Reviews

The only thing that I can say about Baz Lurhmann as a director is that he is really good at adapting a classic story and making it incredibly tacky.

Perhaps my hatred for unnecessary modernizations of classics has overtaken my opinions, but there is no reason to place a Shakespeararean play and put it in a modern setting unless it's going to be put in some use or say something different from other adaptations. Shakespeare Retold did so and that was why that series worked, but the only reason this movie seems to exist is to appeal to a more shallow audience without any intellectual value whatsoever.

What I especially hate about this adaptation is not only how it pays more attention to the romance than it should do the feud between the families, but none of the actors look like they know what they were saying. Lurhmann certainly doesn't, which is made clear when he twists Mercutio's Queen Mab speech from a monologue about the challenges and temptations of lovers to a speech about drugs. If a director can't understand Shakespeare, or even has the nerve to twist his poetry that way, then he shouldn't take on that play in the first place.

The actors are vapid, the direction is awful, the editing is terrible, the setting is tacky beyond belief, it's unnecessary and it's just plain insulting to Shakespeare's text.

My only hope is that Baz Lurhmann pays more attention in English class before he takes on another classic. In fact, he should just avoid classics and save him a shred of dignity.

Once in a while, you find a film that hardly anyone else around you knows of that has a brilliant cast and is ten times more exciting that the average Hollywood "thriller" such as, say, Seven, and is not only about the excitement of the action that goes on, but the brilliance of the acting and writing. This film, along with Snow White: A Tale of Terror and Hard Candy, is the epitome of that kind of film.

The protagonist is an awkward former priest, Nicolas, who was banished from the church for sleeping with another man's wife. After the event he runs from his village and joins a troupe of travelling actors. On their stop in another village, the actors become involved in performing a play about a village boy who was murdered only to find that they've got the wrong story and that the mute woman who stands accused of the murder is innocent. Determined to save her, Nicolas risks his own life to solve the mystery.

The film, as a whole, is brilliant with a wonderful cast and an exciting story that leaves one guessing until the very end in a pitch-perfect climax. Book purists, however, may not like the changes from the book, but I would recommend watching it with an open mind and open ears as the mystery is quite a bit more complex in the film than in the book.

As for the protagonist, knowing Paul Bettany as a very talented actor with the ability to really become the character and expose the heart and soul of the character, his performance as Nicolas is no different. As a man of God who cannot help but be human, he gives a very personal performance that makes one wonder why his wife has an Oscar and he doesn't.

I got this on DVD as a Birthday present for my sister as we'd heard of one of the worst movies ever made and since we have a habit of enjoying our time making fun of the movies we watch (even if they're good), we figured this would guarantee us a real good time...and holy freakiolies, did we ever enjoy making fun of this one.

There is so much bad acting, terrible directing, even worse writing and unnecessary randomness that taking this movie seriously is completely out of the question. I can't really say much of the plot 'cause there doesn't seem to be one except for a family going to a creepy half- abandoned country village filled with creepy hillbillies who eat people who turn into green goop after eating their food. The rest is just a bunch of random hilarity and a subplot in which the dumb blonde teenaged daughter is completely clueless over the fact that her boyfriend is stuck in the closet...or is that intentional?

Not important. Anyway, the movie is awful and I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for something to actually enjoy unless you're a fan of the robots of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 and enjoy making fun of bad movies as much as they do.

Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it.

Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality.

Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods.

But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more!

Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals.

Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one.

This is coming from someone who doesn't often watch romantic comedies. Often, romantic comedies involve the typical Jane Austen-like ending (meaning always the same), but for once, it's good to see even the smallest bit of change in the genre and the change in this particular romantic comedy–not that it changes all other clichés of the film–is that the protagonist is a man. Ollie is an Irish writer suffering from a five-year-old case of writer's block that has caused him all the trouble be can get and his troubles get worse when an old womanizing school mate of his asks him to be his best man at his wedding and Ollie finds himself falling painfully in love with the bride, Sarah. Though he tries to oppress his feelings and move on, his best friend Murray goes through the most insane schemes to bring Sarah and Ollie together.

Typical? Yes. Predictable? Very. Climax? Corny as a cornfield. But I can't deny that I did enjoy watching this film, even if it did mean I would have to wash the girly side off of me for a week. I must admit, I only wanted to see this because I've always had quite the crush on Stuart Townsend and I thought seeing him as a dork would be enjoyable, because what kind of girl can resist a guy who can laugh at himself? Naturally, I had to adore him as a lovable loser and I thought he was very enjoyable to watch. Of course, I cannot forget his chemistry with Seth Green, who is absolutely hilarious as the best friend, who, I have to say, was one clever son of a gun! The way his insane antics worked was both hilarious and intriguing at the same time and clearly, though he isn't even British, Green has done his homework when it comes to British humor (I sensed quite a lot of Jeff Murdock of "Coupling" in his performance).

Unfortunately, Amy Smart's performance was not at all remarkable. Her acting, if acting is what you want to call it, was very flat and her character also seemed just as such. To me, she seemed much like the kind of character who's only there to be the typical suffering love- interest without any quirk or edge whatsoever.

Above all, I thought the film was very much flawed on the lines of its lack of an original plot line, but it was enjoyable to watch even if it was just for Townsend and Green, who were most definitely the highlights of the film. I give the film an eight for its quirks, but I won't praise it for the plot.

Although I am a big fan classic literature, I've never read the book, but I can say in the least that this film is a sheer delight to anyone who has since many fans of the book loves this film. It's a brilliantly portrayed coming-of-age story of four sisters, free-spirited Jo, charming Meg, shy Beth and dramatic Amy. Each girl is unique in their own way and their journey through life is beautifully told through a beautifully written screenplay. The performances, particularly those of the wonderfully spirited Winona Ryder and the adorable Christian Bale, are nothing short of stunning and I found a great joy in watching the sisters with their Pickwick meetings, much so that my friends and I have enjoyed our time making Pickwick meetings of our own. The costumes and set design are beautifully authentic and as a Canadian, I find much familiarity in the film as to how much it reminds me of Prince Edward Island's devotion to Anne of Green Gables. There's a little something for everyone in this story as it can be funny, sad, sweet, bitter, and above all rather touching. It's a true masterpiece that Alcott would have been proud of.

I'll be honest, I do admit to actually watching this film and enjoying it even after reading the books, mainly because I saw the film first and was glad that it didn't spoil the books. It is a big guilty pleasure of mine, but I will grant that now reading most of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles and I also will grant that it about as faithful to them as "300" was to history, but once you put the books aside and forget all about them, it's a decent film to say the least.

Many fans have despised this film for butchering the books and some actually enjoy it because it had introduced them to the books in the first place (as it did to me), but personally I think it would have done a good job as a film if it was just in chronological order and faithful to the book. For example, Stuart Townsend has been criticized for is performance as he wasn't playing the character of Lestat from the books. Frankly, I think Townsend could have played a good Lestat if he wanted to, seeing him in other films where he had done a good job, but clearly the writers had different ideas. Needless to say, the film would have been good if it had either a different title and different names or was at least faithful to the book. But apparently, the writers had only looked up a fair few pages of the books and thought that was a good idea.

But there are some good points to the film: The soundtrack is brilliant, Vincent Perez (Marius) appears to be the only one in character, Lena Olin is wonderful as Maharet (despite her lack of blindness, let alone a twin sister) and although Townsend does not play the twisted and humorous side of Lestat, he does add the seduction, arrogance and edginess that Tom Cruise did not have. After all, it might be hard to take Tom Cruise seriously as a rock star lip- syncing to Korn, though he did do a brilliant job in the original first installment of the chronicles on film.

And to my astonishment, I watched the film in French for practice not too long ago and Lestat was a lot more in character when dubbed in French...very strange.

Anyhow, yes, on a whole the film does little to no justice to the books, but it is enjoyable if you're bored and in need of something semi-dark or if you're in need of an introduction to the books to get a taste of what they're like. Although, the books, to me, are almost unfilmable since they are filled with rather heavy metaphysical matters.

This was the very first Masters of Horror episode that I saw and even after other episodes, this one still remains a big favorite.

Thehour-long film tells the story of the famed alcoholic horror author and poet, Edgar Allan Poe, and his struggles to write a new story whilst caring for his consumpted wife, Virginia, when short on money. However, he grows madly obsessed with his black cat, Pluto, who brings him to the point of madness and even murder.

The director, Tom Gordon, clearly knows his Poe and shows that through this film, which can be good for history and literature. For example, the Poes did, in fact, live in poverty and own a lot of pets whilst Edgar was struggling with alcoholism and caring for Virginia when she had caught tuberculosis and she did actually have a massive attack over the piano when singing and playing for Edgar and a guest. As a large fan of Edgar Allan Poe, and since studying his life, I've no regrets in saying that this film was no disappointment in being faithful to both the story and the life of Edgar Allan Poe. The sepia colors with one specific color standing out (namely red) is sheer genius and the acting is superb, not to mention the fact that Jeffery Combs looks exactly like Poe himself. Needless to say, this is the best episode yet and I highly recommend it for Poe fans everywhere. They'll need it if they've seen Ulli Lommel's take on The Raven. Edgar Allan Poe would have been proud.

To be fully honest, I'm not one for what we know as "chick-flicks" because of their tendency to be as predictable as a crystal ball or as cheesy as cheese. However, hearing that Gerard Butler and James Marsters were both in this film together, seeing as I adore both actors for many different reasons, I thought I might be able to stomach it and maybe even have a laugh.

By the end of the film, I found this film to be more than just a "chick-flick"; it was instead a bittersweet story about a young widow, played by the strongly talented Hilary Swank, coping with the death of her husband through letters that he'd written for her teaching her how to live and remember how to be happy with herself. All in all, I'd say it was a great film. It was one of those film that can make you smile, scream, laugh and cry and the writers capture the audiences emotions beautifully.

The writer has clearly gone through the same situation of losing a loved one because if I'm not mistaken, I do recall hearing my grandmother going through the same emotions that Swank's character was going through after her own husband passed away.

The acting in the film is perfectly done. Butler, though he can't hold an Irish accent very well, plays the role of a goofball perfectly, especially in his striptease scene and when he was watching his wife sing a sexy karaoke tune (poor guy was trying to contain himself while covering Marsters' eyes). Swank is also hilarious and in a scene when she's crying in an emotional breakdown, she plays it more realistically than I have ever seen on film.

What is also great about the film is that it rebels against most romantic comedies by practically spoofing typical chick-flick events, which was a great relief to me, since the recycled plots that I see in too many films and books nowadays (*cough*Enchanted*cough*) gets more than just annoying. Out of ten, I will give it a nine because the only problem I had with the film was Butler's accent. Other than that, it was a great film with a well-chosen cast and a well-written script.

From the first ten minutes of Marie Antoinette (lost talent Kirsten Dunst) traveling to her palace, the next wandering around her new palace once she arrives, the next getting married and the next of her coronation, I knew that this was going to be a slow and uninteresting ride. I can't say much about the plot because there is none and I can't say much for the acting because there isn't much that's impressive to me. What I find the most outrageous is the fact that it was made into a chick-flick when the French Revolution was actually a very dire time in history.

I'll give the film an applaud (though not a very enthusiastic or loud one) for completely stunning artistry, but sadly just looking at something pretty is not enough. The film, to me seemed like an old horse: pretty, but goes nowhere. Needless to say, my money and time was wasted on this film due to the fact that it was not at all reliable to history and was too long for it's own good. As much as I love visionary films, they do have to have a plot to them and Marie Antoinette had none. At least it was good for one thing: a cure for insomnia.

"Incredible Story Studios" is not only a show of many short films, but they are short films based on short storied sent in by teens who are aspiring writers! That is what I found most interesting about it that they had cared less about professionals and decided to give teens a chance to shine. This is a wonderful idea, in my opinion because it shows not only what it's like to have your story made into a film or how to write a proper story, but what it is really like to be a writer in the media because not all of them are chosen and many stories of writers will be turned down. I remember watching this show when I was younger and was always interested in writing a story and sending it in, myself, were I not seven at the time. Nevertheless, I found it to be a wonderful idea of young aspiring writers to send in their short stories into a contest to be made into a short movie. As an aspiring writer, I regret not sending in a story of my own and seeing what it would turn out to be.

I remember watching the Disney version and watching it now makes me think it has somehow lost its magic touch. Plenty of other renditions, Ever After put aside, of Cinderella, have, in fact, lost their touch throughout the years. Then I found this production with a flawless performance by Kathleen Turner as the evil stepmother and was blown away by the phantasmagorical essence of this fantasy story that has cast me under its spell since childhood.

We all know the story of Cinderella, a young girl who's father died and was dominated by her wicked stepmother and stepdaughters and longs to go to the ball for one last chance for freedom. But this plot line takes a different twist in the classic Fairy Tale by causing Cinderella (whose real name is Zizola, and is only called Cinderella by her family because of her slavery) to be trapped in a situation of her father (who still lives) slowly losing himself to a dominant wife who manipulates him into playing favorites with his wife and step-daughters against his own and tries to poison him. Thus, Zizola goes out to save her father by stopping her stepmother from finding another suitor at the ball by distracting the men who come her way. There, the bored Prince Valiant has a change of heart from his dull life and falls in love with the mysterious lady in the strange dress (forged by a water nymph named Mab) with rose petals for slippers.

What drew me to this film most of all was it's original take on the old Fairy Tale that none can compare to. It does not weave a web of lies like most Cinderella stories, it does not ignore any reason as to why Cinderella would want to attend the ball and nor does it show a shallow side to the Prince as the Disney version did. Instead it shows more of Cinderella's selfless heart more than any other production and the artwork is simply stunning! The costumes are all beautifully made, especially Zizola's sapphire blue ballgown to match the Marcella Plunkett's fantastical beauty and soft, spirit-like voice.

I would highly suggest this film for anyone who is interested in a dream-like sequence of the classic Fairy Tale with an interesting twist. My only problem is that the producers and director did not make a full collection of other Fairy Tales with this same element and the fact that the film is now out of print.

Since I saw this film when it first came out, I have been in love with it now for three years straight and I still get emotional every time I watch it, especially in the climax. In fact, I'm actually afraid to watch it because I get all teared up, which is rare for me because I don't often cry in films.

The story is set in late Victorian Paris where a young soprano, Christine Daae, wins a triumph of the leading role and captures the heart of a mysterious masked man whom she admires as her long-awaited "Angel of Music" that her father had sent to her. But her Angel turns out to be a Fallen Angel when his darker and more demonic side is shown and threatens the lives of many...and all because of his deformed face. The only question is does Christine love her Angel or is she under his dominance?

I fell in love with this film and it is still a big favorite of mine. What I loved about it was that it didn't look so much like a musical, but an opera itself, which makes perfect sense, of course.

The acting, of course, is brilliant! An excellent, if not underrated cast of wonderful actors from the classically subtle touch of Miranda Richardson (Mme. Giry) to the raw passion of Gerard Butler (The Phantom), whom I fell in love with not only for his looks, but for his gift of adding such an intense humanity to The Phantom that I, myself, had found myself relating to the loneliness that I believe we all feel. Very rarely can a man cry on cue and give that emotion to the audience and Butler captured it perfectly.

Emmy Rossum (Christine Daae) also brings a delightful as well as tortured and troubled performance as the victim of what we would see as an abusive lover and longs to escape, but somehow cannot decide whether she loves him or not.

Patrick Wilson (Raoul De Chagny) also brings a stunning performance, as subtle as he may seem. Like Butler, Wilson has the rare ability to speak with his eyes. He knows how to be subtle and intense all at once and he can say it all through his eyes.

In short, this production was a stunning work of art and this is coming from someone who knows the book better than the play. If you are a lover of great music, wonderful artwork, and brilliant acting, then this is the film for you and I highly suggest it, especially if you are a lover of great literature as well as an Angel of Music.