Change Your Image
AngelVox
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
a waste of three hours
I have tons of friends who have read the books and seen this movie multiple times. They told me to go, even though I haven't read the books. I'm not sure if you have to read the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to appreciate this movie, but for me, this movie was a waste of three good hours.
I liked the movie at the beginning. Learning the history of the rings seemed very useful, and I liked Frodo and the other hobbits. The movie seemed to be moving in a good direction. But then they started on their journey. And that's when things got boring. Extremely boring. Mind-numbingly boring. It took them more than 1 1/2 hours and half a dozen battles to actually find all the people for the Fellowship of the Rings! And there was still an hour and a half of meaningless battles left!
I am not opposed to long movies. I liked "Titanic" and "The Godfather" very much. But those movies had enough substance that the plot could be entertaining for the entire movie. This one ran out of substance once the Fellowship started on their journey. The battle in the mines of Moria hardly contributed anything to the plot. The same was true with the Cate Blanchett scene. And what on earth was Liv Tyler's character in there for? The whole subplot with her and Strider was only more confusing. Maybe these scenes foreshadow something to come in the next two movies or something. Whatever they were, they made no sense in the context of this movie.
Another thing that keeps long movies going is good dialogue. Dialogue that gives the characters personality. Dialogue that makes the audience want to listen. But the dialogue in this movie is so pretentious and preachy that nobody would ever actually speak it. Because of that, the characters show absolutely no signs of life and are not people that you want to follow for the entire movie. Frodo, the character that was probably meant to be the hero, cowers and hides whenever there's a fight, and twice he gets stabbed for his cowardice. The other characters were one-dimensional, and I really don't want to sit through two more movies with these people in them.
*POSSIBLE SPOILER IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH*
Finally, the ending! Was that supposed to leave us in suspense so that we will go to the next movie? I don't know what the director's intent was, but the ending was completely unsatisfying. I was expecting at least a finite end to some part of the story, but there was none. Three hours of battles and meaningless speeches, and all you get is a shot of Frodo and Sam heading over the mountains.
All right, so maybe this movie makes sense to people who have read the books. Maybe the movie truly was a visual representation of the world J.R.R. Tolkien created. Since The Lord of the Rings is #1 on IMDb's top 250 right now, I'm guessing it made sense for a lot of people. But a movie should make sense to all viewers, whether or not they have read the books. No matter how many Lord of the Rings fans love this movie, I consider it the worst movie I've seen in a long time.
*1/2 stars out of 4.
Proof of Life (2000)
could have been better
I thought "Proof of Life" had the potential to be a lot better than it was. It wasn't a terrible movie; it was good for filling two hours on my flight from Paris to Philadelphia. But it could have done some things a bit differently.
First off, for all the hype surrounding Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan during the shooting of this movie, I saw extremely little chemistry between them. Russell Crowe was much better than Meg Ryan; I could believe his character's emotions, while she just overacted in her role. I think it is also the fault of the plot; it did not really develop the romance story line. All we got were some long glances from Crowe in Ryan's direction. When they kissed near the end, I thought, Where is that coming from?
Second, what was the whole deal with the sister-in-law? Did she really need to be there? I thought that the whole family-coming-together-in-a-crisis thing was a bit old and out of place.
However, I thought it gave a very realistic portrayal of what it must be like to be a hostage. Because the plot followed the husband through his captivity, I really wanted him to survive; he wasn't just a little plot device to get Crowe and Ryan together. It was also pretty suspenseful, because I wasn't really sure if he would get out or not.
On the whole, I thought the action plot was very well developed, but lose the sister-in-law, and show us a little more romance!
American Beauty (1999)
oh my
I did not want this movie to end. "American Beauty" may not be entirely realistic, but it had stayed with me in a very real way. Kevin Spacey floored me. I think that his job as Lester Burnham is the best acting I have ever seen, not just because his character was so cool, but because I cannot imagine anyone else in that role. And its moral made me think about how I live my life. Lester asks his wife in the movie, "When did you become so joyless?" I realized that that's the thing in life I never want to be. Lusting after a teenage girl and smoking weed are not my way of being joyful, but that's not really what the movie is about; it's about finding beauty in your life and enjoying it for what it is. And I can't think of a better way to live life.
Contact (1997)
An intelligent movie for believers
I know that a lot of people were disappointed by this film, but I rank it as one of my all-time favorites. Jodie Foster never ceases to amaze me! She carried the film extremely well. I read the book after seeing the movie, and I admit that the storyline in the book is better. However, I did not know much about the plot when I first saw it, and it had me hooked the entire time. I cannot forget the awe I felt when I left the theater. It's a movie that, like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," respects all of us that wonder in the back of our minds, "What if..." when it comes to life on other planets. So many movies today make fun of this wonder (i.e. "Independence Day"), but "Contact" takes its fans seriously. Thank you, Carl Sagan!
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
The British movie for people who hate British movies
Until I was twelve, I hated all things having to do with Britain, especially British movies. Then I saw "Sense and Sensibility," and I changed my mind. I have never been so engrossed in a film and its characters before. Emma Thompson's Elinor is flawless. She had the balance of restraint and emotion that Elinor needed. Kate Winslet's Marianne made me cry. I don't care if Hugh Grant was too pretty to be Edward, he did a great job anyway. If you hate British films, watch this one! It has both comedy and drama, and it will change your outlook completely.
Wuthering Heights (1998)
As accurate as it gets
This is the most accurate version of "Wuthering Heights" I have ever seen. More people have seen the 1939 version with Laurence Olivier, but this one has its own appeal: it sticks to the story. The movie itself was sometimes painful to watch, but it's a painful story, and I still couldn't turn away. Robert Cavanaugh made a perfect Heathcliff; he was loathsome, but you also took pity on him. Orla Brady was lovely as the torn heroine (if you can call her a heroine). As a side note, the music was beautiful! It made me want to cry. I would definitely recommend seeing this film, especially if you are a Brontë fan. You won't be disappointed!