Dia Klain Reviews

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

Atrocious adaptation

[2/10 · 15 December 2011]

This movie is an atrocity to a very very good book. It is so bad that i actually stopped watching half way though. I don't know how it was possible to f up this amazing book, but this movie sure did it. Everything that was good has been chucked in favor of slashed together overly "artsy" scenes that do f all to give a story or character development. Seriously, i can not for the life of me comprehend why it has a 7.9 on IMDb. In the book you see wonderful character development in the mother as her life slowly falls apart due to her relationship with her son. In the movie the mother seems unstable and crazy in every scene, you know nothing about her, and you do not care. It feels like it's trying too hard to be an "artsy" flick but ends up being tremendously boring.

Batman Begins (2005)

Batman Begins the worst "comic book" movie i have seen in a long time.

[5/10 · 9 July 2005]

A movie that tries to take comic book films to a new level. It tells the story of the birth of Batman and the beginning of all that which, with time, becomes essential for the batman legend; the bat cave, Archam, Commisionar Gordon, so on. The problem, in my mind, (although, to so many people this is the strength) is that the movie completely lacks the comic book flair. In my mind comic book movies should not be made as realistic as possible. There is no need for the Batman that we love to do marital arts training in some far off land to add "respectability" to the movie. Someone commented that with this film "Comic-book films grow up at last" but why the hell should they be growing up? The batman comic book is nothing like the Lord of the Rings trilogy and there is no reason to apply the same movie making formula to it. (you know, the formula; make it take itself seriously + add in "good" character development + good acting + make sure there isn't too much action + take everything from the fantastical to the "down to earth") And why does this formula work oh so well? Let me tell you why, because the Snobs of America feel this is what our "shallow" cinema "needs" to make itself more respectable, because they can come out of the movie feeling good about themselves for enjoying it. Sin City, the only comic book movie I can think of that literally was the comic book but in movie form, it worked. Daredevil which so many people found distasteful, was a perfectly fine movie based on a comic book. The characters were unrealistic, over the top, and it had an unrealistic artistic style that Batman Begins sacrificed for realism. Comic books are not just stories they are works of art! They are COMICS Some comics are serious, yes, like say, Watchmen, but this does not apply to superhero comics. Want to see a good Batman movie? Go see the first two that were ever made. Sure the characters were different, the story a bit off, but that doesn't matter, it was "batman". This? This was an action flick masquerading behind the bat mask. The only redeeming feature of this movie I could think of was the Scarecrow, but even he was confined to realism and hardly developed.

A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Surprisingly good

[10/10 · 23 December 2004]

I saw A Series of Unfortunate events and it was WONDERFUL. No, I am not kidding it really was. NO, I was not on drugs, I actually really loved it. No, not because of the extremely hot guy… OK so he was extremely hot, but even if he wasn't it was still very good! So here is what was good about the movie: -it had awesome snakes (especially that big yellow one. Will Circe get that huge one day?) -It had the general musty feel of the books (though not quite so dark, which I actually liked), -Each scene was beautiful without looking fake or tacky, -the acting and casting was awesome…Jim Carry's overacting was actually appropriate for once! -the screenplay wasn't nearly as bad as they say in some reviews (it was quite good actually, and it resembled the books' style) -yes they did stuff a few books into one movie but it really sped things up and worked better then it usually does -the characters looked the way I imagined them -ok, so there was an optimistic (not happy, just optimistic) ending, but so what? I liked it! -the credits were by far the best I have ever seen

Bad things about this movie -it ended

in style this reminded me a great deal of the new Peter Pan (which I also adore) If you like this you should definitely see it. (please note that I only read a few of the books and am not familiar with the whole series)

The Crow (1994)

It can't rain all the time except in the movies and in Hawaii.

[14 June 2004]

A lovely bit of goth that takes place in a city where fun-lovin' villains rule the streets and cops eat junk food at local diners… a LOT. A lovely place where it is always night, and always raining. But it can't rain all the time! In the beginning of the movie a tragedy takes place, a couple is murdered by the local crime scene. Business as usual, unfortunately the guy doesn't seem to stay dead, he climbs out of his grave a year later deep in sorrow and anger. Not so deep, however, that he neglects such important tasks as putting on make up and looking cool and stylish, if this guy is so good in his time of sadness, I'd love to see him in the better years. So the boy friend is alive and well and (as a slight bones) invincible. Rather then wondering what he is doing back on earth and how to get that lovely girl lying next to him out to be with him, he goes on a classy rampage to kill everyone who wronged him on that dire day. He does. As for the fun-lovin' villains, they aren't having no fun! The local crime boss is dissatisfied with life and wishes it involved more spontaneous anarchy. I can see how in his structured mob where everyone has their place, their value, their territory, and their boss a bit of anarchy could be called for. Don't get me wrong, this is a great movie, it really is, but I find making fun of it a bit greater.

Van Helsing (2004)

This scared me.

[1/10 · 7 May 2004]

You know how big budget American movies have this reputation of being bad (due to badly contrived plots, bad unrealistic affects, generic hero/heroin, obvious ending, eye candy that isn't all that sweet) yah that's the kind. Well this movie, let me tell you, is the KING of all the movies with that stereotype. Let me explain something first of all, this is NOT a review of Van Hellsing, maybe, one day, when I have nothing better to do I'll write one, today is not the day, however. Today is the day when I will simply say this is quite possibly the worst big budget action movie of its genre. The guy who did this was famous for the Mummy. Personally I feel the Mummy was good (ok, so the second was bad but still…) THIS, however… well… let's put it this way, the first 5 min are good. The second color filters into the movie it goes downhill. And just when it hits the bottom and you know it can't get worse, it starts borrowing into the ground to get even lower. I would like to also stress that this movie has more plot holes that I noticed (upon one viewing only I might add) then all other movies I have ever seen (and I'v seen a lot)… that, right there, should say something.

Swimming Pool (2003)

Mover over Lolita, there's a new slut in town.

[13 January 2004]

Is this movie called Swimming Pool because it shows scenes of one rather regularly (along with half naked girl by it) or because one needs to jump in a cold one after the end? Either way, the title fits. Personally, I am not one for French directors, at all. The slow paced, plotless style of French movies does not appeal to me at this time. I watched this movie because I wanted to see more of the acclaimed Ludivine Sagnier whom I found charming as Tink in the new Peter Pan. And boy did I see more of her! I saw lots of her, and, let me say, although her breasts are slightly saggy, she is one hot modern lolita. The story involves an uptight British writer who, finding herself frustrated with… something… decides to spend time in a house in France, where she stumbles upon the owners smoking,drinking,whorelike daughter. She is generally incredibly curious, and gets entangled in the girls life… sort of. The movie had an unreal quality about it. The characters and events seemed foggy. Both the lead roles acted very unrealistically, in my opinion, but maybe it is normal to watch a teen screw very ugly older men. I am not sure what it was trying to accomplish Of course, I absolutely loved it due to Sagnier's portrayal of Julie, but am not quite ready to proclaim this a good movie! Some will most certainly enjoy it (especially the Lolita loving crowd) but some will wonder `what the hell were they thinking'.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

last? i hope so!

[3/10 · 25 July 2003]

Well well well, I just got back from Lara Croft TR2. My costume was great. The movie, on the other hand, was not so great. I do not know where people got that this is better then the first. The action was less interesting, the plot was almost identical, there was no `secret organization' just a stupid bad guy, same `bad good' guy who she had a `fling' with in the past. This movie is a better example of how the games got worse then the games (considering the only really bad thing about the later games was that it was all expected and done before). Spare yourself and play Angel of Darkness instead people!

Resident Evil (2002)

Perfect example of "commertial BAD movie"

[4/10 · 31 July 2002]

I cannot believe as many people liked it as is. This movie was ... beyond believe bad. Perhaps it is my total dislike for zombie movies ... perhaps it was not, but... STOP MAKING BAD MOVIES HOLLYWOOD! thinks that were wrong 1) the action took place in totally uninteresting places.. At least make it pretty!!! old mansion. HALLO! 2)um. plot? is it there.. um. ok by the end it lurks around the corner. try having it in sooner 3) what the HELL is going on (my only thought the first hour 45 min) 4)ok so the filming was done well but what are they filming...(remember to get make up tips from 13 Ghosts next time) 5) the ending was quite cool except for the fact that it's only there to provide a bridge for the next Resident Evil movie which... what do you know!... is coming out in 2003 no less!

The Breed (2001)

Why is this great movie disliked?

[9/10 · 1 July 2002]

I simply can NOT understand what people where thinking when they were writing the reviews I have read for this movie… Or, for that matter, what they were thinking while watching the movie. I believe it to be EXCELLENT. Defiantly in the top 20 movies I have ever seen. Not only was the take on vampires refreshingly different, the futuristic yet old rationed style of the movie was excellent. I am bad at detective plots so it got a bit confusing to me, but over all I enjoyed it immensely all three times. The acting was pretty good of the vampires. Woodbine, playing Steve, however, was incredibly bad. Either that, or his character, which was beyond idiotic, made me think of him worse then I should. At any rate, I do not recommend this movie to anyone, people seem to hate it. I can, however, say I believe it to be MUCH better then Blade, and it has a strange mix of the style from The Matrix and Brazil. If you are a fan of both of those movies, you are sure to at least somewhat enjoy it.

Scooby-Doo (2002)

Yet another Scooby Doo review

[5/10 · 26 June 2002]

Scooby Doo, where are you? The little gang of mystery solvers has descended onto the big screen. Real and breathing… except, that is, for the computer-generated dog. I shall quickly mention the old and new fans of this popular dated cartoon. I do not know how they felt about this movie; I am not one of them. I hate the cartoon for it is not only tersely repetitive but pointless, full of irritatingly repeating clishays and dreary old style animation, which I am NOT a fan of. I only spent money to see this movie out of the interest of how these characters were brought to life. That, and a passive interest in the actors Matthew Lillard and Sarah Michelle Gellar.

The Positive – Totally within the spirit of the animated Scooby Doo (I am reluctant to say I have watched the cartoon many a time), the characters, voices and actions, as well as those irritating memorable lines such as `like' or `Scooby Doo, where are you?' were readily repeated. The most amusing performance, or the one most to my liking, was Gellar as Velma. She gave a very intense feeling of a bitchy material girl which suites the actress quite well. One comment on her though, WHY WAS THE PURPLE SO DAMNED PINK?! Her clothes should have been more of a blue purple then a pink purple… those idiots. Ahm. Right. Sorry but that just really got to me.

The Negative – Ok, no offence, I too am a computer freak, but the computer animation mixed with reality in supposedly `living' creatures is reeeeealy starting to get to me in the latest high budget movies. I am so proud of the latest Planet of the Apes for NOT putting computer graphics everywhere were makeup and costume get a little complicated. It looks stupid and ridiculous and just does not fit into the movie realistically.

In conclusion, the movie was enjoyable, but breezy and thoughtless, which, after all, is what it should have been like.

Spider-Man (2002)

Weave yourself into a comfy web and enjoy.

[9/10 · 10 June 2002]

Spiderman Spider man; a true comic book hero brought to life. A movie that delivers the action but does not take itself too seriously while it's at it. Where cheesy love lines and predictable action sequences are enjoyable and awaited rather then shunned. One problem I have with many modern superhero movies is that they totally lose the idea of `kid entertainment brought to life' and instead try to pull off some sort of Matrix. This is one of the problems I found in X Men. It took itself excessively seriously. There was absolutely no hummer in the movie what so ever. Where humor was to be expected one found heavy drama. Spiderman, on the other hand, felt like a cartoon, just with real people. The fake look of the Green Goblin was amusing, as was the swing of the `human spider' from building to towering building. This is for those Spiderman fans out there, the new and the old, this is NOT for someone in love with Blade II; they would probably do better with The Scorpion King. Know who you are and do not complain about this movie if you would not be caught dead watching the cartoon or reading the comics. The one comment I have is that it failed to explain what powers the Green Goblin had or how the second spider costume came about, other then that, the movie satisfied me perfectly.

The Lost Boys (1987)

Poisoned blood

[10 June 2002]

Let me start out by saying that I started this movie with absolutely minimal expectations. This being very difficult on my part considering all the reviews I read proclaiming its godlike presence. I first heard of it while reading reviews for some other less acclaimed vampire movie and `needless to say, this is not The Lost Boys' or something much like it, came up suspiciously often, as though The Lost Boys was the highest of the high. At top of the vampire film autography food chain. So, one rather uninteresting day, I rented the movie in the, mind you, favorites section of Family Video. I could not find one single bad or just `ok' opinion of this movie. Down I sat to watch it, still, my expectations were not high. Even they, however, were NOT met. This movie would have been a fun little bit of entertainment to watch had I been 13 rather then 17. As it was however, it was a shallow peace of childish entertainment. Example of a good vampire movie: Interview with the Vampire.

Spider-Man (2002)

Weave yourself into a comfy web and enjoy

[9/10 · 3 May 2002]

Spiderman: a true comic book hero brought alive. A movie that delivers the action but does not take itself too seriously while it's at it. Where cheesy love lines and predictable action sequences are enjoyable and awaited rather then shunned. One problem I have with many modern superhero movies is that they totally lose the idea of `kid entertainment brought to life' and instead try to pull off some sort of Matrix. This is one of the problems I found in X Men. It took itself excessively seriously. There was absolutely no hummer in the movie what so ever. Where humor was to be expected one found heavy drama. Spiderman, on the other hand, felt like a cartoon, just with real people. The fake look of the Green Goblin was amusing, as was the swing of the Spiderman from building to towering building. This is for those Spiderman fans out there, the new and the old, this is NOT for someone in love with Blade II; they would probably do better with The Scorpion King. Know who you are and do not complain about this movie if you not be caught dead watching the cartoon or reading the comics. The one comment I have is that it failed to explain what powers the Green Goblin had, other then that, the movie satisfied me perfectly. Wonderful acting.

Queen of the Damned (2002)

Party f color but little else.

[5 April 2002]

This is a relatively low budget movie that was not even going to be played in the theaters. The famous R&B singer Aalyiah died in the plain crash, and this, however sad, is the best form of advertising the movie could have dreamed of. Now it has the chance to be a blockbuster hit; it is played in movie theaters and is widely advertised weeks prier to its release. So the chance to become a hit arose, but the movie failed horribly. The question is, why? No matter how nice the special affects were, no matter how sweet the movie for the eye, no matter how sexy the Irish actor playing Lestat, Stuart Townsend, is as he parades around the stage and crawls on the floor with no shirt. Still, despite all this, the movie made one dreadful mistake. But before I inform the world of it, let me first show the difference between Anne Rice’s The Vampire Lestat, and Queen of the Damned (both of which the movie attempted to embrace. The Vampire Lestat is a character based book. It is the story of Lestat de Lioncourt and emphasizes emotions, and character. The Vampire Armand, Interview with the Vampire, and Blood and Gold, as well as Pandora, are all such character based novels. Queen of the Damned, however, is the one novel which is NOT character based, but instead is more of a historical documentation of Vampires. There is no star; in Queen of the Damned, or, if there is, it is the history. In combining aspects of Queen of the Damned and The Vampire Lestat the movie succeeded in capturing neither fully. One never actually hears the history of Vampires, Never even is introduced to the characters, Pandora and Armand. Neither does one sense the full character of Lestat, or his history. In one word, the movie felt confused as to what it was trying to be.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Slow as the feloship's journy.

[5 April 2002]

Let me start by saying that I never liked the book Lord of the Rings. Happy memories entwine me from when I was about 12 and would sit and draw while listening to The Hobbit. The Hobbit was ingenious and clever, while Lord of the Rings felt like a dreary old history book. Now we come to the movie, what can I say? I saw it in the theaters the first week it came out. Did I like it? This is not the question; more precisely let me state that, yes, it did, so far as I could tell, follow the book, perhaps not only that, but it had the feel of the book. It flowed as the book does, and it was every bit as boring. Just as in the book it started out charmingly with the little Hobbit village, quivered on the edge of being intriguing for a moment, but soon wound its way into a tireless sickle of attacks, runs, and frustratingly predictable sentimentality. Yes I fidgeted and yawned, but finally gathered myself to sit though and enjoy, just as the movie uncompromisingly, frustratingly, ended. So this is one idea I propose. PUT A STOP TO MULTI PART MOVIES!!! Yes I can understand making a movie that is complete in of itself, it has a beginning and and end, such as Star Wars episode one, yet you know there are three coming up, but The Lord of the Rings did not even have the climax in the movie, all it had was the meat usually found in the second third of the book. As sorry I am to say, even the nice effects did not make this movie more then just another average; that could have waited for my home screen.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

I was truely AMASED!!!

[1/10 · 11 January 2002]

This movie surprised me beyond belief. I was expecting a very beautiful CG movie with a plot similar to Lost In Space. Nothing spectacular, but at least enjoyable. But what I got was… well… how to put this…

1) Making actual human realistic looking characters entirely out of CG looks bad, fake, and embarrassing. For god's sake, it's like hiring a bunch of reeeeeeeeeeeeealy stiff actors and having someone else do the voicing for them. And what was with the Ben Affleck clone? I mean, come on. That guy made Ben look good and that's pretty bad. All I can say is this was a total mistake to even make. Shrek and Monsters Inc. are suited for CG not actual humans, learn it live it. God! 2) The movie was reeeeeeeealy good about slowly itching into the plot so that the problems occurred with time and I actually understood them, and knew enough with the world to care. The characters did not just jump into mindless action that made me bored as hell from the very beginning. N O T. It did the opposite. It started out as if it was already the middle of the movie, I was lost and didn't care one bit what would happen, in my opinion the talk with the old professor would have made a better beginning.

3) BOORING PLOT. Um. I do believe this was the first time I rented a movie and only watched the first 30 min of it. In conclusion, this is not just a bad movie. This is a movie that should not have been made. And all of the people who liked it. shame shame SHAME on you!!! (oh. and one last thing. CG SUCKED because they will suck no matter what whey those idiots try to apply it to humans). Uggg. Just use real humans next time.

Pet Shop of Horrors (1999)

Dreams, but be worned.

[9/10 · 20 December 2001]

The Petshop of horrors with it's androgynous proprietor is a mystery to a sustain very irritatingly American detective. And yet to all others it is but a place of love and dreams. Oh, until they go against the agreement that is. But, that is not Count's fault. Truly a peace of art with beautiful animation, very little action, and a great lesson to be learned at the end of each episode. It could be considered rather repetitive after a while, but until then, it is a great example of Japanimation.

Not Another Teen Movie (2001)

Yet Another Teen Movie... pretending to be better. lol

[19 December 2001]

Hmm, how do I make more money? Wait! I know! Let's make a parody of every single genre out there! That would do it for sure! Oh YAY. Ok, so Scary Movie had it's ups, and perhaps this did too. It was funnier then American Pie, but that's not saying much. My biggest complaint is that it is too obvious and in your face. The toilet scene, the painting, the coach. Another irritating aspect was that the plots were copied a bit too obviously. Mainly the plots from Breakfast Club, Cruel Intentions, and She's All That. They practically took chunks of the movie and set them into this one, that made it a bit boring. Honestly, I enjoyed the little things the most, the beginning with the separation of the cliques, the `walk' of the three popular girls like in Jawbreaker, the `slow' entrance scenes and the clapping. The toilet scene was ABSOLUTELY unnecessary. To me humor just isn't as funny when it is trying to be as obvious as it possibly can, so even a total moron who only saw the trailers to all the teen movies would still understand it. If you're out there for an unsophisticated lode of laughs, take a peace of this cake, but be wear of the tooth ache from all the unnecessary sugar. Anyway, if you want a good old parody watch Monty Python, if you want a pie in your face parody watch this. It is also interesting to mention something that just occurred to me. Most Parodies are parodies of parodies, for the typical teen movie is a parody in itself. Now all that's left is making a parody of the parody of the parody

Batman Forever (1995)

Forevr forgetable

[19 December 2001]

Undoubtedly this is the cute alternative solution to Batman Returns' small success. Personally I find it to be rather crappy. The shoreline was not gripping in its simplicity. Two face was as some silly sidekick rather then a full fledged character all on his own. Now, I was never found of Two Face, and this movie did zilch to remade that. He should have had a better shoreline explaining why he because so two sided. Perhaps they should have shown him before his accident. The Riddler worked better, his story was more understandable and his attitude better shown. Has anyone yet made note of the pattern for the villains for Batman Movies. At the start of the movie one is already in active hatred with the ways of the world. His story is told in little flashes to the past. The other one rises from harmless to full fledged violin in the duration of this movie. Naturally they sort of get together in a way and sparks fly on both sides (not love sparks. fighting sparks, you silly you). So this is the well worked formula, what went amiss in Batman Forever is that Two Face just did not have enough flashbacks to be any good as a character. I did not care anything for when he died, and, from what I could tell, neither did the movie, considering how dismissingly he was killed. On the positive side, the flashbacks of Batman were well done, though could have led to more, and Robin was well developed. All in all, an average movie that should have given Nicole Kidman a bigger part.

Amarcord (1973)

To see the world through Fellini's eyes.

[19 December 2001]

Even though my experience with Fellini does not extend beyond Amarcord and Satyricon, I believe that of the two, this one is the best one. It is a slight less dreamy and, perhaps, easier to get through. What made this movie `work' was the endless expanse of characters that blotted it. For Fellini seems a master of abstract charecature characters and story lines. There are, for example, the teachers, the prostitute, the sophisticated ladies, the wild children, the parents, the mad uncle, the girl with the white face. This town is a town of faces, of memories, of what had been.

X-Men (2000)

X this one out of your list of must sees. C

[22 October 2001]

This peace of emptiness would have been alright if I simply went to the movie theater, happened to see it's poster, and went to see it (mind you, it would not be great, but would feel alright). As it was, I waited for it for three months. I read all about it and when I finally went it failed to satisfy. For one thing, the characters were no good. Where may I ask was Gambit, for example? Since when is Rogue a confused little girl? What happened to the voluptuous back talking woman? I would have preferred more concentration on Mystique since she was just about the only interesting character in this washed out rag. I sincerely hope Spiderman will be better (I do not have any hopes for the future X-Men2/3).

Batman & Robin (1997)

Alright, if not the best. C

[22 October 2001]

The first thing to be expected of a perfectly fine sequel after an explosion of the first movie is that after all the sells and memorabilia and trinkets, most people will still hate it. The question that I need answered is just what, exactly, is so very wrong with this movie?! Alright, so I admit that Alicia as Batgirl was rather irritating and the idea of a Robin I always found to be a bother. He is like some stupid sidekick that won't go away and has no point. I loved the whole line about Poison Ivy though. She literally made this movie. I did think that it needed to be, perhaps, a bit darker and a bit less popsy (in other words more with the feel of Batman Returns) but other then that, it was alright. Again, I find, as in Batman Returns, the combination of a villain and villainous does wonders to improve a movie.

Batman (1989)

Yawn. Yawn. Ahm. Ok, no wait, one more coming up. Yawn. Ok. C-

[22 October 2001]

This is the picture that started it all. Is there anyone who does not like this picture better then all the following? Better yet, anyone who dislikes it above all others? Well, if you have not before heard of one who does, now you have, that is right boys and girls. This movies is worse then all the rest. Why? Lots of reasons to be explained later. First, however, I would like to embark on a short journey to explain just why it is sooo popular. It consists of two solid reasons the first of which can be applied to most first movies in a series. It is the first of it's kind, first born, so to speak. Someone has to be first in order to have a second and this is the one that happened to be it. So what am I saying? If another like Batman Returns was the initial grain it would be loved to bits as well? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, so just admit it already! The other reason is that Jack Nicholson happened to be in it and, as anyone can tell, it does not take grand acting abilities on his part to play a joker. He is, shall I say, a natural at it. Now that that is over why don't I go over the not-so-good points? Besides the shoreline being boring and childish, the one bad guy rather then two does not work as well to peek interest. The helpless maiden in distress is irritating beyond belief. Batman movies are soo much better with fisty girls rather then little pillow maidens made of glass and blond hair. Lastly, perhaps this one would have been better had it been made a bit later because as it is, it looks old.

Batman Returns (1992)

My be scratched with bad ratings, but what do they know?

[21 October 2001]

All Prepare to be shocked! To be insulted and astounded. I actually liked this one. That is right, I liked this one more then all the rest! So, what ya ganna do? Hah? Shoot me? And, to tell the trough, it seemed to me the first Batman movie just didn't work. It had too much of an oldie feel, and also, seems like the Batman movies are a lot better when there are two nasty blokes involved. I loved both the darkness and the shoreline in this one. Catwoman captivates and enthralls as a voluptuous bad girl and the Penguin is a sorry creature that one feels for. I greatly like when the supposed villain is not black and white bad but gray just like everyone in real life. I also think that the male/female combo on the dark side does wanders to make films better. I think the combination of bad girl and bad boy in each movie is a splendid one and works wanders. So, is this movie the best? I am inclined to say it is. I loved the beginning with Penguin and thought both his story and the Catwoman's could stand alone in quality. Also, I have a great liking for the funny little people that hung round Penguin. The fist one was new so it was loved immensely, but it was not that good. I do not believe that any movie after the first could have possibly measured up to it in most people's eyes. I, however, think it does true justice to Batman.

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

Lovely flick about a sick skirt... among other things.

[10 October 2001]

Though in plot somewhat different from the book in spirit it captured the written text supremely well. The characters, the humor, the comedy of the situations that charmed us all in the book are all present. And, although I must admit after being dragged to it for the third time I was a wee bit sick of it, still, it brought much enjoyment and pleasure. What a nice change Bridget is from the ever present popsy pretty Barbie dolls that America always has to stick into their romantic comedies. How wonderful to hear for once some snappy conversations rather then the ever flat usual burble. And finally, how nice to see real characters and people rather then washed out dolls ( I know I mentioned that before. but it's worth mentioning again). All in all, a true romantic comedy worth watching, and in very close spirit to the book.