Change Your Image
darkmoonnetwork375
Reviews
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Best adaptation so far!
I have been known, both here and in real life, to be largely opposed to adapting books to movies, based on the notion that it cannot be done properly. I hated Lord of the Rings because of the many additions and omissions, I hated Harry Potter largely due to the same reasons and now here is Narnia. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is masterly done. With very few additions and omissions, this movie has become a near perfect adaptation of the book. There were some scenes cut short and some scenes added for a better flow but in nearly all instances, it has remained true to the book; both in spirit and in the accuracy of the narrative. It follows the movie almost fanatically. Albeit there are a few scenes which have been cut a bit short, it has left out no vital parts of the book and the few added scenes do nothing to ruin the experience. Many of the scenes, I think, that have been added, have been just that in order to convey some elements of the book. These elements are those, which are so typical of books that they cannot be successfully transported over the the silver screen without it seeming silly or even stupid.
I give it a 10, because the film leaves you with the exact same type of emotion as the book did (indescribable to those who have not read the book) and you leave the cinema with a sense of faith. The book had you believe in Narnia as a world that might - or even should - exist and the film has accomplished the same feat. This will definitely show others in the future how to adapt books to film; and it serves as big and hilarious "take this" to Peter Jackson, as he was not able to produce a film so captivating and beautiful as this. An epic and beloved tale springs to life in such an impressive a beautiful way, that I think C.S. Lewis would have shed a proud tear, had he lived to see it.
King Kong (2005)
That's a lot of monkey
I am going to run headfirst into this: I hated it. Well, that may be a bit strong but indulge me. You see, I happen to be a big fan of the original 1933 version of King Kong. Mainly because it was set and made in a time when the possibility of a secluded and forgotten island, containing various creatures thought to be extinct (or never to have existed), actually still existed in the minds of people. It was, at the time, easy to believe. Key word; believe. Bonus points to P.J. for setting the movie in the right time, but let's subtract those again due to the rest of the film. And I will tell you why.
First of all the movie takes too long. The beginning of it seemed endless - and pointless - because it doesn't seem necessary, that Denham (uninspiringly played by Jack Black) should be a fraud and almost a con-artiste. Secondly, it's just too long. It cannot be mentioned too often; it's too long. Even from the time when they arrive on the island and we are first introduced to the awesome sight (for that it truly is) that is Kong, it takes forever for them to get on with the general plot and they have thrown in a couple of useless and ridiculous scenes - Ann Darrow dancing for huge monkey, please. Kong was a great accomplishment, though, and seemed very much alive, apart from the excessive stunts they have him perform (come on, a 26 ft monkey swinging in vines and kicking - and throwing - a couple of T-Rexes around), it's enough to concentrate on believing that a monkey that size could exist. But their time on the island is just too stretched. One horrible creature is replaced by something much more icky (or terrifying) and it takes forever to get on with the stupid plot. Granted, there are several incidents and encounters with creatures in the old movie, but it just doesn't take that long. Sure, when making a remake you have to elaborate a bit, but this is ridiculous. If they had cut about 30 minutes from the movie, it would have been so much better. But finally, the movie has dragged itself to Kong's rampage through New York City. That was decent, but not noteworthy. Toward the end, I was just waiting for that damn monkey to die so I could get home.
I have several other parts of the movie I could criticise to death but I wont. It would take too long. More bonus points to P.J. for throwing in references - costumes used in the show with Kong were taken directly from the old movie, as was the music... nice - to the old King Kong and for the parts that worked out fine (few in number, though), which put the movie at 4 out of 10 in my book.
Finally, I would like to throw a direct comment to certain film critics in my local newspapers (I know you will read this): Peter Jackson is not the master of special effects. The Lord of the Rings were made largely on expert knowledge provided, free of charge and accreditation, by G. Lucas and the boys at ILM. Also the 'dinosaurs' in this Kong movie look less real than the ones created for Jurassic Park. People tend to forget that Peter Jackson did several REALLY crappy movies before he could assemble a team that could make LOTR and KONG for him. So dear critics, please stop taking everything with a P.J. label on it without criticism. He ain't that good.
To finish off this lengthy comment, I would like to make sure people know that I understand that movies today require more elaboration and grandeur than earlier movies. But this version of Kong was almost twice as long as the first one. Over 3 hours. That's a lot of monkey.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
While a great fan of the books; I consider myself almost an enemy of the movies.
Well I cannot hide it. The movie was extraordinarily horrific. Not only have they chosen to cut out 70% of the book (I am not a mathematician so don't get anal about that figure), but they have also chosen to change, even omit, certain details when adapting the book.
Firstly there is the opening sequence with Frank Bryce being murdered in the Riddle-mansion. According to the book only Wormtail, Nagini and Voldemort are present apart from Bryce. But Barty Crouch Jr. is for no real apparent reason also in the room with them. This removes an entire storyline. It is no longer possible for us to discover how Barty Crouch Sr. has staged his own sons's death, it removes Winky from the story and also the episode at the Quidditch World Cup. Which reminds me, what happened there? The match wasn't shown, Ludo Bagman doesn't appear ( and his wager with the twins disappears as well ) we are not introduced to the Veela and so we cannot find any reasonable explanation as to why Fleur has such a great effect on Ron. The other Weasly brothers are not shown ( Charlie should have been there to take care of the dragons ), Amos Diggory is not given a chance to talk so much about how good his son was against Harry in Quidditch ( and Cedric at first seems somewhat arrogant and not at all like he is depicted in the book )and believe me I could go on. I never understood why they were not in the 'fancy' box at the World Cup, and why O' why were we not allowed to see Narcissa Malfoy?
As for the acting I still think the first two were the best in this respect with the first one as a clear number one. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson carry out their roles in a manner above acceptable. Daniel Radcliffe should be sacked and thrown off the set. I do not wish to resort to mudslinging but he is dreadful in this movie. He was good in the first two, halfway decent in the third, but in this his acting is downright poor. He delivers his lines with almost an air of indifference, pay close attention to his reaction when he returns from the encounter with Voldemort, he is supposed to cry but he is not convincing. His performance makes Steven Seagal seem a right Lawrence Olivier in comparison. Michael Gambon is normally a highly regarded actor but it pains me to say that he has no business playing Dumbledore. Richard Harris made that character come to life. He acted the part so brilliantly that I truly believe that they should have stopped after his death. Michael Gambon does not portray Dumbledore as well as Harris. Sometimes he seems even weak, off balanced and not in control. In essence he does not portray Dumbledore but someone posing as Dumbledore. (That's the way it seems). The other actors perform adequately but nothing more.
I was also surprised at the absence of communication with Sirius and equally surprised at his physical absence at the end of the movie (as he should have been there according to the book).
There are numerous other flaws, mistakes, changes, omissions, etc. but I will not bore you with them all here. Bottom line is that this movie is right insult to the books. The story is much too quickly paced, the storyline of the movie leaves one wanting to know more (the things one wants to know were actually revealed in the book), and the story is generally uninteresting. As a whole the movie is not worth watching and by the Force, do I wish I hadn't. Biggest disappointment was, however, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. I have no words for this atrocity they call acting. Fiennes is generally a brilliant actor but his performance in this movie should be forbidden by law.
In fact, the creators of this movie should sit down and say: "Crap! We naused it up, lads. Let's call it a do-over."
I give it 1 out of 10 but only because there is no lower grade. This is possibly the worst movie of the last decade. And yes, I saw Deep Impact.
Alexander (2004)
Well....
Sitting through Alexander was a bit of a trial. The movie is exceptionally well filmed and the history of Alexander well conveyed. The movie is daring in the sense that it does not cover up the fact that bisexuality was perfectly normal and accepted, in fact even a status symbol, lifts it above many other historical movies. I found the movie poorly acted. Not that any of the actors were downright bad, but some of them (Jolie) were a bit over the top and the rest were not really exceptional. It was a good movie, but being no big fan of Farrell I was not impressed. I was pleased to see that he actually does possess acting skills. However, as the movie progressed I was more taken with his capability to show more than one side of Alexander. By the end Farrell had proved that he was actually an actor. But no one actor can make a movie better. And Farrell struggles against other actors who certainly do not perform their best. So all in all the movie would rate 5/10 in my books.
Time Under Fire (1997)
It pains me!
I know it is an old movie and maybe this comment is out of date but here goes anyway. A waste of time and it pains me to see this sad imitation of Ian McDiarmid's portrayal of Emperor Palpatine in 'Return of the Jedi'. Lousy plot, awesomely horrible acting, and no visual effects to make it worth watching. I had more fun sitting through 'Red Sonja' and 'Hercules Goes to New York'. I would much rather sit through a whole evening of Danielle Steel movies than watch this movie ever again. We have here yet another movie which should never have been made. Just like the new King Arthur movie. Although the latter wasn't even half as bad as this movie. Whatever you do, do NOT see this!