending came I said, "Oh, this must be the ending." --Not because the movie felt complete, but because it was finally sufficiently "movie-length".

Nicolas Cage played the exact same lost, moody, self-absorbed character that he played in City of Angels. Ving Rhames surprised me with a terrific, well-developed character.

I would recommend that people see this movie, and watch it for its mood; however, if you need a movie to have a plot and a purpose, don't expect to walk away satisified.