Change Your Image
BertramWilberforceWooster
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Persecuted (2014)
Horrible.
I attended a free showing tonight at a friend's church. I already had low expectations for this film, but even those were too high, apparently. This film is more than Right Wing Propaganda. This is a film so forced, it leaves any rational person scratching their heads. The whole film reads like an aborted subplot from the Left Behind series (and I admit I have read all 12 of the core series, even though I thought those seemed forced at times). None of the characters in this are at all relatable except to Christians who believe they are being persecuted by "The Liberal Media" in the United States.
Just perusing the cast list, however, it should be obvious to anyone this is steeped in Hard Right bias (Fred Dalton Thompson and Gretchen Carlson are listed among the cast).
If you want a film about people fleeing from persecution, watch Rambo. If you want a Right Wing film, I'd suggest Atlas Shrugged. But if you want a movie that is horribly plotted, horribly acted, and makes zero sense, this is the movie for you.
Jug Face (2013)
A Lost Effort
A Lost Effort
It had a lot of potential, but failed to keep a consistent tone. It reminds me of the original Children of the Corn, but without any real suspense. The cast is competent, the dialogue is believable, and the effects kept to a minimum so it does not overburden the tale. If the right director were involved, this could have been an amazing film. Instead, it just comes off as a really $5 bargain bin movie.
Hopefully in a few years, when the director matures, he will revisit this film and make it again. It would be an interesting contrast to see the difference experience makes.
Odd Thomas (2013)
Fun film
The First time I can remember ever seeing Anton Yelchin was in the film adaptation of Hearts in Atlantis (based on the first and last stories in the book). His next major appearance was in the miniseries Taken. In 2009, he appeared as Pavel Checkov in the sequel/prequel/reboot of Star Trek. In between, and since, he has had a variety of roles. When I first learned he was cast as Odd Thomas in the film of the same name, I was curious. Could he pull off the role. More importantly, could the supporting cast (Willem Dafoe plays Chief Porter, Addison Timlin plays Stormy) flesh out their characters? I am happy to report that they all did fantastic. All of the major characters from the book are there, except for Elvis whose sole appearance is relegated to a cardboard cutout.
For those of you who do not know the story of Odd, it is based on a 2003 book by Dean Koontz. Odd Thomas is a 20ish person living in a small desert town. He has a gift to see dead people. Unlike Sixth Sense, ghosts seem to know they are dead. For one reason or another, some have chosen not to pass on (Arnold Vosloo plays a character who spends his afterlife at a tire shop trying to make those who can see him laugh by picking his nose with his severed arm while others have actual unfinished business).
The main story focuses on Odd trying to prevent a large-scale attack on the town in which he resides. He learns of the upcoming attack through his encounter with the character Fungus Bob. After seeing creatures that Odd has labeled Bodachs, he realizes that Bob is planning something big. Enlisting the help of the local police and his girlfriend, he does his very best to figure what the clues point toward.
Unlike many adaptations of Koontz's work (Watchers and Hideaway come to mind), this follows the story quite well. It condenses some action (sorry, no exploding cow) and focuses on the plot of Fungus Bob. The laughs, suspense, and heartache are all there. This is a definite must for anyone who enjoyed the book or is just looking for a fun time.
Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas (2005)
Beautiful adaptation of a beautiful story
When I go into movies, after having read the book, I usually go in expecting disappointment. But last night, as I watched Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas, I was reminded of just how wonderful this story was. It was beautiful, thought-out, and everything and adaptation should be.
Chistina Appelgate was wonderful as Suzanne. And Johnathon Schaech, never having seen him in anything except Doom Generation, was the perfect person for the role. And the support cast did their jobs. But my main compliments go to the director/writer: Richard Friedenberg. He understands what fans want, and gives it to them.
For those who have read the book, do yourself a favor, and watch this movie. For those who have only seen the movie: read the book.
King Arthur (2004)
Had potential, but went down hill real quick...
Spoilers here-in
I went into this movie with high expectations. As a history buff and a lover of Arthurian Legends, I was anxious to see this movie. I loved the idea of peeling away all the myth, getting at the core of the story. Even more so, I loved the idea of seeing Arturius Rex in action. Unfortunately, within mere moments, I realized this movie had little chance of improvement.
Starting off the film with a young Lancelot going off to war, this film was very slow. But slow is not always bad. Writer David Franzoni (Amistad, Gladiator) and Director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Bait) make an interesting coupling, but it just does not work. The change of Guinevere from a dainty Queen to a Warrior was a welcomed one. The problem with this film is that it throws in names simply for recognition purposes only. Had the film-makers truly been interested in keeping the film, Merlin, most likely, would not have been mentioned as he is a fairly recent addition to the saga (as are Lancelot, Guinevere, and several others). The knights mentioned (Gawain, Galahad, et al) are glazed over.
One of the main failings with the film are not its dialogue, cinematography, or even its lack of character development. Instead, it fails on the historical level. To quote Polydore Vergil, court historian for King Henry VIII, If Arthur had fought against the Romans, he would have had to be at least 200 years old when he took on the sixth-century Saxons. With Rome leaving the British Isles in A.D. 406, and this film being set in the seventh century, Arthur looks mighty well preserved. The problem, however, is that this film is combining TWO different Arthurs. The first fought against the Romans, the second fought the Saxons. If this film is going claim "The untold true story that inspired the legend" as they do on the Previews and the Poster, I should think that they would have done more research.
For someone who is not a history buff, but is a lover of Arthurian Legends, this is still not the movie for you. Ending with the Battle of Mount Baedan (Badon Hill), it is Lancelot who suffers the untimely death, instead of Arthur at Camblam (Camlann). The appearance of the Sword in the Stone seems thrown into the hodge-podge of the story simply for recognition purposes, and with no explanation as to why it is there.
Now, I admit I am viewing this film from a biased stand-point, so I may not be the one to best judge the film, but I have always felt if you are going to make an adaptation of a book, play, or other source material, then you should stick to the story that is given. Certain changes I can understand, but to totally go off-track from the story is precisely what was done with many other book-to-film adaptations. If you want a better adaptation of King Arthur, check out Excalibre, Camelot, or even Disney's The Sword in the Stone.