Reviews

The Shawshank Redemption is one of the few movies adapted from books that turned out to be good .. or in, this case, brilliant.

Although the movie supposedly takes place somewhen in the 1950's, I can easily imagine it being transferred to today's time and standards. The thing that is most fascinating about is is that the directors [and writers, of course] didn't use extreme clichés - there's no black and white painting, just numerous shades of grey. Robbins and Freeman both are perfect for their roles, as are all of the supporting actors.

Finally, I can understand why a certain movies gets a high ranking.

I'll have to say it.. some books just shouldn't be adapted. While I personally am a big fan of Rice's novel, I think it would have been far better to leave it alone and *not* turn it into this horrid movie, considering that it is, undoubtedly, a book that is very difficult to adapt.

I find it sad that 11 years-old Kirsten Dunst could "outact" three men in their thirties. While Cruise at least has some strong parts in the film, Pitt obviously just walks through it sighing. His sullen performance, along with the really useless comments from the off were simply and painfully boring. Banderas, while in other films a rather good actor, could be left out completely in Interview. The only thing he did was confuse me. Other parts, like Stephen Rea's and Slater's weren't developed enough to add anything to the movie, and Pitt's sudden disappearance for half of the movie didn't leave a good impression on me either.

Another thing that I felt was completely missing in this movie was the part of the victim. The only victims we were showed were either people that had no effect on the way the movie would take whatsoever, or villains, aristocrats that killed their former life partners and animals.

And lastly, who was responsible for Pitt's and Banderas' horrible hair-do??

The plot has been used over and over again, both before and thereafter. The only thing that's new is all the false information about computers. Sandra Bullock was ok at best. Jeremy Northam was just plain annoying. I'm still looking for a person as helpful as the computer nerd on IRC.

Somehow, everything happened too fast in this movie.. which took away from the suspense and made it so awfully predictable. Trust me, the Dutch original is the way to go.

The entry credits scene seemed to take on forever, and the first ten minutes so] created the image of a rather dull supposed action movie. After that, the movie had various incredibly tense moments, mostly carried by Leary, and several boring scenes. The thing that distracted me from the movie was that I really couldn't believe the former-wild-kids images of Estevez and his clique of friends throughout the whole film.

I would consider Judgement Night a mediocre, if not better than average movie, but if you want to pull an all-nighter, don't watch it - as you might find yourself snoring away during the dull moments.

Jody Foster's acting wasn't bad, although the film was definitely lacking suspense most of the time, anyway, the acting didn't make the film more realistic. First off, a case of that nature would never be given to an agent that was fresh of the academy, secondly, I've never heard of a serial killer that comes even close to resembling the one in the film , yes, freedom of creativity, but too much is just too much].

So.. it's not that I wouldn't recommend Silence of the Lambs at all, but please, please don't take everything of the film for real.

I usually steer clear of westerns, having made the experience that so many are cliché to an unhealthy extent. Young Guns takes from the cliché and adds to the sympathy for the characters. Historical accuracy isn't given everywhere in the film, but the actors' great job makes up for that.

I read the King novella about three years ago, and found Apt Pupil to be a good, but sometimes a bit boring story. Still, parts of it were interesting [and personally, I got the feeling that it was less about the Holocaust than about the individual story of two humans, but nevermind my rambling there..].

Now, the only thing the film made me do was wonder if I should leave the cinema early or not. The characters aren't given enough space to develop, whereas the "informative" part takes up too much of the film. If you want to see a film about the Holocaust, go and rent a documentary. If you want to be constantly bored for two hours, go see Apt Pupil.

I have to admit that I didn't start watching The Stand with great expectations.. but, surprisingly enough, I didn't find it all that bad. The acting definitely was done well, and considering that it must have been quite a chore to turn such a huge novel into a film, I must say that, despite a few little goofs, the directors have done a really good job.

After watching such masterpieces as "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Stand By Me", I thought that "It" would probably live up to my expectations as well. Now that I have actually seen the film, I stand corrected. The first half wouldn't be all that bad, but the second half is just a mixture of awkward special effects [similar to those I've seen in movies of the early 80ies already], unconvincing acting and unfitting turns. As opposed to the book, "It" as a film was a real disappointment for me.