Change Your Image
vanalosswen
Reviews
Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars (2009)
I wanted to like it...
I am a huge David Tennant fan, and am the kind of viewer who will forgive a lot of a beloved actor when he/she is handed a difficult assignment.
This was the kind of script where I had to do a lot of forgiving. The sets were very pretty, and I kept wondering how they did the water special effect for the monsters, and most of the acting ranged from good to brilliant. But. The script was clumsy at best.
There's a bit toward the beginning, when the Doctor's meeting the crew of the station, where we see a file on a computer screen about them, underlining over and over that all these people are going to die. That was interesting the first time it was used, but I very quickly started rolling my eyes and going "Really? There wasn't a better way to introduce everyone?" A joke about bicycles was a little overused, but paid off in the end.
What hurt my soul the most was the Doctor's hubris toward the end. He has shown time and again that he won't change the important points in history. As William Hartnell, the Doctor scolded Barbara for trying to change history, telling her "You can't rewrite history. Not one line!" Having the Doctor proclaim himself as a rogue who answers to no one...that smacks of becoming like the Master or the Time Meddler or anyone else he's run into who tries to bend history out of shape. That's not the Doctor, and never has been. Maybe if there had been a more logical progression toward this change, I could have accepted it, but it came out of the blue after "The Next Doctor" and "Dead Planet".
I love Tennant very much, and wanted to love this episode because it's one of my last chances to enjoy him as the Doctor. And I hated this episode. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Could have been better
I'll confess, I prefer reading a good book to seeing a movie. There's something about the way the words come alive in my head that will always beat out even the best of movies. But when a book I love is turned into a movie, I have to see it. Call it morbid curiosity if you like; I always wonder if the story will survive the transfer from book to movie and if the director will be true to what the book does. Sometimes, the transition is better than other times. Lord of the Rings was spectacular. This movie
was not, I'm sad to say.
I think the fault does not lie with the actors, at least not entirely. Anthony Hopkins shone as Hannibal (how could he not?), but his scenes were handled badly. The scene that stands out for me as the worst in the movie was, unfortunately, the first meeting between Clarice and Hannibal. This is most unfortunate because that particular scene is one of my favorites in the book. I wonder if the director actually read the book this movie is based on. To the director: with all due respect, Hannibal is a gentleman. He would not shout for Clarice because gentlemen do not shout for women as if they were dogs. According to the book, he called her name repeatedly as she was walking away, and only her desire for advancement brought her back. Also, this scene was horribly abbreviated, as were all the other scenes between Clarice and Hannibal.
Part of the blame is on the shoulders of the director, but Jodie Foster in the role of Clarice must take some of the blame as well. There were moments when she made Clarice shine, and I saw in her face all the strength and courage that I loved and admired in the book. The final showdown, however, ruined it for me. Jodie may have won an Oscar for this performance, but I suspect that those who decide on those awards never read the book. Jodie showed good emotion, if the director asked for fear. Shaking hands, fast breathing, fumbling for bullets, the whole spiel. But that's not the character of Clarice. In the first place, Clarice was at the top of her shooting class; she'd practiced taking her gun out of its holster four thousand times (according to the book). She was smooth in her draw, not fumbling. In the second place, Clarice doesn't show fear. She's fully aware in the cellar that Buffalo Bill could be around every corner, and being a female and showing him fear is giving him the advantage. She knows that. According to all I've read in the book, she knows how to control her fear.
Now, I'll admit, I'm biased about this movie because I love the book. And there were moments when there was a definite shine in the movie: Crawford was brilliantly good, and while Jame Gumb was a little too retarded, he did well. But what made the book brilliant was sadly lacking. I'd never buy this movie.
Thr3e (2006)
Disappointing at best
When I saw this movie in the aisle of our local video store, I almost went catatonic with glee. Thr3e was the first Ted Dekker novel I ever read, and I'd heard many good things about it. I bought it sight unseen, and now I regret it.
Ted, how could you let them do this to your novel? Everything that made the novel classically good (good dialogue, for a really good start) was taken out. I never believed the character of Jennifer or Sam; my brother, who watched the movie with me without reading the book, kept mixing them up. Kevin did a pretty good job, and some of the added stuff made the film make sense; that's why I didn't give this movie an automatic one. Balinda was brilliant, but more time should have been spent in Kevin's memory.
Technically, this film was a mess. The cuts were choppy, the camera work was awkward, sometimes the sound was weird...I've seen better films, technical-wise, from a student film with no budget. And that's just sad.
To all Christian authors (especially Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti): if the movie industry wants to make movies out of your books, hold out for a bigger budget, decent script-writing (or write the scripts yourself), and good actors. Particularly, if there's a book with two women in leading roles, don't get actresses who look and sound so much alike (flat, breathy, and dull).
Man of La Mancha (1972)
Response
I recently worked on a local production of Man of La Mancha, and while we were in rehearsal, I rented this movie. I like Peter O'Toole as an actor, and I love the play, so I figured I would like this movie.
I was wrong.
I was prepared to accept the necessary script changes; in fact, I was delighted that they kept so much of the script the same as it is in the musical. But I was not prepared for actors who couldn't sing. Yes, I like the Broadway version, and I love the version we did here. But for the movie, I'd expected the director to find actors who could convey the character (which the two leads did; I didn't like the Sancho, but I am partial to the guy we have) and who could carry the notes powerfully. Peter O'Toole, while he did a marvelous job acting the character, didn't have the vocal strength to pull off songs like 'The Impossible Dream'. And the Aldonza...I've never had a greater let-down than when I skipped ahead to her keynote song and found that she didn't have the character or the strength or the anger to manage that song. I was even prepared to accept her not singing; our Aldonza came down with laryngitis shortly before opening--she wasn't able to sing until the final weekend--and she still turned in a beautiful performance, singing what she could and speaking the rest.
So, all in all, I was disappointed by this film. The set was beautiful, and some of the casting was right on, and the prison scenes were funny and sweet...but the director failed to give us viewers actors who could sing.
Firefly (2002)
Short but sweet
A friend of mine first directed my attention to this show and made me watch the first disk; I'd heard good things about it, but as a college student, I had little time to actually sit and watch a TV show that didn't pertain to my acting classes.
I'm glad he made me. I'm truly sad that this show didn't stick around (stupid Fox), but I'm glad that it stayed as long as it did and that the cast and crew made three more episodes, even though they never aired. And I'm really glad that they were able to make the movie. I wish there would be more...
What really attracted me to this show after seeing the first episode was the sheer diversity of the characters. I mean, where else could a viewer find a Han Solo-esq captain with wry, cynical humor, a teen-aged mechanic with lofty dreams, a soldier with an itchy trigger finger, a doctor who almost never swears, a psychic with no emotional control, a Companion who's madly in love with the captain, a wonderfully mismatched couple (one who plays with plastic dinosaurs and the other who was a soldier under the captain's command), and a preacher who works as the conscience of the whole crew? And they all work together so beautifully, no one working really out of character.