Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Music Man (2003 TV Movie)
10/10
The Real Music Man
7 June 2017
For anyone who has actually seen the play or performed in it, both of which I have, this screen adaptation of the Wilson musical is a dream come true. You can read the script to the play to the 1962 and find that the script writers completely threw out the dialogue and left the songs as they are with the exception of "Being in Love", which was created for that movie to replace the stage musical's "My White Knight." I am happy to inform that all of the original dialogue and all of the songs are from the stage musical are present instantly making this far superior to that mockery from the 1960's.

Of course, even then the problem it does have is like the 1962 film where a man too old for the role of Harold Hill is cast. Harold's lie is that he graduated from the Gary Conservatory of Music in 1905 and the fact that people actually believes that gives some clue to his age. As the age of graduation would be twenty-two and thus since the story is set in 1912 that would mean Harold is twenty-nine. Robert Preston was forty-four and Matthew Broderick was forty-one. They both have the ability... Okay, the latter has the ability, the former has nothing... But they are both too old.

NBC may doe this play someday. It may be just as faithful as this adaptation and thus superior to that mockery from the 60's. If they do, then here is hoping that they get an actor the proper age for Harold.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moses (1995–1996)
10/10
The Most Faithful Adaptation of the Exodus and the Best
5 July 2016
I would like to start with the statement that I am an intelligent man who has actually read the bible. I know what is correct and what is not correct. This may not be the most glamorous or fast-moving adaptation of the Exodus by why have those when you have this which is truest to life and truest to scriptures?

Moses stutters like in the bible and for an added bonus he feels inferior and and is laughed at by the Egyptian court. He became a man confused and tormented by his origins, wondered if he was Egyptian or Hebrew and when he killed an Egyptian in anger and he fled from his mistake. When he found peace in Midian, Moses begged God not to send him back to Egypt to free the Hebrews. This is a human Moses who doubts God at times yet still keeps his faith. This is a Moses that endured disappointments, hardships and setbacks and fulfilled his God-given mission. This Moses is Moses.

As for the addition of Jethro advising Moses, it is a very moving scene and unless you are a heartless beast like some reviewers on here you will be moved by Jethro's advising of Moses. For another moving scene there is when Moses assembles the Hebrews to hear God's voice. While some flee in fear there are those who stand up and feel the spirit of God himself.

Now, I would like to give some information about the choice of Pharaohs. Moses' date of birth was first given as 1391 BC in Seder Olam Rabbah, a second century Hebrew language chronology. Later the Christian Jerome gave it as 1592 BC. The final date of birth given is 1571 BC by James Ussher. Ramesses II was not born until 1303 BC meaning that "The Ten Commandments" got the Pharaoh of the Exodus wrong. By default this also means that Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus in this film, is not the correct Pharaoh either. Going by the dates of birth, Moses being eighty at the time of the Exodus and lining this up with Egyptian history the Pharaoh would be Horemheb (1311), Thutmose I (1512) or Thutmose II (1491). I don't hold the decision of Merneptah being the Pharaoh of the Exodus against the film, I find it preferable to the endless parade of Ramesses II that Cecil B. DeMille has spawned. Ramesses II still appears but thankfully he is the Pharaoh of the Oppression so I don't have to suffer any DeMille imitation.

There is excellent actors in this, an excellent script and the production values are enough to put DeMille to shame. This is the most faithful and best adaptation of the Exodus out there. All you need is the intelligence and heart to see it.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Outstanding return for Indy
12 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I've never heard of a sequel that has been so hated and this is about a movie that is just as good as the rest in the series! I've heard people complain about the Gophers, Monkies, Fridge, and Alien, but the gophers and monkies are only there for a few seconds! What is there to complain about if they're just there for a few seconds? The fridge was a little far fetched but there has been more far fetched things than that in the series. Example? When the tank goes over the cliff in Last Crusade, it does not tell you how Indy survives while in Crystal Skull you can see him figuring out a way to save himself from the nuclear blast. Of course everyone seems to forget that it is just a movie. Spielberg was inspired by the James Bond book series by Ian Fleming, where the main character always escaped near death situations, that is what it's about. Simple as that. And the Alien? Was it that much of a surprise. No, it wasn't. It was in the title "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", did nobody else know that the Crystal Skulls are believed to be alien? There was loads of documentaries on television preparing for this films release. Was I the only one who watched them? The only problem with the alien was that it was computer generated. It's design was a homage to the B-movies of the 1950's and it makes sense because the film takes place in the 1950's.

Everyone also seems to think that Aliens do not belong in an Indiana Jones movie. That is going overboard, the Indiana Jones film series is about Fantasy and Science Fiction. Did everyone forget about the ghosts, voodoo dolls, beating hearts being ripped out through use of magic, and a seemingly immotral knight from the twelfth century? But no one will accept aliens? People say that the movies focus on a religious artifact, but this movie was. To the natives, the Alien was a God, and Indy and his friends were returning the skull of the God. It's that simple.

Everyone seems to forget what the film series is about: tributes to Adventure serials and B-Movies.

Another point that must be mentioned is that Indy is still Indy, only older. And besides, Marion is brought back, after disappointing leading ladies such as Willie and Ilsa, Marion is brought back and we finally get to see the two tie the knot. However if had watched The Young Idiane Jones Chronicles it showed Indy having a daughter and grandchildren just making you wonder who he eventually married and this movie showing Indy and Marion get married was that big of a surprise even after it was revealed who Mutt's true father was, however it was not that much of a surprise since the character was made-up to resemble both Indy and Marion. Besides that, Mutt is a likable character and is fun to watch interact with his father, which caused Indy to become a more responsible character and to remind the audience that Indy is older and wiser.

And now we have new the new characters such as our villain, Spalko. She speaks in an over the top accent that pays tribute to the B-Movie villains making her an enjoyable villain. She is also very capable and an expert swordswoman making her all the more threatening as she attempts to get the Crystal Skull.

The action scenes are fantastic which is what made the movies so incredible. They once again pay homage to Adventure Serials and we get to see the Ark of the Covenant in one of them. Also you can tell that they include all of the characters and that the stakes are high as well as having one tribute to the Tarzan films of the 30's and 50's.

To conclude this review, I must say and I know you will agree with me, that this movie is a great return to the big screen for the greatest Adventurer of all.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Terrible
11 September 2010
I really don't know what went wrong with this movie. This is the worse Batman movie ever. The only good performance was Aaron Eckhart's. Now for my warning of what to expect if you want to see this movie.

Christian Bale was simply terrible. His Bruce Wayne portrayal was similar to Adam West's. His Batman portrayal on the other hand sounded like he had lung cancer mixed with a rip off of Kevin Conroy's portrayal. He was good in Reign of Fire, but he was terrible in this. They should have gotten Kevin Conroy to do a live portrayal.

Now for Heath Ledger as the joker. Yes, I know he is dead. Boo hoo, give it a break, he was like Cesar Romero on steroids. He also seemed like a Mark Hamill rip off. His performance was terrible. You never wanted to laugh with him, you didn't feel anything for him. Now I seriously hope that someone else can redeem this role in the live action portrayals.

Now for the supporting cast. Michael Caine, I preferred him in A Muppets Christmas Carol. He just seemed to bland as Alfred in this, to much like Alan Napeir and Efrem Zimbalist Junior. Personally I think they should have gotten David McCallum to do this role. Gary Oldman, he was good in other movies, specifically Bram Stoker's Dracula. But in this once again, he seemed like a modern version Neil Hamilton's portrayal mixed with Bob Hastings portrayal. Nolan should have hired Jim Meskimen for this role. I already said that Aaron Echart as Two Face was the thing that almost saved this, so I won't repeat myself.Now for Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachael Dawes. Now I must say that she is better than Katie Holmes, so she too almost saves this movie. Morgan Freeman was unfortunately not good in this, I don't know why they couldn't have gotten Kevin Michael Richardson to do this role in live action. Eric Roberts was fantastic as Sal Maroni. He is one of the few to have given a good performance in this. Colin Mcfarlane was also one of the good actors in this.

The action scenes were just going overboard. No more is needed as an explanation.

The story, it was bland, boring, and colourless. I can't believe I payed good money to see something like this.

Well now you know why not to see this.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A New type of Mummy
14 August 2010
This was a fantastic movie. First off we are not seeing the usual Egyptian mummy but a Chinese one this time. Just that made it good.

While most people don't like Maria Bello as Evelyn, I must say she is better than Rachel Weisz. She is a complete improvement over Weisz's out of place acting. I must say that she was also more interesting.

The fact that people are complaining about a mummy movie outside of Egypt must have not realized that more than one ancient culture mummified their dead. This movie made a big risk with going outside of Ehypt which I congratulate the film-makers for. This is a good movie. Whoever it is who hates it must have been a few tea cups short of a full set. This is a great movie, and you can enjoy it over and over again.

However I shouldn't give it too much praise. Brendan Fraiser and John Hannah are not as good in this one as in the previous movies. So I don't recommend this for Fraiser or Hannah fans.

Kent Strange
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Half Terrific, Half-Terrible, All Excellent!
9 August 2010
I'm going to start this review by saying I hate remakes. Want proof? Just look at my review for Peter Jackson's King Kong. I'm actually torn between loving and hating this movie. I love it because it is a classic. I love classics. I hate it because it is a remake.

If I had not known of this movie before I had bought, I would have guessed that by the title it had something to do with the ring on Im-Ho-Tep's hand from "The Mummy". What I got instead was a refreshing re-imagining of the genre. It was really good. I'm not going to give away too much, but I will leave you with this. The mummy in this, Kharis is a far more tragic character than Im-Ho-Tep who is a far more sympathetic character than Kharis. With that said, I hope you enjoyed my short review and I hope you enjoy this movie.

Kent Strange
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (2005)
1/10
A Pretender to the Throne
7 August 2010
Where do I start with this thing? Oh I know, the leading lady.

Naomi Watts was annoying. When I saw this in the theatre I wished I had brought a bottle of Tylenol. She really did give me a head-ache.

As for the supporting cast, Jack Black was just being an Orson Welles rip-off and was just too obvious for the part. Adrien Brody on the other hand, he was boring. They should have given the role of Jack Driscoll to Kyle Chandler or Evan Parke. The rest of the supporting cast were bland and uninteresting.

Now for those oh not so special special effects. I'll make this short. It looked like a video game! As for Kong, he just looked too human, not creative enough in the design, movement, and behaviour. They could have just run the movie without him.

As for the story, it was long. To much, it was over the top, and was really just trying to be better than the original. You can't top the original.

Well there is my review for this. If you want to see King Kong go buy/rent the original. There is only one King Kong and this is a pretender to the throne.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jonah Hex (2010)
10/10
Incredible!
7 August 2010
When I saw this movie I thought it was fantastic. I still do. It gives us a nice change from seeing animated versions of Jonah Hex.

Now Josh Brolin was a good choice, in fact he was as good a choice as George Clooney as Batman, better than Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer, but that's not the point. The point is that Jonah Hex is the character he was in the comics. If you ask me the way they made him seem like a "Van Helsing rip-off" as the critics/idiots say, is more of a nod to the comic series entitled "Hex" in which Jonah is transported into the future and becomes a Mad Max type of character. It was also interesting of how Jonah had the power to briefly bring the dead back to life. Maybe DC will make an Eleseworlds storyline using that idea for Jonah. Furhter more the minor of change of how he got the scar and why he has his vendetta with Turnbull was interesting.

Megan Fox as Tallulah Black was an interesting choice. When I first heard she was going to be in this I said "What the ugly girl from Transformers?", when I saw her in this I thought she was a good choice. Alright maybe she was missing the scars that Tallulah had in the comics but I think that if they had that in the movie the critics would have criticized this wonderful piece of work even more.

As for John Malkovich, what can I say? He was made for the role of Turnbull and he also made it more interesting than in the comics. But you will have to decide that bit for yourself.

Anyways it is a good movie, my rating is 10/10. See it, love it!
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed