A magical retelling of the story with so many lovely improvements and improvisations to the original core story. The music is great and an amazing addition. I could see this rendition being performed as a show on Broadway. It is stellar and so refreshing. It has to be transformed to a live version. Incredible!! The ghosts are so different, but still keeping in step with the original intent of the ghosts without being locked in to how they've always been portrayed. The special effects are glorious. Not what I would expect from a Christmas movie but so compelling. The addition of the extra creatures make the story so immediate and relevant and modern. It's like a cross between Aladdin and Matrix and Lion King!! It's gorgeous!!
Reviews
11 Reviews
Bigger Stronger Faster*
(2008)
Steroids - are they good or are they bad?
28 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The Bell family boys featured in this documentary struggle with their body image, the search for success, and reconciling their use / non-use of steroids to achieve their goals. As middle son, Chris, strikes out to answer his own questions about steroid use, we're introduced to mini-celebrities, has-beens, and wishful dreamers all obsessed about being bigger, faster, and/or stronger. As the filmmaker explores this obsession, he quickly reveals that the primary tool used by many athletes and body builders are anabolic steroids. The rest of the movie is spent examining the effects (both negative and positive) of steroid use, the controversy surrounding steroids, and the impact of steroid use on the personal relationships within his own family.
I've read some user comments that state this film was somehow in support of steroid use, and I'm confused by that. If anything, I felt that the persistent need to try to be physically bigger was really a pathetic goal that too many men in America pursue to the detriment of their personal relationships. In the same way that some women pursue the perfect size "0" and the perfect breasts, there are men out there that are trying to achieve the perfect biceps and the perfect six-pack abs. It's all just packaging and doesn't say anything about their value as a person, and to me this is really superficial and sad. This impression was really cemented shortly into the film when we meet a 50+ yr old bodybuilder living in his van outside the Gold's Gym, and still trying to achieve his goal of being 'king' of the gym. What a waste of life.
While the film talks about how steroids have been demonized, I feel the underlying message is much subtler: America is obsessed with being the biggest, fastest and strongest, and because the physical abilities of man have been stretched to the absolute limit, tools are needed to try to continue the pursuit. I agree with the filmmaker that the next step in this pursuit will probably be genetic engineering, and that's pretty scary. I'm not sure that our concerns about steroids are justified, but I do believe that we should be VERY concerned about our obsession with demanding more from athletes, soldiers, and rewarding individuals for amassing bizarre and deforming amounts of muscle.
In the end, the revelations about Chris Bell's brothers left me thinking that steroid use is just chasing a pipe dream. If his brothers focused on their relationships as much as they worried about how they looked, they'd be a lot better off.
The film also makes me re-think the notion of success. Is it being in front of a camera and having our 15 minutes of fame, or is it being a responsible, loving and caring member of our family? I vote for the latter.
I've read some user comments that state this film was somehow in support of steroid use, and I'm confused by that. If anything, I felt that the persistent need to try to be physically bigger was really a pathetic goal that too many men in America pursue to the detriment of their personal relationships. In the same way that some women pursue the perfect size "0" and the perfect breasts, there are men out there that are trying to achieve the perfect biceps and the perfect six-pack abs. It's all just packaging and doesn't say anything about their value as a person, and to me this is really superficial and sad. This impression was really cemented shortly into the film when we meet a 50+ yr old bodybuilder living in his van outside the Gold's Gym, and still trying to achieve his goal of being 'king' of the gym. What a waste of life.
While the film talks about how steroids have been demonized, I feel the underlying message is much subtler: America is obsessed with being the biggest, fastest and strongest, and because the physical abilities of man have been stretched to the absolute limit, tools are needed to try to continue the pursuit. I agree with the filmmaker that the next step in this pursuit will probably be genetic engineering, and that's pretty scary. I'm not sure that our concerns about steroids are justified, but I do believe that we should be VERY concerned about our obsession with demanding more from athletes, soldiers, and rewarding individuals for amassing bizarre and deforming amounts of muscle.
In the end, the revelations about Chris Bell's brothers left me thinking that steroid use is just chasing a pipe dream. If his brothers focused on their relationships as much as they worried about how they looked, they'd be a lot better off.
The film also makes me re-think the notion of success. Is it being in front of a camera and having our 15 minutes of fame, or is it being a responsible, loving and caring member of our family? I vote for the latter.
Charlie Bartlett
(2007)
Astonishingly bizarre
14 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted this movie to succeed, but it didn't. What started out as a mildly interesting premise grew into a disturbing and strange movie about a prep school drop-out making his way in a regular school by treating and prescribing for the mental health of his fellow students. It was not funny nor amusing nor entertaining. The acting struggled in several scenes, but the most obvious deficit is the lack of emotional connection between the characters. Our lead, Charlie, has a romantic interlude with the lead female character, the principal's daughter, and I couldn't imagine a more sterile, unromantic joining. They barely seem connected or interested in each other, and yet we're led to believe that they've made love. It's strange and pathetic. I felt like I was watching a movie trying to be a play trying to be significant, and it just wasn't. I'm sorely disappointed and wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.
Magically Disjointed
23 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Mr. M's Magic store is on the brink of disaster when its faithless manager can't seem to muster the belief in herself necessary to keep the store's spirits and magic alive. Unfortunately, the movie as whole suffers from the same affliction. There were too many plot elements that didn't hold together and too many moments that go unexplained, distracting the viewer from the charming characters and promising premise. The store is magical and exciting, and great fun to explore throughout the movie. But the movie's special effects didn't cast enough magic to save this movie from itself.
The movie begins with a voice-over narration by the character Eric, a friendless boy who either a) hangs out at the toy store behaving strangely and freaking out the other kids, or b) provides 'wise' advice to his friend Mahoney, the beautiful store manager. We're also introduced to Bellini, and told that the story is his because he's keeping track of Mr. M's life. But then we never really see Bellini again....and if it's HIS story, why wasn't he narrating? Distracting!!!
And then who is this kid Eric? What is he doing in this picture? And why is HE telling the story? We never really find out. Eric ends up sticking out like a sore thumb, with no real connection to the story or a satisfactory resolution to his own struggle to find an age appropriate friend. There is one particularly disturbing scene, where Eric brings home the store's accountant (played by Jason Bateman) to see his hat collection, and the pair are caught playing pretend in his room by his mother. For a children's movie, that scene was just too weird, and failed to connect properly to the rest of the story.
Mahoney, played by the lovely Natalie Portman, is a character that doesn't quite fit in with this movie either. Supposedly a severe doubter and faithless incompetent, Mahoney actually comes across as merely stuck, but otherwise capable. The character is very flat, as the only thing we really learn about her is that she is pretty good on piano, but doesn't know how to finish her first concerto. Her relationship with Eric is never fully explored and her connection with Jason Bateman's character is oddly absent until very near the end of the story. The primary conflict, her fear about running the store, is flawed. There is no clear evidence that Mahoney couldn't run the toy store Mr. M leaves to her, as we've watched 80% of the movie with her doing just that, so the main struggle of the film just isn't that convincing nor seem that difficult to overcome.
One of the most distracting plot elements is this stupid block of wood that Mr. M gives Mahoney near the beginning of the story. In the end it plays a key role in the movie, but it's never adequately explained how or why. Why a block of wood? What's the connection with Portman's character? What is a congreve cube? How is a kid supposed to understand all this?
Dustin Hoffman's Mr. M was convincingly played, but I found his speech impediment a barrier to understanding him, and wasn't sure why Mr. Hoffman made that choice. Perhaps to appear more childlike? At a critical point in the movie, Mr. M announces to Mahoney that he is going to leave that day, but doesn't follow through on his promise. Instead of creating the crisis of faith his absence should have created, the movie drags out his departure. Mahoney drags Mr. M all over town and then eventually to a hospital, where he's admitted and spends the night, just to get up and leave the next day. What? If the scene was meant to show Mahoney's compassion for Mr. M it failed to do so. If it was supposed to create sadness for the audience, it also failed. I couldn't wait for him to finally go!!! Why are we dragging this out people???
There are many, many questions with this movie: Is the accountant in love with Mahoney? Is he a pedophile? Does Mahoney believe in magic or doesn't she? Who is Mr. Magorium? Where does he come from and what's his deal? Who is Eric and why is he being treated like one of the staff one minute and then an arm's length stranger the next? Mahoney seems to believe in magic, 'cause she's doing it, but then she doesn't because why?
Fundamentally this movie is well-intentioned, but not thoughtful enough to hold together and to be more than an out of control mess.
The movie begins with a voice-over narration by the character Eric, a friendless boy who either a) hangs out at the toy store behaving strangely and freaking out the other kids, or b) provides 'wise' advice to his friend Mahoney, the beautiful store manager. We're also introduced to Bellini, and told that the story is his because he's keeping track of Mr. M's life. But then we never really see Bellini again....and if it's HIS story, why wasn't he narrating? Distracting!!!
And then who is this kid Eric? What is he doing in this picture? And why is HE telling the story? We never really find out. Eric ends up sticking out like a sore thumb, with no real connection to the story or a satisfactory resolution to his own struggle to find an age appropriate friend. There is one particularly disturbing scene, where Eric brings home the store's accountant (played by Jason Bateman) to see his hat collection, and the pair are caught playing pretend in his room by his mother. For a children's movie, that scene was just too weird, and failed to connect properly to the rest of the story.
Mahoney, played by the lovely Natalie Portman, is a character that doesn't quite fit in with this movie either. Supposedly a severe doubter and faithless incompetent, Mahoney actually comes across as merely stuck, but otherwise capable. The character is very flat, as the only thing we really learn about her is that she is pretty good on piano, but doesn't know how to finish her first concerto. Her relationship with Eric is never fully explored and her connection with Jason Bateman's character is oddly absent until very near the end of the story. The primary conflict, her fear about running the store, is flawed. There is no clear evidence that Mahoney couldn't run the toy store Mr. M leaves to her, as we've watched 80% of the movie with her doing just that, so the main struggle of the film just isn't that convincing nor seem that difficult to overcome.
One of the most distracting plot elements is this stupid block of wood that Mr. M gives Mahoney near the beginning of the story. In the end it plays a key role in the movie, but it's never adequately explained how or why. Why a block of wood? What's the connection with Portman's character? What is a congreve cube? How is a kid supposed to understand all this?
Dustin Hoffman's Mr. M was convincingly played, but I found his speech impediment a barrier to understanding him, and wasn't sure why Mr. Hoffman made that choice. Perhaps to appear more childlike? At a critical point in the movie, Mr. M announces to Mahoney that he is going to leave that day, but doesn't follow through on his promise. Instead of creating the crisis of faith his absence should have created, the movie drags out his departure. Mahoney drags Mr. M all over town and then eventually to a hospital, where he's admitted and spends the night, just to get up and leave the next day. What? If the scene was meant to show Mahoney's compassion for Mr. M it failed to do so. If it was supposed to create sadness for the audience, it also failed. I couldn't wait for him to finally go!!! Why are we dragging this out people???
There are many, many questions with this movie: Is the accountant in love with Mahoney? Is he a pedophile? Does Mahoney believe in magic or doesn't she? Who is Mr. Magorium? Where does he come from and what's his deal? Who is Eric and why is he being treated like one of the staff one minute and then an arm's length stranger the next? Mahoney seems to believe in magic, 'cause she's doing it, but then she doesn't because why?
Fundamentally this movie is well-intentioned, but not thoughtful enough to hold together and to be more than an out of control mess.
Scary Movie 4
(2006)
Silly but some good laughs
23 August 2006
Why would an intelligent, well-educated, middle-aged woman like this movie? It's inexplicable, but I did. I don't know if it's because I watched it an hour after slamming my finger in the car door and I had cried myself into heaves and needed something to laugh at. Or perhaps it was because I am a fan of the majority of the movies that Scary 4 spoofs and I took them a little too seriously at the time. Whatever the reason, I laughed a lot during this movie, and while I'm ashamed to tell any of my friends that I liked it, I'm telling you.
The great thing about the Scary movies franchise is that they do an exceptional job of copying the original, with some very good special effects that I'm sure cost a fraction of the real ones. They also draw on some great comedic acting talents, which always strikes me as a bit bizarre, but then maybe someone on the producer's team is a great salesman. Whatever the tricks behind the scenes, it works on screen. Are the jokes dumb and predictable? Yes. Is there more potty humour than necessary? Absolutely. Still, it's fun low-brow humour.
The great thing about the Scary movies franchise is that they do an exceptional job of copying the original, with some very good special effects that I'm sure cost a fraction of the real ones. They also draw on some great comedic acting talents, which always strikes me as a bit bizarre, but then maybe someone on the producer's team is a great salesman. Whatever the tricks behind the scenes, it works on screen. Are the jokes dumb and predictable? Yes. Is there more potty humour than necessary? Absolutely. Still, it's fun low-brow humour.
Being Julia
(2004)
Theatrically dull
18 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"Being Julia," as exploration of an aging actress, is a simplistic story that doesn't quite deliver the goods.
Annette Bening's portrayal of Julia was supposed to be triumphant, but I found her trying. As with many other movies that follow the lives of actors and their highs and lows, I found the characters to be wholly unworthy of my sympathy or attention. Normally I stay away from movies about actors for two reasons: they're self-serving and they typically have the lead acting irrational, over-emoting and behaving unstable. While Bening was not quite as far out in left field as most lead characters in this genre, she demonstrated a fairly wide swing in shallow displays of emotions, and without any real character development, it's impossible for me to feel any compassion for these poor-rich people with rich people's problems.
I watched the clock through the whole movie trying to gauge when the action would finally climax and the end would come. The only reason I kept watching was that I hoped that there would be a turning point when I really applauded our protagonist, but it never came. I found everyone in the story basically got what they deserved--which wasn't much, by the way. So much for the real villain getting his comeuppance - it doesn't happen.
The saving grace in this movie was Jeremy Irons, whom I don't normally care for as an actor. He was smooth and appropriate in his role, unsettled by his wacky wife but still holding his course--it's all for the money, honey.
Not worth the rental price of the DVD.
Annette Bening's portrayal of Julia was supposed to be triumphant, but I found her trying. As with many other movies that follow the lives of actors and their highs and lows, I found the characters to be wholly unworthy of my sympathy or attention. Normally I stay away from movies about actors for two reasons: they're self-serving and they typically have the lead acting irrational, over-emoting and behaving unstable. While Bening was not quite as far out in left field as most lead characters in this genre, she demonstrated a fairly wide swing in shallow displays of emotions, and without any real character development, it's impossible for me to feel any compassion for these poor-rich people with rich people's problems.
I watched the clock through the whole movie trying to gauge when the action would finally climax and the end would come. The only reason I kept watching was that I hoped that there would be a turning point when I really applauded our protagonist, but it never came. I found everyone in the story basically got what they deserved--which wasn't much, by the way. So much for the real villain getting his comeuppance - it doesn't happen.
The saving grace in this movie was Jeremy Irons, whom I don't normally care for as an actor. He was smooth and appropriate in his role, unsettled by his wacky wife but still holding his course--it's all for the money, honey.
Not worth the rental price of the DVD.
No direction home
30 September 2005
I was really disappointed in this most promising movie for a number of reasons.
First, I found the entire production nothing more than antecdotal information shared without a true perspective on what Dylan meant to the music scene of the 60's. We jump from one scene to another of people reminiscing about Dylan, followed by what felt like rebuttals from Dylan himself. "Dylan did this, and then he did this, and then we laughed." For example, Baez moans about how she didn't feel like she should have gone along to England with Bob, and really thought he'd put her on stage, because she did that for him -- followed by Dylan saying he would hope she'd understand why that happened and how he hoped she'd be over it by now.
Second, there was no context to draw from, and no structure to instruct viewers on what they were seeing. I didn't know who half the people in the movie were until I looked it up later, and so I didn't understand the importance or relevance of their comments. Further, they didn't describe enough about the context of the culture of the sixties to help us understand how revolutionary Dylan was. Looking back from today's music scene it doesn't seem that amazing. It was very frustrating to have to research this movie, simply so I could get some value out of having spent four hours waiting for some kind of understanding or insight.
Third, the movie ends at 1966 as if that was the end of his most important years, yet its really the rest of his life that is a testament to what he believes...that he just keep doing what he's doing, because that's what people do.
Finally, In the interview between Charlie Rose and Martin Scorsese I got the sense that Martin completed this project off the corner of his desk, in the midst of other huge projects, and that Dylan was a complete stranger to him. I felt like he was taking credit for throwing some film footage together that he hadn't even looked at. I wasn't impressed. I don't know any more about Dylan now than I did before, and I think this film does him a real disservice.
First, I found the entire production nothing more than antecdotal information shared without a true perspective on what Dylan meant to the music scene of the 60's. We jump from one scene to another of people reminiscing about Dylan, followed by what felt like rebuttals from Dylan himself. "Dylan did this, and then he did this, and then we laughed." For example, Baez moans about how she didn't feel like she should have gone along to England with Bob, and really thought he'd put her on stage, because she did that for him -- followed by Dylan saying he would hope she'd understand why that happened and how he hoped she'd be over it by now.
Second, there was no context to draw from, and no structure to instruct viewers on what they were seeing. I didn't know who half the people in the movie were until I looked it up later, and so I didn't understand the importance or relevance of their comments. Further, they didn't describe enough about the context of the culture of the sixties to help us understand how revolutionary Dylan was. Looking back from today's music scene it doesn't seem that amazing. It was very frustrating to have to research this movie, simply so I could get some value out of having spent four hours waiting for some kind of understanding or insight.
Third, the movie ends at 1966 as if that was the end of his most important years, yet its really the rest of his life that is a testament to what he believes...that he just keep doing what he's doing, because that's what people do.
Finally, In the interview between Charlie Rose and Martin Scorsese I got the sense that Martin completed this project off the corner of his desk, in the midst of other huge projects, and that Dylan was a complete stranger to him. I felt like he was taking credit for throwing some film footage together that he hadn't even looked at. I wasn't impressed. I don't know any more about Dylan now than I did before, and I think this film does him a real disservice.
The Parent Trap
(1998)
An adorable actress and movie
29 August 2005
I kept wanting to give this movie a view, particularly with seeing so much of a grown-up Lindsay in the press more and more. I'm not too crazy about how she's looking now (Aug 2005) but she's adorable in this role, and her enthusiasm is contagious. I was really swept away by her characters Annie and Hallie, and thought she carried the roles extremely well. Both Richardson and Quaid were good, and didn't overpower Lohan's performance. I loved the characters Chessy and Martin, but wasn't too impressed with the villainous Meredith, whom I thought overplayed a role that would have been more threatening if played a little cooler. The movie made me laugh and cry, and I would definitely recommend it to family and adult friends alike.
The Upside of Anger
(2005)
The downside of hysterics
26 August 2005
The premise of this film is simple and vexing--wronged woman wrecks revenge on anyone in her path, and finds love along the way. Joan Allen plays a woman, Terry Wolfmeyer, whose husband has disappeared, apparently running off with his secretary to Sweden. Left to finish raising their four almost completely grown girls, Allen drinks her way through a two-hour temper tantrum which is occasionally interrupted by her dopey neighbour Denny played by Kevin Costner. The plot lacks a certain continuity, and begins abruptly in the midst of what we find is the first of Terry's many angry episodes, with no context to understand what might have precipitated this behaviour. The plot moves along at a standstill pace as the character Terry moves from one bitter moment to another, almost alienating her family, but not quite, and almost driving away the horny and equally drunk neighbour, but not quite.
Both Allen and Costner are annoying and tiring throughout the film. I had no compassion for either of them, and no desire to see either of them find happiness. With scene after scene of the same emotion and no real character revelations, I was left to fill in the hope or despair myself.
The daughters were infinitely more interesting than the lead characters, but their roles were too small to generate any real knowledge of their experience. I thought this was a real loss. Aside from some stupid, misplaced and totally random narration by the youngest and strangest daughter, there was no opportunity to get inside the heads of the girls. It might have saved this movie.
As it was, I only finished watching the movie to learn the answer to the mystery of the dad's whereabouts. That revelation fell flat as did the rest of the movie. Not really worth the loonies to rent.
Both Allen and Costner are annoying and tiring throughout the film. I had no compassion for either of them, and no desire to see either of them find happiness. With scene after scene of the same emotion and no real character revelations, I was left to fill in the hope or despair myself.
The daughters were infinitely more interesting than the lead characters, but their roles were too small to generate any real knowledge of their experience. I thought this was a real loss. Aside from some stupid, misplaced and totally random narration by the youngest and strangest daughter, there was no opportunity to get inside the heads of the girls. It might have saved this movie.
As it was, I only finished watching the movie to learn the answer to the mystery of the dad's whereabouts. That revelation fell flat as did the rest of the movie. Not really worth the loonies to rent.
Must Love Dogs
(2005)
This film is a dog
7 August 2005
It's not often that I walk out of a movie, especially one with John Cusak, and I really wanted to get as much out of my movie buck as possible, but my husband and I left this movie at about the 35 minute mark. Why? Well, let's start with the premise...a down and out pair of throw-away romantics meet through an online dating service, initiated by friends and family. Sound familiar? Yeah, not very original. Just think "Sleepless in Seattle" or "You've Got Mail" without any suspense, intrigue or romance.
Strangely, the movie begins at what seems like the middle of the first Act, and we're introduced to Sarah and her lovable, interfering siblings and odd father (is Christopher Plummer supposed to be Irish in this film?). In awkward and embarrassing fashion, we learn that Sarah has been divorced 8 months and apparently is wasting away. Diane Lane is so gorgeous (smart, witty) it's hard to be convinced of the tragedy of her situation, but at least in "Under the Tuscan Sky" we saw some real pain from her. (This role was definitely a deja vu.) In this fluff, she just smiles dumbly and shrugs her shoulders a lot and keeps telling everyone around her to quit trying to set her up, while at the same time oozing some kind of weird false desperation to be set up with anyone. It's hard to believe this woman could be lacking anything.
Then we meet John Cuzak's character, Jake, whose lawyer friend Charlie announces that he's now officially divorced and it's time to get back into the game. (I'm shaking my head at that cliché). He protests, says he's out of the game, but then goes in anyway. He apparently likes handcrafted boats, but as far as character development goes, we know just about nothing about him. He's not particularly heartbroken, seems cynical, and without too much effort is convinced to go on a date, so apparently he doesn't stick to his convictions. I'm very sad to report that Cuzak's acting is wooden, forced, and equally embarrassing to watch, which makes me think that it probably has as much to do with the director as it does with him.
Finally, after an agonizing 25 minutes or so into the film, Jake and Sarah meet in a playground with dogs they've both borrowed. The ensuing scene is tragic. It bounces disjointedly from one comment and awkward look to another, and doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what either of these characters is thinking or feeling, and it ends in what seems to be the most deserved crash-and-burn moment in celluloid history.
And that's when we left.
Other issues? Well, there's no music to help the story along, which might have been rescued by some musical hints(this is funny / this is poignant), the editing was choppy, and the dialog over-written. Pretty much one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. Don't even bother renting this dog on DVD.
Strangely, the movie begins at what seems like the middle of the first Act, and we're introduced to Sarah and her lovable, interfering siblings and odd father (is Christopher Plummer supposed to be Irish in this film?). In awkward and embarrassing fashion, we learn that Sarah has been divorced 8 months and apparently is wasting away. Diane Lane is so gorgeous (smart, witty) it's hard to be convinced of the tragedy of her situation, but at least in "Under the Tuscan Sky" we saw some real pain from her. (This role was definitely a deja vu.) In this fluff, she just smiles dumbly and shrugs her shoulders a lot and keeps telling everyone around her to quit trying to set her up, while at the same time oozing some kind of weird false desperation to be set up with anyone. It's hard to believe this woman could be lacking anything.
Then we meet John Cuzak's character, Jake, whose lawyer friend Charlie announces that he's now officially divorced and it's time to get back into the game. (I'm shaking my head at that cliché). He protests, says he's out of the game, but then goes in anyway. He apparently likes handcrafted boats, but as far as character development goes, we know just about nothing about him. He's not particularly heartbroken, seems cynical, and without too much effort is convinced to go on a date, so apparently he doesn't stick to his convictions. I'm very sad to report that Cuzak's acting is wooden, forced, and equally embarrassing to watch, which makes me think that it probably has as much to do with the director as it does with him.
Finally, after an agonizing 25 minutes or so into the film, Jake and Sarah meet in a playground with dogs they've both borrowed. The ensuing scene is tragic. It bounces disjointedly from one comment and awkward look to another, and doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what either of these characters is thinking or feeling, and it ends in what seems to be the most deserved crash-and-burn moment in celluloid history.
And that's when we left.
Other issues? Well, there's no music to help the story along, which might have been rescued by some musical hints(this is funny / this is poignant), the editing was choppy, and the dialog over-written. Pretty much one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. Don't even bother renting this dog on DVD.
Visual magic and excitement
5 August 2005
I just recently watched HP and the Prisoner again this past week, after finishing the latest book. I was struck by how wonderfully magical the filming of this instalment has been created with fade in's (don't see many of those anymore), hilarious bridging scenes with the Whomping Willow, and the clock / time theme throughout. This HP movie has a vivid sense of humour playing against the rapid plot, and a screenplay that does a brilliant job of pulling together all the critical elements of Rowling's story. It's a daunting task to recreate something that has played through so many people's imaginations, but Prisoner has done a fantastic job.
Tell Your Friends