MotorbikeMaintainanceGuy Reviews

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Classic movie of a classic book

[10/10 · 11 August 2006]

This movie, although in black and white, is a fantastic movie. Although I was slightly disappointed that elements from the book (Aunt Alexandra and Dolphus Raymond chiefly) were not in the film, it is a wonderful summary of a wonderful book.

Fantastic acting from Gregory Peck helps make the film work. Mary Badham and John Megna are absolutely adorable as Scout and Dill. I feel Philip Alford deserves special credit for his portrayal as Jem - entirely believable as the boy who wants to help his father.

Despite the fact it is an incredibly good movie, read the book first. The movie gives a visual portrayal of characters, but the book has little nuances, little quirks that just capture life. The movie also cuts out Aunt Alexandra, and merges two characters together, and Aunt Alexandra is a key character in the book. So, read the fantastic classic that is To Kill a Mockingbird, then watch the fantastic film

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Severely lacking in detail!

[3/10 · 8 December 2005]

I was extremely surprised at how well-liked this movie is amongst IMDb users - who are some of the harshest critics I know.

I thought this movie was appalling. Not because of the acting, all cast members did wonderfully - particularly Daniel Radcliffe as Potter, Emma Watson as Hermione, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Robert Pattinson as Diggory. The special effects were a huge improvement on the sadly pathetic dementors of the third movie, and although there were some minor issues I had with appearances - Ron's hair was ... not well received, neither was Moody's eye, and for me, Michael Gambon cannot do Dumbledore well because Richard Harris did such an OUTSTANDING job, but he gets points for effort.

My issue with the film was the lack of detail. Rita Skeeter and the trouble she causes was completely ommitted, except for one scene, vital clues about Longbottom's family aren't connected, and where the hell was Dobby? And Winky? And important stuff about Crouch? I understood the movie only because I had read the book, my friend who had not read it (and yes, not everybody slogs through Harry Potter) did not understand Crouch well. The subplots - of which there were many - were focused on quickly - snapshots of each subplot, which is, frankly, not good enough. The directors and screenplay writers NEED to decide what they are ommitting, and what they are keeping, and not show the audience pieces of everything. Yes, the fourth book was a big book, but the fifth was bigger. The fifth movie will now have to recap the fourth in addition to its huge plots and subplots.

The actors did marvellously, and I commend them on a good performance despite a terrible screenplay.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Poor special effects spoilt the movie

[6/10 · 8 December 2005]

It seems that once again, I am one of the few to criticise Harry Potter films (3/10 for Goblet of Fire). What spoilt this film largely for me was the special effects. The Dementors were a huge disappointment - they looked like men with pieces of black cloth over their heads. As with the Goblet of Fire, not enough time was spent on small but important details. Harry does not meet Cho in this movie, which provokes an unlikely glance at a random Ravenclaw in the fourth movie as Harry's basis for falling in love. Where was the quidditch? Where was Diggory?

Sirius Black and Remus Lupin are poor caricatures of deep characters. Black is not involved enough, he just hovers at the edge of the film at all times. Lupin does not look shabby with a neatly trimmed moustache and combed hair - he looks like a Muggle businessman. The scenery also changes inconsistently with a great whoppin' bridge appearing out of nowhere and gosh, Hagrid's hut has relocated.

Another detail which I forgot is the Boggart scene with the class and Lupin. As Harry steps forward, the Boggart clearly takes the shape of a Dementor, yet later on, Lupin claims he thought it would turn into Voldemort.

The only redeeming feature of this film was that the actors (with the exception of Black and Lupin who weren't provided with adequate script and just didn't look like the part respectively) did well.

First Knight (1995)

Interesting Adaptation

[7/10 · 8 December 2005]

Although many have criticised this film harshly, I believe it is unnecessary. It is an adaptation of the myth of Arthur, and is interesting. There is no magic, no Merlin :(, no Morgana, no sword in the stone - in fact, no referral to Arthur's past. This obviously changes the myth quite substantially. Merlin and the Sword were key players in the typical Arthur legend, but this adaptation is good because Morgana often confuses people.

It squashes what Camelot really is - an ideal - into about two and a bit hours of movie. Richard Gere is charming as Lancelot, a roving swordsman, and Lady Guinevere delivers an outstanding performance as the young woman torn between two loves. Sean Connery, is as always, fantastic. The best thing about this movie - to me - was that the love story was sensible. Instead of Guinevere and Lancelot cheating on Arthur, it becomes more of a love triangle, with deeper issues, as all three love each other (in different ways.)

All this said, it isn't the greatest movie despite some excellent acting - the movie had a weak plot and Maligant is not a very convincing villain. But, if you're bored, home sick, or just want to watch some light entertainment, by all means watch this film - just don't expect Peter Jackson quality.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Worth seeing

[7/10 · 24 July 2005]

I went to see this film without having read the book (unusual for me) or seeing previous films or hearing the radio broadcast. From the beginning, Tom Cruise is a intriguing character, with his attempts to engage his children's attention. His children are a young ten year old girl and a teenage boy with a serious attitude problem. The boy is a reasonable character, but ignore the girl, she is just plain annoying.

Then we have the requisite destruction scene, which was, as destruction scenes go, rather good. Cruise packs up, and hurries his two children out of town, having discovered how to make cars work.

The next hour or so explains that the aliens were actually here before humans, buried under the ground! Yes, these stupid aliens came here, buried the tripods (which are AWESOME little critters) and LEFT, waiting a million years until the planet is populated with a dominant race before coming back to claim the planet. Surely if this were the case, they would have known of the bacteria, and not attempted to return. But, no, that is beyond them...even if cool heat ray technology isn't.

Cruise is NOT a hero. He does not fight back (except at the end to get his kid back from this chopping, blood-spraying Tripod) but that improves the movie. Cruise's character is not a stereotypical, Will Smith fighter, but a scared as hell dysfunctional (doncha just love that word?) dad. The hero (in my opinion) is his son, who has a relatively minor role in the film. He saves people, he goes to fight back. Stupid? Yes. But he did the right thing.

So...ignore the plot holes and sit back and watch a reasonably frightening movie, is my advice.

National Treasure (2004)

New Indiana Jones

[9/10 · 11 June 2005]

When I first saw the DVD case, my immediate thought was Nick Cage as Indy? Weird. However, being today, I saw no other interesting movies so I took this one. I was very pleasantly surprised. I'm a huge fan of Indiana Jones which is what originally attracted me to this movie.

Cage does an outstanding job as the genius historian treasure hunter. It lacks the full on action and mysticism of Indiana Jones, but is a lot more realistic (apart from the Declaration of Independence)

Justin Bartha is wonderful as Riley Poole, the funny, stereotypical somewhat stupid sidekick, who is nevertheless so adorable and hilarious that you love him despite the fact that he is not original.

Diane Kruger does a wonderful job as Abigail Chase, as we finally see an intelligent Indiana Jones girl. However, she and Justin Bartha have quite small parts next to Cage's character, which is a pity since both characters could have been developed more.

A good introduction to Indiana Jones, and an excellent stand-alone movie. As for the historical facts, if you don't look them up, you won't be disappointed. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss"

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Don't ask Questions

[7/10 · 11 June 2005]

The movie is well acted, especially by Ewan MacGregor. His performance is amazing, as he tries to support Anakin and not appear as the enemy to his troubled Padawan.

However, don't ask questions. Sit back, and relax. There are several major plot holes, and well, I believe Anakin's "switch" to Darth Vader to be somewhat unrealistic. I don't think that even Darth Vader could have easily killed those young children, and Anakin definitely couldn't.

The killing of the rest of the Jedi was extremely well done, and I was very pleased with how they 'individualised' each Jedi's death, as befitting the noble order.

I was somewhat disappointed that Natalie Portman didn't get a bigger role. What small sections she did get were acted well, although I was disappointed by her clinging dependence to Anakin.

Hayden Christenson shrugs off most of his wooden acting that was in the second Star Wars movie, and delivers a good performance. Overall, it was well acted. The cinematography and Special FX, are, as always, outstanding. My advice is to sit back, relax, and don't ask about Anakin/Darth Vader.