Reviews

While no book has ever been made into an exact film, this Disney version of Michelle Magorian's book at least has the bones of the story down, but the body is quite listless and bloodless. The emotion, painful and joyful, has been drained out. While the book includes Rusty's inner thoughts here we get none of that and end up only skimming along the surface of the character and her story. Her extreme misery, to the point of a near suicide attempt, is glossed over or completely missing. The writers deleted outright a number of characters, greatly pared-down the ones left, and somehow manage to nearly delete an entire World War and the hardships is caused in England that were completely foreign to a girl who'd spent that time in America.

After reading "Back Home" watching the film makes me feel like I'm living through story and character rationing. I guess I'll just have to Keep Strong and Read The Book.

It seems as if the screenwriter and director read a quick summary of DH1 and then filled in stunts and big backgrounds. Why bother changing 75% of a book that was 100% great? The excuse that it is impossible to fit the book exactly into the film because of time restraints etc is crap. In this film, as in the 6 before, they filmmakers have added scenes (and therefore film minutes) that weren't even in the book.

Why change it so much? What film bit was better than the book bits it replaced? Many of my favorite scenes and lines are either missing completely or turned on there head and barely recognizable.

After seeing this version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 I wish I had a time turner. Or even better, had been bit with a memory spell so that I could forget morons had tried to turn any of the Harry Potter books into movies in the first place.

It is shocking that a film can have such great material to work with and still be so bad. The book contained wonderfully rich characters, action scenes, romance, humor, realistic emotions, and a plot that managed to still make sense and hold up under intricate dissection. Why the writer and director deemed the original material unsuitable I will never know. They seemed to labor under the delusion that if the characters had the same names, and they recreated 5 percent of a few scenes from the book, this would be enough. It doesn't come close to capturing the magic (both the kind the reader feels and the wands and wizards produce) of the literary work.

My only tip is: if you like the book, don't bother with the film. If you've never read the book, don't bother with the film.

The movie is barely based on the book. They made the Nanny character (now Annie) a poor New Jersey girl, raised by a single mother, who has no idea what she wants to do with her life. I can't understand for the life of me why they decided to make the character unrecognizable . Why change her into someone who is wishywashy who knows nothing about children? It is uncomfortable watching a character who is so out of her depth, while the Nanny in the book grew up in that society, yet could still see the ridiculousness of it. What was the point of erasing her Dad? Such a pity, because the book is brilliant, and part of what makes it so good is Nanny's apt social commentary, not her shock of being thrown into the deep end of nice, normal, Jersey girl vs rich, stupid, Manhatanities. And a dress-up 4th of July Party? And the whole Harvard Hottie thing just seemed wrong.

Don't even bother watching the movie. Read the book and leave it at that. You'll be much happier.

This film is the rare action flick that mixes exciting chases, guns, and explosions with witty dialogue and characters you can care about (at least for the 2 hours you're in the theater). It doesn't go overboard on the explosions and is surprisingly funny. I definitely recommend it. It leaves you with a good high when you walk out of the theater, thinking that joining the police might not be that bad of a career option. Better than the Army at least.

This film is obviously trying very hard to be edgy and cool, but unfortunately comes off as pretentious and quite boring. See it if you want, but don't expect much more than a filmmaker trying to be arty, actors trying to be hip, drugs and sex.

This film is a bad mix of Cruel Intentions, Dead Poets Society and School Ties. A group of 5 boys who "don't respect tradition" form a secret club which they, unoriginally, dub The Circle. At first the Circle just does good deads and susses out the bad at their preppy all boys boarding school, Runcie. (which in itself looks like the lamest, cheapest boarding school out there) But soon, the Circle's powers go to their heads. After one of their own, I'll call him Dummy, is caught stealing test answers and cheating, everything goes haywire. The other 4 members suspect someone of ratting out Dummy. It turns out the boy they suspect is a very bright, black (though you can barely tell with how light his skin is), picked on boy who also happens to be one of the members roomates. Now here is where it gets complicated. The filmakers seem to not be able to choose which plot they want to follow. The murder plot? The plot of the boy, I'll call him Lead Dummy (played by Robin Dunne, king of bad preppy movies. see Cruel Intentions 2 and The Skulls 2) who is trying to find out who killed his roomate, the sex scandal that's going on with the headmaster or the 5 other stupid stories they try, but don't succeed in starting during the movie.

Don't expect anything good, suspensful, or surprising in this movie. But rent it for a laugh, and then go rent the movies it tried so desperately to copy for some good viewing.

I saw this today and was actually shocked by how much I enjoyed it. It was funny, deep, well acted, and profound. I actually found myself learning something, and thinking about what the characters were saying. That and I have a sudden urge to dye my hair blue... Overall, a splendid movie.

Pepper Ann is another one of those cartoons that kids and adults alike can laugh at. The writing is witty, the characters are charming, the animation is colorful and fun too watch. While I am not a big fan of cartoons, I have to rate this one up there with The Simpsons, and Arthur. Only low point, you have to get up mighty early, and on a Saturday, too see it. Luckily, I own a VCR.

I went to high school. I watch the show Popular. And I dont see how my high school experience was anything like the experience of the characters on Popular. It is not a realistic show, in fact, it rates right up there with Dawsons Creek in being unrealistic. Although, I hope that the kids of Popular wont be in the same grade for two seasons straight as they were in Dawsons Creek. It is though, funny. Very funny. So, if all you are going for is entertainment, I recommend Popular. If you want realism though, check out Freaks and Geeks, or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I LOVED this movie, until the end that is. Although I know it was a perfectly good ending etc, I still feel as if I was jiped in some way, and left the theatre feeling a bit empty and sad. I loved the guy who played James, he was extrodinary, a rival to Hugh Grant for the romantic, cute, funny Brit in a movie. I would love to see a sequel to this movie..