judyoz Reviews

The Last Airbender (2010)

Works for me

[8/10 · 22 July 2010]

Boy, are there some angst-ridden negative comments about this film!! I was quite surprised at the low overall rating given to The Last Airbender, so I read some of the worst, and best, comments before seeing a preview earlier this week.

Having now seen the film I veer very much towards the positive end of the spectrum. While not being a huge devotee of the original cartoons, I did watch a number of them and found them inventive, entertaining and really interesting. But just as with The Lord of the Rings films, which can never fit in all the detail of the books and will change some elements for the sake of cinematic issues (or brevity), choices have had to be made for The Last Airbender ... and some choices are bound to cheese off the cartoon fans mightily.

But this review is for the rest of us, for whom there is the real possibility of going to see this film and departing perfectly happy. The story was engaging, entertaining and (unlike a number of others who have commented) I didn't find it hard to follow at all. Even enjoyed the whiz-bang martial arts and CGI effects, etc - although I have to say that the 3D element really doesn't add much at all. That IS a waste of time, put in place entirely because it's the latest craze.

That said, I'll be doing a birthday party at the local cinema for my 12yo daughter and a group of her friends as soon as the film comes out. I'm confident they'll all have a whale of a time. :-)

A Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery: Gaudy Night: Episode One (1987) Season 1, Episode 8

Tremendously disappointing

[3/10 · 21 August 2007]

I've loved the book of Gaudy Night for years, so when I discovered there was a filmed version I was very enthusiastic and bought it on eBay. Bad mistake. It didn't cost me much but boy did I waste my money. The script is deadly, much of the acting is wooden and a lot of the casting is completely wrong. Peter Wimsey has the right look and dress style but instead of foppish he comes across as camp, while Harriet Vane doesn't appear to be a strong, dependable woman but someone very self-doubting and almost timid. I saw no chemistry between them whatsoever. The actor playing Bunter looks completely wrong and lacks the essential hauteur. While some of the female dons are portrayed well, many of the small parts are attacked with skills reminiscent of The Art of Coarse Acting. And where, oh where is all of DL Sayers's sparkle and wit? The scriptwriter pulls the odd chunk of text verbatim from the book, then proceeds to drown it in long, turgid scenes jammed with his own dialogue. This would be fine if it did any good, but much of what I saw was unnecessary to the plot and wasted good scenes and story lines in the process. So much of this seemed to be going through the motions. It was very sad to see and tremendously disappointing. Perhaps someone will take Gaudy Night on again one day and do a better job??? To be frank, I made it less than halfway through the 150 minutes. I just couldn't bear to watch it any longer.

The Diplomat (2000)

captures a historic moment

[9/10 · 16 December 2003]

This is a well-made and thought-provoking account of the fight for freedom in East Timor - as seen through the eyes of "the diplomat" Jose Ramos Horta, criss-crossing the globe and lobbying governments and individuals to take up the cause of his people. The makers had the good fortune to be filming as the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia. While there was a bloody aftermath to the vote it proved the turning point in the generation-long fight for independence, and the film captures the historic moment when Horta and Xanana Gusmao (now president) were able to return to their homeland, amid great celebration. There is horror, humour, sorrow and great joy in this documentary, and it's deserved every award it has received.

Milk Money (1994)

a true stinker

[11 August 2003]

This film is astonishingly, unbelievably bad. There are SPOILERS following, but I would most seriously suggest that you not bother in the first place.

At the beginning of Milk Money, three pre-teen boys decide to pool their piggy bank savings (hence the film's title) to go into town and make whoopee with a prostitute. Enter Melanie Griffith as V, the standard tart with a heart. She offers to show them her breasts for their stash, as this is all it will buy.

Reliving most of this story is too painful to go into much detail. Suffice to say that before long V is romancing the father of one of the boys (Ed Harris), is giving motherly advice, and is supporting Dad in his environmental concerns - all while on the run from her pimp.

This film is supposed to be funny, as well as romantic. But it's just appalling. Do yourself a favour and avoid it if you can.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Enjoyable, but...

[14 January 2002]

Various naysayers about this film have presumed that all those who enjoyed it must be in their teens (most definitely not the case here!) and manic fans of Star Wars et al (hardly). However, for the record I am a devoted Tolkien fan.

While I enjoyed the film very much - the three hours sped by - I also have a number of criticisms. And for those who may have not seen the film yet, there will be **SPOILERS** to follow.

The pace of the film before the hobbits' arrival at Rivendell, with the exception of the introductory scenes in Hobbiton, seemed far too rushed. I was following the action, but found the pace somewhat bewildering. Perhaps this was partly because I knew the books so well, so I'll give the film makers the benefit of the doubt.

However, the scenes in Lothlorien were just dreadful, with the exception of Galadriel's (Cate Blanchett's)temptation to use the Ring.

What bright spark decided the Elves in Lorien should speak so slowly? They might be other worldly, but they're not thick. It was a big mistake. Legolas doesn't speak like someone on Valium, and neither does Arwen (most of the time). The whole period in Lorien seemed clumsy and badly thought out.

There was also plenty of shifting done in the motivations or actions of certain characters, and this was what annoyed me the most. Individually these items are not that important, but collectively it gets under the skin.

Why, for example, did Frodo - seemingly - die before he got to Rivendell? One is given the impression that Arwen parts with her immortality on the road to give Frodo a second chance... and if that's not what was intended, that's sure how it looked. Obviously being stabbed, on the verge of the wraith world and rescued at the last minute while all his enemies are swept away isn't exciting enough???

One example is Gandalf not wanting to turn back on the pass of Caradhras. In the book it's because he knows the alternative (Moria) is the only other that can be attempted, and he wants to avoid that route if at all possible. In the film he seems pigheadedly unwilling to give up - even though this is endangering the lives of the Fellowship - because he doesn't want Saruman to win that "round". It's rather petty. (in any case, in the book the snowstorm has nothing at all to do with Saruman... yet another change).

Aragorn is also presented as someone who has taken to a life of wandering rather than accepting the responsibility of his heritage. In the book, his life of wandering is partly a result of his heritage. Rangers do just that - range. Aragorn also has to prove to Elrond that he's worthy of marrying Arwen so he's spent decades working against Sauron et al, across Middle Earth, as a kind of testing ground for what is to come (ie the war over the Ring). In the film Elrond all but dislikes Aragorn in the film, yet in the books Aragorn grew up in Rivendell and Elrond looked on him as a son.

Having said all that, I am well aware of the constraints of trying to condense a complex, cerebral novel hundreds of pages long into a viewable film. There are plenty of scenes in the book that simply wouldn't make the shift - the council of Elrond, for one, which I thought the film handled extremely well.

In addition, Peter Jackson was trying to make an epic - something that looked spectacular, sure, but that also gave a sense of the grand and important mission (etc etc) without completely overlooking character development. And I think he's done a pretty good job given the difficulties. The power and danger of the Ring is clear, and its effect on Frodo when he has it on is very well depicted.

Ian McKellen (Gandalf) is the standout in the cast. His Gandalf is honourable, compassionate and occasionally grumpy, and McKellen's capacity to tell you just as much with his face as with his words is impressive. Viggo Mortensen also makes a pretty good Aragorn, and Elijah Wood's Frodo grew on me as the film progressed. Liv Tyler was great as Arwen (so much for the prophets of doom who complained about her as a casting choice).

In film two I'm hoping to see more screen time for Sam, and some depth given to the friendship of Gimli and Legolas. I'm also very keen to hear the next instalment of Howard Shore's music. I thought his score was exceptional, and I hope it's recognised with an award or two somewhere in the next six months.