Change Your Image
tbaa_andrea
Reviews
Silent Hill (2006)
C, C+, Warning: Major spoilers at the end of the Review!!
It wasn't a bad movie, but I have to admit, the video game really drew you in a lot more.
Despite the lousy graphics of the Playstation 1, I still found myself getting chills, gasping and at one point actually screaming throughout the game. Silent Hill 3, great graphics, a better storyline than silent hill 1, decent level of scariness. And this is coming from someone who usually plays a video game until it gets too hard then quits. I'm not what you would call a "gamer", but the silent hill games I couldn't stop playing. I still get chilled even the third time around.
This movie... The problem is I think they tried to stuff themes from all three games into one movie. It just didn't seem to fit.
The addition of the "Father" character was unnecessary. I LOVE Sean Bean. He's one of my favorite actors and major HOT! but the character he plays... what was the point? What did the "father" add to the show? He got about as many answers as the audience did. big fat zero. So in essence, he was kind of just eye candy. But that detracts from the action that could be going on in Silent Hill. Also, The changing of Harry Mason to Rose DeSalva was unnecessary really. I mean, Sure, Harry would seem a bit like a wussy in the movie, but what did Rose do? She didn't fight any of the creatures like he did in the game. Some of the most intense action that drew you into the game was the fighting of the demon creatures. They didn't have any of that at all!! All she did was scream and run most of the time. And the one time she finally gets a weapon, she doesn't use it as a weapon and she drops it along the way.
The demon creatures... they were not used the way they should have been. If you played the game, they were everywhere- They were what caused the height of the scary moments, the scene in Silent Hill 1 the game where you're in a locker room, you open a locker where knocking noises are coming from and its empty so you turn to leave then BAM! that scared the crap out of me! They had no moments like this in the movie. I could count the number of times they actually used demon creatures on my hands, and Rose spent more time screaming and running from them that you never got to really enjoy the disturbing scariness of them.
I also don't understand the separation of Daliah who in the game was the mother of Alessa AND the bad guy- into Daliah the mother of Alessa and Crystabel, the bad guy. That was an extra character they didn't need.
I loved the actors they chose for each role however. They all did a great job. The woman playing Cybil looked perfect for the part. (Hate what happened to the character. That I won't give away but it was stupid). but all in all, acting wise the movie was great.
But writing wise, it seemed to lack a lot. Like I said, I think they were trying to shove all three video games into one movie. They added unnecessary characters, they didn't utilize any of the scary moments from the game that they could have, and....
Spoiler: WARNING: Spoiler
If you haven't seen the movie stop reading! This is about the ending!
The ending made no sense to me at all. are they dead? Are they alive? I mean, it was so ambiguous. In Silent Hill 3, the little girl is suppose to grow up to be Heather Mason who the video game revolves around. I guess if they're dead, and ghosts walking around... they've killed the ability to make that sequel into a movie. So I don't get it. What was up with that ending?
End Spoiler!
so in other words, it could have been worse, but it could have been better. I liked it for the most part... I really liked the acting and the actors they chose, I liked the visuals and the idea of using actual people instead of all CGI for the creatures, but there was so much that the writers dropped the ball on, that While I enjoyed it, I was a bit disappointed as well. C+. (Man Sean Bean is cute.) While his character was pointless, I'm glad he was in it. lol. (Too bad they just didn't keep Harry Mason as the main character with Sean Bean as Harry. That would have rocked!)
Try Seventeen (2002)
A good movie.
Simply put, this was a good movie. It wasn't over the top, it wasn't over stated, there wasn't anything major motion picture about this movie. It was an independent film for crying out loud. Basically it was a wonderfully simplistic movie.
When I first went to buy it, the store I was at told me they didn't have it in stock, but to rent it before buying it anyway because they heard it was bad. So I rented it, and to my amazement, I found myself giggling at the characters and feeling for them at the same time. I'm 28 years old, yet I could still picture how I felt at 17. I was able to connect with the movie, and it was able to keep my attention. (unlike certain "Blockbuster MUST SEE thrillers" that I pay $9.00 to fall asleep at)
this film had a lot of flaws, yes. But none of them really underscored the enjoyment I got from watching the movie. Elijah Wood did a wonderful job in his role as the doe eyed young adult wannabe. Mandy Moore did a great job as the seductive woman, although she didn't LOOK old enough to fit the part in my opinion. Franka Potente was OK as Jane, although I felt she lacked a bit of emotion and chemistry with Elijah. I think she and Mandy Moore would have been better suited to switching roles. I think Mandy would have been a better Jane and Franka a better Lisa. Just my opinion.
One actor who I think will be a great star one day is Aaron Pearl (cowboy Brad) The only actor who shined in the scifi movie "Bloodsuckers", and is known to Stargate SG-1 fans as young General Hammond. That guy has some good talent. He just needs some bigger parts. (No I'm not a relative. I honestly think he's got some great talent. And he's pretty cute. Minus the handle bar mustache.) So Simple, sweet, not perfect, but not as bad as some people have been reviewing it. Definitely up there as one of my favorite movies.
The Skeleton Key (2005)
If you have insomnia, and are afraid of the side effects of sleeping pills- see this movie
and you'll fall right to sleep.
Talk about spells... you had to cast one on me to keep me awake. Usually when you get a movie like this, you say... "This movie had potential that they just didn't utilize". well this movie lacked even the potential to not utilize.
It was simply dull. It wasn't thrilling... it wasn't suspenseful... it wasn't scary... and I'm sorry but the ending wasn't very surprising. Definitely not in the top movie of the year categories.
Kate Hudson is MUCH better than this! I was very disappointed. It was too long to say nothing, for an ending that actually was fairly predictable. Even if you didn't see the ending coming till it was almost there, it didn't shock or surprise you when it happened. It was more like "Oh yeah. OK I guess I could have seen that coming if I could have stayed awake to watch the entire movie."
The audience I was with all left saying the same thing. "I could barely keep my eyes open." "Geez I am so tired." "Watching a movie like this just drains the energy out of you doesn't it." And so on. That's not a good sign.
Wait for DVD if you must see this movie.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Eh. (May be a spoiler.)
It was OK. I mean, it wasn't bad, it wasn't great, it was OK. It was what I expected, but nothing more. I mean, I can't describe it. The acting in the first 15 minutes was kinda bad... the ending was very predictable... some scenes were entertaining, but that was about it. I didn't find myself getting into it. I was more entertained by Tom Cruise's sudden loss of public self control and mental stability in real life than the actual film itself.
All in all the movie wasn't horrible, but it wasn't all it was hyped up to be. It was just another movie about evil aliens trying to take over the earth and a family trying to find each other. **Small spoiler here if you're an M. Night Shamalan fan.**
(Can we say M. Night's "Signs"?) oh well.
See a matinée or wait till the DVD. just my opinion. Sorry Spielberg. You should have kept your promise when you said you'd NEVER depict Aliens as evil creatures. You were more successful.
Bewitched (2005)
I still can't believe how close-minded people are. ITS A MOVIE! Come on just relax and enjoy!
I just finished watching the show, and this is all I can say.
1. Cute...
2. Not hilarious- but charmingly funny. Like the original series. (Being only 28 I watch the shows in reruns). I don't find it to be hilarious... but I always enjoy the simple cute charm of the series.
3. The acting isn't as over the top as everyone says it was. I loved Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman, they had great Chemistry.
4. THIS IS NOT A REMAKE OF THE SERIES!! for crying out loud people it is a movie ABOUT remaking the show, with a bewitched LIKE twist. Its not meant to be compared to the series. Its not really like the series minus the references and clips from the old show, and the fact that there is a witch trying to be a normal human. Everything else is different. Its more about Isabel and Jack than Samantha and Darren. The making of Bewitched is more of a side story. The remake is the smaller part of the storyline.
5. this movie had no extreme violence, no sex, no nudity (minus a three second pixelated (cencored) scene) and no F bombs. No real cursing at all. (Except a few hexes.) FINALLY!! An original idea, lets do a movie that can hold its own using something OTHER than shock value.
this show wasn't meant to be the intellectual movie of the year, nor was it meant to be the funniest movie of the season. It was meant to be a cute, romantic, touching comedy. No need to over analyze. Just sit back, relax and smile. that's what we did for the original series, that is what this movie is for. We're not talking about "Oh my God Harry You're a WIZARD" Harry Potter here. We're talking about simple... cute... romantic... touching and just plain charming.
While I admit there are some scenes that dragged on and one scene that could have been cut completely to fix that... it was an otherwise enjoyable, sweet, see it with a date, best-friend, parent... kind of movie. (I don't have kids yet so It would be up to you to decide if it would be an appropriate movie to take them too.) I thought it was OK for 12 and up.
Anyway. I gave this movie a strong A-. it wasn't perfect, but I think its been getting a raw deal in reviews. It deserves MUCH better than its getting!! I'll definitely see it again since a friend of mine wants to see it and hasn't yet, and I'll definitely get it on DVD when it comes out!
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Visually spectacular, vocally lackluster (Spoilers)
I have to start off by saying, thank God for Gerard Butler. His passion to me makes up for a lot of the points I'm going to bring up in this review. He brought a passion to the Phantom I've missed since Michael Crawford.
now to the review...
Visually the movie was beautiful. the costumes and scenery were gorgeous. but the show isn't about the visual. its also about the music, the passion, the obsession.
Christine had a very precise voice and perfectly tuned, she had a very young pretty look, but her voice lacked any true innocent emotion and her acting was a bit hollow. I like the actress, she did a great job for what she could do, but in my opinion she didn't bring that innocence and deep emotion to the role of Christine. That tear between a love and a dream, the terror and hopelessness of a shattered illusion, and the sympathy she truly felt for her obsessor. she lacked that hypnotic loss of control when she was around the phantom. Vocally she was good, performance she lacked a bit.
I LOVE Gerard Butler. He is very handsome (wow is he ever) and I have a thing for Scotsmen, he is an extremely talented actor, he showed great emotion in the role, but sadly his voice was not quite there. it was almost there, but as the old saying goes, "Close but no cigar- close doesn't win the race." The phantom is suppose to have this romantic, hypnotic voice that puts Christine in a trance every time she hears him sing, he is a brilliant illusionist, magician, composer. Yet the more emotional he got, the more he grunted instead of sang. Performance wise he was superb, I actually felt drawn to his Phantom, until he started singing. although he did do a good job on the big number, "Music of the Night." with some training, I think he could be amazing as the phantom. but he didn't have enough training in time for filming. he was just a great phantom with a not as hypnotizing voice. I heard many people comment on the wish he would have been Michael Crawford.
Also, with technology being the way it is, after how amazing they made the sets, I was EXTREMELY disappointed by the phantom's unmasking. Like one reviewer put it (I wish I could remember his name off hand) It looked like a very handsome man with a bad sunburn on one side of his face. after the phantom moaning about how pitiful his life was because of his face, it seemed so anti-climactic. The old silent movie version of the phantom was more horrific. The description given by original author of the Phantom, Gaston Leroux paints a much more pitiful version of the Phantom. The stage make-up for the musical version is more dramatic than this was. You'd think with FX being the way it is today, they'd have come up with something more. I'm not talking grotesque or gory. just... more dramatic.
the worst thing that broke my heart was the grave yard scene when they changed the Phantom's fireballs shooting at Raoul and the scene when the stage erupts into fire, to a sword fight where Raoul has the phantom where he wants him and decides.. "Eh, maybe later." what was up with that? They took the whole element of the Phantom's genius at illusion and terror and turned it into a weak sword fight no one won even though Raoul could have ended it all in that moment.
I also disliked where the chandelier fell. The reason I enjoyed it much more where it happens in the stage play is because 1. it shows his anger, and deep sadness over Christine's betrayal 2. it shows the Phantom's maniacal madness. 3. who doesn't love it when it flickers on and off before it falls when he cries out to a croaking Carlotta "BEHOLD SHE IS SINGING To BRING DOWN THE CHANDELIER!!" I also miss the maniacal laughter as Carlotta croaks. Michael Crawford did that the best. It just shows how mad the Phantom was increasingly growing.
you're probably wondering why I gave it such a high rating with so many complaints, here are the things I liked about it, and the DVD that followed.
The DVD's making of, and behind the mask extras were truly interesting to watch.
Gerard Butler is an amazing actor, who minus the non-phantomish voice (In my opinion at least) brought great passion to the role. He really brings you into his character no matter how hard you try to not like him. (And I did try cause I'm a die hard- Michael Crawford for the phantom! fan.) but there was something in Mr. Butler's eyes that was impossible to ignore.
The sets were amazing, the costumes were beautiful.
Raoul, Madame Giry and the managers did their roles splendidly.
Christine, minus the lack of emotion, had a very lovely voice. Needs a bit of work to bring that emotion out in it, but still lovely.and she's a good actress.
the orchestra was amazing. The music set the mood perfectly.
I liked the ending at the graveyard. That was touching and was a nice twist with the rose on Christine's grave.
Overall, minus some of the singing, I think the actors did a very good job. and I love Gerard Butler. (Did I say that yet?)
overall it wasn't a great movie if you're a major fan of the musical, but it was a very good movie and I'm glad they finally made it. I just wish Mr. Lloyd Webber would release a live stage version on DVD like he did for cats, or like they did for Les Mis.
that's pretty much it. I think visually and because of the wonderful job Mr. Bulter put into the performance, It makes the show worth watching.
The Forgotten (2004)
The Forgotten is Forgettable.
Spoiler free review-
Ending stinks- majorly anti-climatic. doesn't explain a darned thing. The critics want to compare this to the Sixth Sense, not even close.
1. the ending shocked you in the sixth sense.
2. You didn't really know what was happening until the end tied up all the questions and answered them.
3. It was very suspenseful.
With this movie- within the first half hour you realize what its about and what is happening. There is nothing left to the imagination. The ending doesn't answer or tie up anything. its just... "well we ran out of money to pay the writers for a fantastic ending, so we just threw something together." and this movie, because you knew what it was all about, wasn't really all that suspenseful.
On an up note, the acting was good, you can't get any better than the actors in this movie. I love them all and they made it worth seeing hands down. And there are about 2 scenes that catch you by surprise and will make you jump in your seat...
but the writing and lack luster ending will leave you wondering... "What the heck." With such a good build up... this is how it ends?? Definitely NOT up to par with the Sixth Sense.
M. Night still holds the award for most suspenseful movie with an amazing "I didn't see that one coming" ending.
With Forgotten, it was a forgettable end to what could have been a really great movie.
For this reason... you have to grade it in parts.
Beginning is worthy of an A-. I love Anthony Edwards, Gary Sinise and Julianne Moore.
The middle gets about a B+. its very well acted, again I love the actors here, there are some surprising scenes... but there are a lot of places that made the audience laugh during what is suppose to be a serious scene, and by this time you already know the plot and what the outcome will be. writers fault really.
The end gets a C-. Its OK... but its just there. It could have made the movie into a complete A+, but it drops the whole movies grade down to about a B all together.
** 1/2 out of ****
Good, could have been great, but a missed opportunity.
The Village (2004)
Spoilers here- First off, decent, but not great (Again spoilers)
I keep seeing commercials- "The village will leave you haunted" making it sound like a suspense thriller. It really wasn't suspensful and it really wasn't thrilling. It didn't even make me jump once. It make me ask over and over and over "What is the point?" Till at the end you see the big twist that they are really living in modern times and then it make me ask... "So what?"
It really wasn't that impressive. There is only so many minutes of watching a blind woman running through the woods someone can stand. Then the movie doesn't resolve. Sure you know the twist, sure you know
she made it back in time... but again... who cares? What happened after that? Did he die anyway? Did they get married? I'm not one for tidy endings... but when a movie bores you that badly, it would be nice to make up for it.
And what was up with that thing about his "color" and "I'm not going to tell you so stop asking." I was expecting her to eventually say his color was the forbiden color.
All in all, this was very disappointing. VERY. And I'm a big fan of M. Night Shyamalan.
I give this 2 out of 5 stars, only cause the premise was interesting and had promise and lets face it.. Joaquin Phoenix is hot. ^_^
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Spoilers: My review! weeee
OK. Spoiler warning one more time.
Now all in all, I liked the movie. let me get that out of the way now. I can't wait to see it again!!
however, there were a few things I thought the film lacked compared to the first two.
I liked the end credits when he did the "I swear I am up to no good" and the mauraders map opened into the final credits, but I didn't like it where it ended with the broom and Harry flying on it. I liked the book ending MUCH better with the letter from Sirius, and Harry informing his relatives that his godfather was a convicted murderer on the run.
I also love Remus and Sirius. I think the actors who portrayed them were brilliant as well... but they didn't build up the characters enough. And I personally think they, as well as Hagrid and Snape got gyped. They're part was almost non-existent compared to the book.
I also missed the bantering between Ron and Hermione about the cat and Rat. you'd think with Scabbers turning out to be Peter Pettigrew, that they would have played that part just a bit more than they did. but you rarely even saw the rat and cat. It just kinda seemed... missing. I don't know how else to describe it.
I'm not saying to add everything from the book into the movie I know that wouldn't be possible, but some stuff in the movie could have been replaced by more interesting scenes, and the movie could have been a tad longer. it wasn't even 2.5 hours long. It could have been just a bit longer. If we sit through that long, what's another 15 mins or so? ^_^ lol.
The actors were great, the visual was also great, the story was a bit too choppy and ran a little long. They could have chosen better scenes from the book...
but here's to hoping for great extras on the DVD. I just wish they'd re-release the harry potters on DVD with the extras added right into the movie like they did with Lord of the Rings. One can hope, right?
I know I sound down on the movie... I'm totally not. I did like it... I just wasn't feeling the movie the way I was feeling the book. I don't know. I think I'd give it.......
4.5 out of 5 stars.
Good movie Great acting- the kids are great again! They're getting better as they get older. And while I'm still iffy about Lupin's mustache, I thought David did a great portrayal of Lupin as Gary did of Sirius, my two favorite characters. Good visual effects Some disappointment when it came to character development and the script. It just seemed like... "Ok we have a lot to fit into a short time so rush rush rush!" I can see it being a bit longer. If 6 year olds can sit through the lord of the rings without pee pee breaks, I'm sure Harry Potter could have been a bit longer.
If you read the book, it may be a 4.5 out of 5 stars to you, if you haven't read the book yet, it would probably be a 6 out of 5 stars. lol. it is very good. Just somethings lack when you compare to the book, but isn't that how it is with all movies based on books?
Gothika (2003)
Not sure what to make of it- Does that make me crazy?
Halle Barry gave an awesome performance in her first "Starring" role. she is a great actress and its good to see her finally as the main character, and not just a co-star.
The rest of the supporting cast, especially Downey Jr. of whom I'm a fan, did a great job as well. I was very impressed, but not surprised by the top notch acting job performed by each actor.
The story leaves me a bit perplexed though. I get it, I do, I'm just not sure what to make of it yet. Do I like it? was it a bit slow for me or did it go too fast that I missed something? There were times when I thought, This isn't suspenseful or scary... but there were times I had to close my eyes, worried about what would pop up behind our main character.
All in all without giving the movie away, I have to say, for the acting alone its worth seeing. and it obviously is making me think, and I bet that's what the writers of the movie were going for, and it was a pretty interesting ending that left you feeling kind of like you did after seeing the 6th sense.
While I try to sort out how I really felt about the movie.. I'd have to say, its at least worth an 8/10... so its a definitely worth going to. Maybe you have a more aggressive and definitive personality type compared to my obvious indecisive and overly analytical psyche... so you can come to a positive conclusion on what to make of this while I'm still trying to figure it out. But to me, that's what makes this movie worth seeing. It definitely plays with your head.
Thumbs up to Halle and Robert. (All medical terminology come courtesy of "Gothika"- all rights reserved.) ^_^ lol
Elf (2003)
Finally- a real family movie
A movie that proves sex doesn't always sell. No suggestive humor, no nudity or vile language, no fart jokes and big boobs. Its gotten sad when movies rated G, PG and up have to be screened before you can take your kids to see the movie because even G has some suggestive humor, or even a swear now and again.
But this movie was language free... the worst thing said is Son of a nutcracker. there's not vulgarity- there's no sex- there is nothing but a thousand laughs (And a really good Lord of the Rings reference near the end.)
the first ten minutes are a tad draggy, but once you get into the heart of the movie, its constant laughs. It will make you feel warm inside... you'll laugh till it hurts, and you don't have to be afraid of taking the whole family to see it. Its refreshing to see a movie that's funny because of good acting and a great script. they don't need to resort to "shock value" to hold the story together.
9/10 in my book. (would be 10 out of 10 but the first few minutes did drag a bit, and I wish I would have seen more Bob Newhart. he's a good actor, and made a great "Papa Elf". if he had more of a story and interaction with Buddy (Will Ferrell) it would have been even better.)
Anger Management (2003)
Can you give negatives on a scale of 1-10?
Walked out. It was that lame. And I only had about 50 minutes of the movie left to go. but for 8 bucks, I was expecting gut wrenching humor, not predictable sex jokes and wedgies. It was mega lame and I love both Jack and Adam. And I NEVER walk out on movies. Oh well. Maybe next time.
Signs (2002)
Come on people...Lighten up its a good movie!
SPOILERS!! Warning about Spoilers!! You have been warned.
I thought this was a very thought provoking movie. People who don't like to think much, or are not in the mood for thinking, no this movie isn't for those people.
many people are complaining about how the Aliens can be so easily defeated by water... so what if that's kind of stupid. The point was the fact that there are really no such thing as coinsidences. The little girl with the aversion to "Contamitated water" the fact that she can't drink water she things is bad and leaves cup after cup after cup is not a mere coinsidence. There is a greater reason for her doing so, even is she herself doesn't know it.
This was NOT a movie about aliens. This was not the sixth sense. This is a movie about a fall from grace, and the finding of your faith once again. Why did they use the alien scifi pretence... would half as many people have seen it if it were a drama like steel magnolias or the divine secrets of the ya ya sisterhood? Probably not.
The only thing that did annoy me was that there wasn't an explination of how the aliens were defeated... I guess I would have liked to have known, but since that wasn't really what the movie was all about, it really doesn't matter all that much.
I give it a 4 out of 5 stars.
Besides... even if you don't like the movie or the plot, and if you're not a thinker, J. Pheniox and M Gibson prove once again that genious actors still exist.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Great Movie: But don't expect it to be like the book exactly
Too many people are concerned that it didn't follow the book and a lot of their favorite scenes were left out.
1.) Um...the movie was already 3 hours long!
2.) The DVD is reportedly going to have 30 to 40 additional minutes of footage cut from the theatrical release.
on to my review... SPOILERS...
Wonderful movie. Yes my favorite scenes were left out (Although a few of them are rumored to be coming on DVD). But for all of the complaints I have about the movie....
I love it more than any movie I've ever seen. If I see a movie in the theater more than once, you know I like it...especially at $8. a ticket. I've seen LOTR 5x!!
For those who say there wasn't any feeling...I don't see where they get that. When Gandalf Fell... You felt it, and saw it on the faces of all the characters. When Boromir died, it was FAR more touching and sad than in the book. The look on Sam's face at the end after being pulled in the boat when he tells Frodo that he will not break the promise he made was very moving. the fear Frodo had looked real. I think the feeling was very well illustrated. Even better than in the book.
To me, I love the book mind you, but I like the movie better because Tolkien was a real stickler for detail, but a lot of the emotion was lost in some places to me because he spent so much time on the detail of surroundings rather than the detail of the feelings. The movie paid less attention to detail since you could see it instead of having it described to you, so they were able to portray it via great acting.
All of the actors were fantastic. I was extremely worried about Elijah Wood, and Liv Tyler in all honesty. And my favorite character ever, Legolas...(I've liked him and Gimli since the cartoon before I was old enough to read, and more after I read the book), was being played by an actor I've never heard of, because he was an unknown! Just an extra with one small line in a movie I never saw. (I'm speaking of Orlando Bloom)
But all of my worries were dashed when I saw them all in character. Elijah was the best choice for Frodo. Liv did a great job as Arwen, and I feel people over-reacted to her replacing the character of "Glorfindel" because I feel it worked nicely. Orlando Bloom is a handsome and wonderful actor! The entire cast did far beyond what I expected from them, and I was very pleased. (And I'm very hard to please. If I go in thinking I'm going to find flaws with you, I will even if you do a great job.) but with this movie and these actors, it was impossible. Viggo (Aragorn) Billy and Dominic (Pippin and Merry) Sir Ian (Gandalf) the Seans (Boromir and Sam) The ENTIRE cast were just wonderful! Better than I expected!
I do not think this movie was over-hyped. it was just as good as they said it would be. And in fact I went in not expecting it, and was proved wrong. (Remember, any time you expect too much, you'll be let down...IE Titanic. I listened to the major hype and I hated that movie.) But to me this movie won't let you down. Unless you're just against sitting back and enjoying the movie. Its action packed and has feeling. And its not just for tolkien fans.
BTW. for those who thought the ending sucked...um....that is how the the first book ends. Yes first book. It surprises me to see how many people don't realize there are two more movies!!
The Others (2001)
Um...I've seen this before
WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER IN THIS REVIEW!! If you haven't seen it, don't read on to hear how it ends.
The sad thing is they made this movie out to be origional, thrilling and chilling. I say its kind of copied, very predictable, and I found the scariest thing was that people jumped when the most predictable thing happens. (IE if you go in the closet and the scary music starts to swell, expect someone to open the bloody door. Its not that hard to predict people, thus not scary! Give me a break already!) This movie was very "Sixth Sense" (Which was very original, had suspenseful moments, and made you jump out of your seat the whole time. Which I give a 10 out of a possible 10) In the "Sixth Sense" you had a man who thought he was the living- living among the dead, but was actually dead living amongst the living. Same concept here. They thought the "Others" possessed their house, when they were actually the possessors. I knew that less than 10 minutes into the movie it was so obvious.
I'm a Kidman fan believe it or not, but this work was beneath her. She can do so much better than what the writers gave her to work with. Kudos to her and the kids for trying to do the best job they could with a stolen, but poorly copied, script. This version was rather dull. The scariest thing was actually paying $8. a ticket to see it. Sorry, but this is a wait till video movie.
Highlander: Endgame (2000)
Good movie, not great movie...avoid new ending!! (Spoilers)
(Warning movie spoilers)
I love Highlander- I love Adrain Paul and Christopher Lambert, and I liked this movie...but I didn't LOVE this movie.
A.) The opening credits had "Starring:" "with Special Guest Star" There is NO special guest star in a movie!! a tv series yes, but how corny is it to have a guy who is a special guest star in a MOVIE?! and it was someone a lot of people haven't even heard of!
B.) The alternate ending- it sucked. At least the ending of the first movie was touching. Duncan reliving memories of Connor while "Bonny Portmore" plays softly in the background. Now they rearranged where the flashbacks happen, and add in "faith" surviving Kell's rampage where in the origional cut shown in theaters, she dies. Lame TV showish ending.
C.) Yes I loved the series, yes I love Highlander...and yes this had the stars of the series in the movie...but did they have to make it like the series? I could pick out the places for commercials, and a place for the "To be continued..." This is a movie, not the tv series. It should be above the level of a tv show. the graphics should be better, the action should be better, they should be able to do more with a movie budget than a tv series budget, or they should've kept the series going instead.
I'm not saying this was a bad movie. I did like it. (Hated totally the new ending they have on the video...if they come out with the origional theater cut, buy that version...this version sucked. The addition of edited scenes and new ending are totally not worth it.) But Adrian Paul and my fave, Christopher Lambert still kicked butt in this film...although I think their talents were waisted with a lame script. So much more could have been done to heighten the intensity between the two "Brothers" at the peak moment of one of their demise. But it just kind of came to a head (if you pardon the pun.)
So in essence. Good movie for Lambert and Paul fans, good movie for people who are more fans of the tv show than of movies since it is so television show-ish, and at least it isn't Highlander 2, but it could have been much much better, and it would have been even better if they had left the origional ending they had in the movie.
it was a good movie, not a great movie. But if you do buy it, (Which I suggest because it is a decent movie in certian ways. I'm not trying to destroy it or anything.) Just get the theatrical version...NOT the "with added scenes and a new ending". That version sucked. It tore out any emotional sincerity the theater version had.