Change Your Image
DoctorWhy
Reviews
Knowing (2009)
Knowing.
I'm not really sure why this movie has gotten such poor reviews. I found this movie to be, on the whole, solid and a bit of fun - certainly not stellar, but certainly not awful either.
It had an interesting, albeit unrealistic, premise which is what initially drew me in. A creepy little girl writes down a bunch of numbers which correspond to disasters over the next 50 years. Nicolas Cage comes by and finds it, notices the pattern, and starts running around like a madman just like anyone would do. Eventually, the world gets roasted by the sun and everyone dies except for some kids. With a little help from the willing suspension of disbelief, sure, I'll buy it. So what was it about this movie that caused so much hatred to emanate from the people on this site? Let's see if I can work it out.
Starting with the negative: I will be the first to say that the ending was horrendous. It made little sense, didn't tie anything together, and was kind of a Deus Ex Machina to make people think "Well, at least the kids were saved." Awful. (Also, what was the deal with the rabbits?)
Continuing with the biggest positive: the airplane crash was tremendous. It was gripping and by far the best scene in the movie; strangely understated owing to the fact that there was no background music, save for screams and explosions. The continuous camera shot was a nice touch as well. Continuing in that line of thought: I couldn't help but notice a couple of comments floating around that said the airplane crash was terrible, and that people wouldn't get up and try to run away. Wait, what? People wouldn't try and run away from a freaking airplane crash? Why the hell not? There are explosions and debris flying through the air, and you expect the people to just give up hope, sit down where they are and wait to be taken? No, I'm sorry, but people would get up and try to save themselves. I really don't see why they wouldn't.
Finally, the rest of the movie was a bit of fun. I had a good time watching it, and it made a valiant effort to make some sense out of everything. It failed a few times, but at least it tried.
In all, Knowing earns a 7.8 out of 10.
Coraline (2009)
Coraline.
As a Neil Gaiman fan, I was, of course, very happy with the book "Coraline", and was extremely excited to hear that a movie was being made for it. I had very high expectations from director Henry Selick after seeing 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' and 'James and the Giant Peach'.
I was not disappointed.
It followed the book surprisingly closely, though there were a few anomalies (the character of Wybie, for instance, didn't exist in the book). It had that Tim Burton-esquire feel about it; terrifying, but in an entertaining sort of way. There were one or two scenes which were a little over-the-top for younger children, but that's to be expected.
You could just tell from the opening scene alone that you were in for a treat. Hauntingly beautiful, well choreographed, and, plain and simple, a bit terrifying; it really hooked your attention and promised a good time.
However, there were two problems throughout the movie that I could spot:
One was that some scenes were a little choppy in the animation; almost like they hadn't quite taken enough pictures to make it run smoothly. Unfortunately, with stop-motion animation, this is difficult to avoid, and it isn't overly distracting anyway.
The other was Coraline's mother was a little... angry. Yes, she's supposed to be constantly frustrated and such, but I think she went a little overboard. Fortunately, Teri Hatcher redeemed herself with her portrayal of the Other Mother, which was brilliant.
Coraline earns a 9.5 out of 10.
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Dark Knight.
Words simply cannot describe this movie. It was just... phenomenal. It makes no difference whether this was a sequel or not; The Dark Knight is in a different league than most movies, and is far beyond Batman Begins.
Christian Bale was great. Not as good as he could have been, but great. He was marvelous as Bruce Wayne: there was a good amount of "I am rich" swagger about him, but not so much as to make him annoying; it makes him all the more likable. However, his Batman did have one issue: his voice. Rather than merely having a deeper, stronger, fiercer voice, he sounded like a talking bear with laryngitis.
Aaron Eckhart was a surprisingly good Harvey Dent. I never thought anyone could outmatch Tommy Lee Jones', but he did so magnificently. Powerful with his voice as Harvey, and believably twisted (and yet sensible) as Two-Face, he did a brilliant job.
Heath Ledger was... wow. Just wow. He didn't just get into character; he may as well have become the Joker. Every subtle thing; the licking of the lips, they way he walked, the little hand motions, his voice, his laugh, even the way he looked at other people, all contributed to his performance, and I for one loved it. Terrifying, but in the best possible way. I hate to say it, but he outdid Jack Nicholson by a long shot.
Christopher Nolan had his work cut out for him, trying to make a Batman movie to rival Batman Begins, but he pulled it off with room to spare.
The Dark Knight earns a solid 10 out of 10.
Twilight (2008)
Twilight.
Let me start out by being completely honest: there is NOTHING cool about ginger-haired vampire love stories. Vampires are supposed to kick ass, not make out with random Arizona girls. Since this is more or less the storyline, the book was shall we say, not all that great (not to mention it reads like a badly written high-schooler's essay.) So that should just give you an idea of what I thought of the book.
Unfortunately, a friend of mine insisted that the book was simply fantastic, so I read it, and, well, didn't like it. At all. Then, after I had shared my view of the book with her, she insisted that I come see the movie with her. So I did. I wasn't disappointed... but I wasn't expecting much either.
Firstly: badly adapted from the book. The book was gross enough, don't make me sit through something even worse. Secondly: not very well acted. Although I do admit, it was probably more the script's fault than the actors' fault. Thirdly: the special effects were just so-so. In this day and age, you really have to step it up to please the masses, and this movie just didn't cut it.
All in all, I did not enjoy this movie, and not just for the storyline. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but certainly far from the best. I know it seems a bit harsh of me to just beat down this movie's credibility without a second thought, and I'm not denying that some people think that both the book and movie were great (why, I'm not sure... but I digress), but it's really not worth that second thought, and definitely not worth the $8.00 it cost me to get in.
(On a side note, my friend {the one who insisted that the book and movie would be great} didn't like the movie all that much either.)
Twilight earns a 3.4 out of 10.