I own the first two films and loved them (more so for the first one). So when this came out in the theaters, I eagerly went to see it and I was so disappointed. Voyage of the Dawn Treader was dull and empty and didn't have the "magic" that the first two had. I tried watching it years later, just recently yesterday, and it turns out I still hate it. There's something about the four "new" main casts that don't click with the audience. The story was subpar and religiously overbearing. And finally, the film lacked the canonicity. The only good thing about it was the animation, I guess. But even I'm not that impressed by the "huge evil worm." Such a waste of time and money.
Reviews
7 Reviews
I "half" get it.
15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
OK. Will someone who's seen this before explain this to me? I saw this movie twice. I would say the same things that have already been said here. It's a wonderful movie about these two boys, and their female friends, and the boy "falling in love" with the other boy... blah, blah. But I DON'T GET IT.
SPOILER******** Why did Shin burn Tatsuro's picture after Tatsuro kissed him and tried to have sex with him? Was Shin somehow falling "out" of love because Tatsuro was "just in it for sex, fun, and money"? Was Shin mad about that? Was Shin's feeling just a sexual attraction and not "love" as his girl best friend said it is? What was the ending all about? Seriously! Did both characters realize that they're NOT gay and they're only hustling for the money? Or have they realized that they ARE gay and are in love with each other? I DO NOT GET THE ENDING! HELP ME OUT HERE PLEASE!!! This movie is SO FULL OF TENSION. It got me shouting HUUUUUUH? all the while. I was wanting more and more of Shin/Tatsuro's sexual tension!!! Their chemistry is freakishly depressing and HOT at the same time!! The end was such a "HUH?" to me that I seriously need a part 2 to make me understand how Tatsuro and Shin really feel for each other! :( PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE. I absolutely loved it but I REALLY need more Shin/Tatsuro "looovin'." :D
SPOILER******** Why did Shin burn Tatsuro's picture after Tatsuro kissed him and tried to have sex with him? Was Shin somehow falling "out" of love because Tatsuro was "just in it for sex, fun, and money"? Was Shin mad about that? Was Shin's feeling just a sexual attraction and not "love" as his girl best friend said it is? What was the ending all about? Seriously! Did both characters realize that they're NOT gay and they're only hustling for the money? Or have they realized that they ARE gay and are in love with each other? I DO NOT GET THE ENDING! HELP ME OUT HERE PLEASE!!! This movie is SO FULL OF TENSION. It got me shouting HUUUUUUH? all the while. I was wanting more and more of Shin/Tatsuro's sexual tension!!! Their chemistry is freakishly depressing and HOT at the same time!! The end was such a "HUH?" to me that I seriously need a part 2 to make me understand how Tatsuro and Shin really feel for each other! :( PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE. I absolutely loved it but I REALLY need more Shin/Tatsuro "looovin'." :D
Good Day L.A.
(1993–2024)
Let's face it, people...
10 August 2006
When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.
At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.
Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.
Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...
I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.
SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)
At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.
Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.
Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...
I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.
SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)
If you haven't seen this movie, this review will HELP you decide.
9 August 2006
Where has the magic gone? One would expect that the fourth of the Harry Potter movies should have improved and should have been better than the previous three-- DEAD WRONG! This is the worst Potter film yet.
The ghosts that make Hogwarts unique amongst many other fantasy films have ironically been "magically" vanished. Not one can be seen in The Great Hall and/or in between classes. Moaning Myrtle, of course, was spared for a cheap laugh. This movie has officially lost its magic.
Some of the young actors, however, have improved. Daniel Radcliffe, who had the worst performance in Prisoner of Azkaban, showed a bit of improvement with his "crying" skill(s)-- but just slightly. His improved acting skill doesn't justify Goblet of Fire's bad direction and editing.
Mike Newell did a terrible job capturing the natural magic within the world that JKR has created. Anyone could feel the absence of the nature of the magical world that Alfonso Cuaron has beautifully executed in the third movie. Hell, I didn't really like Cuaron's Potter film as much as I am fond of Christopher Columbus's classic Potter films, but I prefer Alfonso's directing and ideas SO MUCH MORE than Newell's. Newell's handling of the camera angles and rushed cuts were terribly directed.
Back to the returning young actors and actresses... Whoever has been complimenting Emma Watson and her acting skills should get an acting lesson with the actress herself. Watson completely turned this movie into the most annoying film EVER. Her over-the-top enunciation of every syllable of every word was very irritating. Her heavy breathes in every line in every scene were as disturbing. Of course, with the contribution of Michael Gambon's menopausal Dumbledore, it's officially become the worst film of the year.
Where has the twinkling blue eyes gone? All I see from Gambon's Dumbledore is the clear lack of authority. Dumbledore has officially (can't find another word) become a dumbarsse. Oh how I miss the late Richard Harris-- the perfect and most brilliant Dumbledore ever. And what happened to Snape? Why has Snape become a physically sadistic sore loser? Steve Klove's brain must be deteriorating (he's the screen writer, for those of you who are not aware).
Now, on to the new characters... The Triwizard Champions: do NOT expect to see or hear much of them in this movie. They are as "extras" as the talented Rupert Grint (aka Ron Weasley) is in the movies-- sadly. Katie Leung, the "popular" newcomer (aka Harry's first love interest) did an okay job for a first-timer. At least she didn't make me cringe... a lot.
Brendan Gleeson who played Mad-Eye Moody, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor, is clearly a very talented actor. But honestly, he is NOT the Moody that I imagined from reading the books-- not only physically, but the way his character's attitude was executed in the movie was just not how it was written in the books.
Miranda Richardson, who played the nosy journalist Rita Skeeter, was one of the few good aspects of this movie. She was simply fantastic. She carried Skeeter's character VERY, VERY well. Her execution was just perfectly SPOT ON.
And Ralph Fiennes, who plays He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named VOLDEMORT--- *sigh*--- HE REALLY SAVED THIS MOVIE. Just when I thought I couldn't see anymore of this movie's worsts, Fiennes impresses his viewers with the most convincing, terrifying, and quite loving Voldemort ever. He showed Voldemort's character in a very genuine way. I absolutely LOVED him (except of course the blue eyes which were supposed to be red, but that's more of the production staff's fault/decision).
In conclusion, this movie SUCKED. There were NO house elves. There were NO house ghosts. But there were the worst performances in history such as Gambon's and Watson's.
And yes folks, I have to say that the First Task/Dragon scene was painfully boring and way too long. I believe it was only there to show off some fancy effects which I thought were pretty lame. I'd rather see the natural ghosts running around Hogwarts than a freaking stupid-looking dragon.
I give this movie a 2/10 (for Fiennes' and Richardson's great performances). But seriously, I'd rather watch the first movie, Philosopher's Stone, any bloody day. Even with its not-so-good Quidditch effects, it's still a classic by Chris Columbus.
The ghosts that make Hogwarts unique amongst many other fantasy films have ironically been "magically" vanished. Not one can be seen in The Great Hall and/or in between classes. Moaning Myrtle, of course, was spared for a cheap laugh. This movie has officially lost its magic.
Some of the young actors, however, have improved. Daniel Radcliffe, who had the worst performance in Prisoner of Azkaban, showed a bit of improvement with his "crying" skill(s)-- but just slightly. His improved acting skill doesn't justify Goblet of Fire's bad direction and editing.
Mike Newell did a terrible job capturing the natural magic within the world that JKR has created. Anyone could feel the absence of the nature of the magical world that Alfonso Cuaron has beautifully executed in the third movie. Hell, I didn't really like Cuaron's Potter film as much as I am fond of Christopher Columbus's classic Potter films, but I prefer Alfonso's directing and ideas SO MUCH MORE than Newell's. Newell's handling of the camera angles and rushed cuts were terribly directed.
Back to the returning young actors and actresses... Whoever has been complimenting Emma Watson and her acting skills should get an acting lesson with the actress herself. Watson completely turned this movie into the most annoying film EVER. Her over-the-top enunciation of every syllable of every word was very irritating. Her heavy breathes in every line in every scene were as disturbing. Of course, with the contribution of Michael Gambon's menopausal Dumbledore, it's officially become the worst film of the year.
Where has the twinkling blue eyes gone? All I see from Gambon's Dumbledore is the clear lack of authority. Dumbledore has officially (can't find another word) become a dumbarsse. Oh how I miss the late Richard Harris-- the perfect and most brilliant Dumbledore ever. And what happened to Snape? Why has Snape become a physically sadistic sore loser? Steve Klove's brain must be deteriorating (he's the screen writer, for those of you who are not aware).
Now, on to the new characters... The Triwizard Champions: do NOT expect to see or hear much of them in this movie. They are as "extras" as the talented Rupert Grint (aka Ron Weasley) is in the movies-- sadly. Katie Leung, the "popular" newcomer (aka Harry's first love interest) did an okay job for a first-timer. At least she didn't make me cringe... a lot.
Brendan Gleeson who played Mad-Eye Moody, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor, is clearly a very talented actor. But honestly, he is NOT the Moody that I imagined from reading the books-- not only physically, but the way his character's attitude was executed in the movie was just not how it was written in the books.
Miranda Richardson, who played the nosy journalist Rita Skeeter, was one of the few good aspects of this movie. She was simply fantastic. She carried Skeeter's character VERY, VERY well. Her execution was just perfectly SPOT ON.
And Ralph Fiennes, who plays He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named VOLDEMORT--- *sigh*--- HE REALLY SAVED THIS MOVIE. Just when I thought I couldn't see anymore of this movie's worsts, Fiennes impresses his viewers with the most convincing, terrifying, and quite loving Voldemort ever. He showed Voldemort's character in a very genuine way. I absolutely LOVED him (except of course the blue eyes which were supposed to be red, but that's more of the production staff's fault/decision).
In conclusion, this movie SUCKED. There were NO house elves. There were NO house ghosts. But there were the worst performances in history such as Gambon's and Watson's.
And yes folks, I have to say that the First Task/Dragon scene was painfully boring and way too long. I believe it was only there to show off some fancy effects which I thought were pretty lame. I'd rather see the natural ghosts running around Hogwarts than a freaking stupid-looking dragon.
I give this movie a 2/10 (for Fiennes' and Richardson's great performances). But seriously, I'd rather watch the first movie, Philosopher's Stone, any bloody day. Even with its not-so-good Quidditch effects, it's still a classic by Chris Columbus.
The Wolves of Kromer
(1998)
One word: "Heaven"
1 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's entertaining but corny. It's funny but makes you say "what the hell?" It's witty but predictable.
This is a story about two werewolves (gay boys) falling in and out of love while dangerously hunted by the towns people.
Want SPOILER? No sex scene for the two main characters. There, I said it. But there is hetero sex between the gay guy and the girl >_> Very disappointing. LOL. There are plenty of hot gay kisses/make outs though.
Want to watch a low-budget film but with really very hot guy characters? Watch this! LOL.
The funniest about this movie is the bit about the dog and "dog heaven." LOL.
This is a story about two werewolves (gay boys) falling in and out of love while dangerously hunted by the towns people.
Want SPOILER? No sex scene for the two main characters. There, I said it. But there is hetero sex between the gay guy and the girl >_> Very disappointing. LOL. There are plenty of hot gay kisses/make outs though.
Want to watch a low-budget film but with really very hot guy characters? Watch this! LOL.
The funniest about this movie is the bit about the dog and "dog heaven." LOL.
Like Grains of Sand
(1995)
Amazingly beautiful and very insightful!
30 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Nagisa no Shindobaddo" or "Like Grains of Sand" is an amazingly beautiful story about teenage boys and girls dealing with the state of becoming one with who they are. This movie isn't about homosexuality, but it IS about sexuality.
Aihara, an aloof girl, will definitely make the viewers ponder who IS behind the aloof girl. Does she love Yoshida? Or does she love Ito? Or did she somehow turn into a lesbian because of the "incident"? (I doubt it).
And what about Yoshida? Does he realize that he loves Ito in the end? Well, we all know he loves him as a friend. But you'll never know once you see this movie... haha :) In the end, Aihara (along with Ito) delivers an exceptional message to the audience: which is that it does NOT matter if you love a boy or a girl. And I have to tell you, I'm SO dense that I didn't get it at first. ^^;; It's because of the whole no talking scenes... You have to try to understand what the characters are thinking and saying through their actions and NOT by what they say (especially the final part... whew, boy, that was confusing!) It's a confusing story, but it IS beautiful nonetheless. :) This movie is certainly one of the best Japanese movies I have ever seen (and trust me, I've seen plenty).
Aihara, an aloof girl, will definitely make the viewers ponder who IS behind the aloof girl. Does she love Yoshida? Or does she love Ito? Or did she somehow turn into a lesbian because of the "incident"? (I doubt it).
And what about Yoshida? Does he realize that he loves Ito in the end? Well, we all know he loves him as a friend. But you'll never know once you see this movie... haha :) In the end, Aihara (along with Ito) delivers an exceptional message to the audience: which is that it does NOT matter if you love a boy or a girl. And I have to tell you, I'm SO dense that I didn't get it at first. ^^;; It's because of the whole no talking scenes... You have to try to understand what the characters are thinking and saying through their actions and NOT by what they say (especially the final part... whew, boy, that was confusing!) It's a confusing story, but it IS beautiful nonetheless. :) This movie is certainly one of the best Japanese movies I have ever seen (and trust me, I've seen plenty).
Queer as Folk
(2000–2005)
A Series That Will Never Be Forgotten... EVER.
12 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Queer As Folk has everything. It has the most amazing songs. The most likable and hateable characters. The most awesome plot line. And the wittiest script ever written.
You have to have an open mind to watch this series because of the sexual context. But I doubt it will bother you anyway, because no one can resist the absolutely hunky protagonist Brian and his 'partner in crime,' adorable-bubble-butt Justin.
This series will make you weep, cry in frustration and joy, scream, giggle, will even make you horny and lucky, and will definitely make you laugh your arse out loud that you won't be able to pee for a day. Queer As Folk is so addicting that you won't be able to leave your seat once it's on the TV screen.
**SPOILERS**
Even though it only has five seasons and a quite disappointing series finale (Justin and Brian go their separate ways), it's very worth it to watch over and over again.
I recommend seasons 1 and 2 (and a little bit of 3) more than the rest of the seasons.
By the way, I saw this when I was 13. And it isn't as "pornographic" as some critics might say.
You have to have an open mind to watch this series because of the sexual context. But I doubt it will bother you anyway, because no one can resist the absolutely hunky protagonist Brian and his 'partner in crime,' adorable-bubble-butt Justin.
This series will make you weep, cry in frustration and joy, scream, giggle, will even make you horny and lucky, and will definitely make you laugh your arse out loud that you won't be able to pee for a day. Queer As Folk is so addicting that you won't be able to leave your seat once it's on the TV screen.
**SPOILERS**
Even though it only has five seasons and a quite disappointing series finale (Justin and Brian go their separate ways), it's very worth it to watch over and over again.
I recommend seasons 1 and 2 (and a little bit of 3) more than the rest of the seasons.
By the way, I saw this when I was 13. And it isn't as "pornographic" as some critics might say.
Tell Your Friends