Reviews

This could have been a 6/7 star film, but for most of us who are familiar with the Jules Verne novel, this effort comes across as abysmal. Had writers Prebble, Ullman and Wilbur simply used the novel as basic premise, then renamed the film something completely different than the Verne novel title, perhaps we wouldn't feel cheated of the rich and engaging original story. That said, for those who have never touched the Verne novel and like their adventure films fast-paced, a bit on the unbelievable side, with little meaningful dialog or character development... then you may find this a fun little romp. Sure, the special effects look completely campy by today's standards, but for 1961 this is mostly top-shelf stuff. Musical score is fine as well.

Quick bottom line. 2-star if you're looking for a film version of the novel.

6/7-star if you're looking for a fun little adventure film from the early 60's.

Apparently this is the first Victoria episode directed by Chloe Thomas, and hopefully not the last. For those who have followed the story from the beginning, this a heartbreaker that will try to rip at your soul. Perhaps some creative license was taken with the historical timeline, but we knew that show would be a dramatization of events... not a historical documentary. Feeling the helpless pain of medical ignorance in the 19th century is played out with a deft hand, that leaves us feeling both grateful for the modern medicine we have today, and thankful to the show for letting us in.

There was an opportunity for the 4th installment in the Harry Potter franchise to be nothing short of great. But I simply can't agree with those who have given this movie a high review, and here's why: As suggested by others, in order to bring a 700+ page book into a 2-1/2 hour movie, some (or a lot) of story elements would have to be deleted. Normally this isn't an insurmountable problem. However, in 'The Goblet of Fire' story, it is exactly those 'extra' elements that make this story wonderful. If there's one thing anyone who has read most or all of the J.K. Rowling books knows, it's that there are no unnecessary, unimportant, or otherwise 'extra' elements in her stories. That is one of the key reasons the books are cut above everything else. The end result for the movie is that we are left with an extremely jumpy storyline that simply follows the critical path, providing the viewer with only the most basic information to keep the plot moving forward. There is absolutely no in-depth character development whatsoever. The book was FILLED with wonderful character background history, especially the Professor Moody character. The movie barely scratched the surface. In addition, there was little or no continuity between the major scenes, and almost no feel for the passage of time. This was supposed to be an entire school year, but other than the changes in the weather, the audience would never know it. For anyone who's been to Disneyland, the best analogy I can think of is that this movie is like taking a trip to Disneyland, staying only 2 or 3 hours and only going on the 3 biggest rides - then rushing back home to heat up some microwave dinner. Now, absolutely that beats a trip to the dentist. But when you get home and think back to all of the things you missed, will you really be satisfied with the experience? I wouldn't . . . and I wasn't. Look, the bottom line is that these books (starting with Azkaban) needed to be multi-part movies, similar to Kill Bill Vol 1&2 or the last 2 Matrix movies which were actually one movie broken into 2 parts. Azkaban needed to be a 2-part movie and 'Goblet of Fire' needed to be 3-part. What really blows me away is that the studio doesn't recognize this. It couldn't have taken much more (if any) production time to make a 6 or 7 hour 3-part movie. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that the cutting room floor already contains the other two movies. Ticket sales would be just as high for each of the 3 episodes as it would be for the one (as proved by the Matrix), so why not maximize the studio profit and the audience viewing pleasure by giving this movie the full attention to detail it truly deserves?

Simply a satisfactory action movie. Won't disappoint if not expecting too much, but neither is it better than expected. The Rock proves he has potential. Hopefully we'll get a chance to see him grow. Have never been a big fan of Seann Scott, and nothing here changes that. On the other hand, Rosario Dawson is someone I'd like to see given some challenging roles. A movie with The Rock and her teamed-up (less Mr. Scott) could be enjoyable. A couple of comments I noticed about this movie that Director Peter Berg should consider next time he does an action movie. 1) If someone the size of The Rock hits someone the size of Seann Scott several times in the face over a 24hr period, let's see some swelling and at least a black eye; 2) If a person falls several hundred feet down a steep incline, tumbling the entire way, let's see more than couple of scratches when they hit the bottom.

This review is intended for people who haven't seen the movie and are considering buying the DVD.

The best advice I can offer is simply this: If you haven't seen the movie yet and are considering buying the DVD, DON'T. Not until you rent it first.

I won't go off and say that this movie is either bad or great. Everyone needs to decide that for themselves. However, as a word of caution, it may not be what you expected. Here's what I found.

Before renting the DVD last weekend, I had considered buying it for 2 reasons:

1) Vin Diesel is one of the best new actors and I liked him in his previous films.

2) I am a former high school drag racer and still love fast cars.

Based on the previews and the promos for the movie, I had thought that Vin played the main character. I was wrong. Unfortunately, Paul Walker gets substantially more screen time and the movie is really about his character, not Vin's. One thing I think everyone can agree on: Paul Walker is no Vin Diesel!!!! Additionally, there really isn't as much action as you would think. As some other reviewers have mentioned, there is a substantial amount of screen time spent with the actors standing around the cars and talking smack. There's also an unconvincing love story (which eats up the minutes) between Paul Walker's character and the sister of Vin's character.

As a result, I'm glad I didn't blow the $20 to buy it. One viewing was plenty for me. However, it wasn't a waste of time either.

Overall, I gave the movie 6 out of 10 stars. It wasn't nearly as good as I was expecting, but it also wasn't trash. Sure, it's a familiar story that's been done several times before, and better, but in general I try not to let previous versions of a story influence me. I try to let each movie stand on its own merits.

I hope you find this helpful.

Please note, at the time I'm writing this, the final BMW film "Powder Keg" hasn't been released yet. So far, however, this is the best short film of the series. Great action and driving along with some great laughs make for a truly enjoyable time. The acting by both "the Driver" and "the Star" are top notch even though it only lasts a couple of minutes. I hope to see Clive Owen in a feature film soon.

As a main character says "This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time." That's how I felt for most of this film which essentially steals its premise from the 1987 film "Angel Heart". The performances of the lead actors all top notch, but the execution of the story is almost painful to watch. Sure, there's plenty of commentary on our current socio/economic state, but does that necessarily make it insightful or brilliant? If lots of bare knuckle fighting and bleeding really pops your cork, then this is the film for you. But if you're looking for a strong story with a real hero, such as in the first 2 Rocky movies or Van Damme's Bloodsport then keep on looking.

I have only watched a handful of movies more than once, and I've watched 'Gump' from beginning to end at least 4 times. It's what true movie-making is all about. An accidental hero that you can't help but care for as he struggles through his amazing life. The performances are all superior, but Tom Hanks nails this role like no other actor in the history of film. He is Forrest Gump.