Change Your Image
careax
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Simply breath-taking!!
What can one say about this stunning finale to the trilogy? There are no words in any tongue (be it in the real world or in the fantasy realm of Middle Earth) that can do justice to this incredible creation.
The acting is exceptional, the costumes and sets are perfect, the camera work is excellent, the direction and production are inspired, the action sequences are pulse-racing, the battles are mind-boggling, and the cinematography is awesome. I loved the first two films with a passion, but Return Of The King is, in my eyes (and in many others from what I hear), the best of the three.
Be warned: this is a long movie! But if you're a fan of fine motion pictures you honestly won't notice the time go by. Because of the nature of the story in the third book (the meeting of certain characters who had been separated), the film doesn't have that slightly fragmented feel of The Two Towers - which in some subtle ways suffers from the all-to-common middle movie disjointed syndrome. While there are still multiple threads in Return Of The King, it somehow seems more settled and flows more easily.
There are a few ommissions from the storyline, but they don't detract from the movie at all. And if the previous two movies are anything to go by, these scenes and threads will probably appear in the Extended Edition later next year. Most importantly, it really was necessary to leave them out of the theatrical release, otherwise the plot would have dragged. I don't want to say what they are and spoil the experience for others, but if you've read the book you'll easily spot them.
The thing that was most pleasing about this movie was its ending. It really does give a sense of closure to the trilogy. Some might say it drags on too long, but in my opinion it is like good food or fine wine - it is something to be savored and enjoyed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Return Of The King doesn't win the Best Picture award at the Oscars. Not because of the movie but rather because the Oscars have nothing to do with awarding the best in the industry. Sadly they have simply become a back-slapping exercise for Hollywood insiders. And like many of the time-honored classics, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy was made by outsiders with genuine passion and fresh ideas.
But the opinions of the movie goers and the box office sales cannot deny it: this is and will remain the best movie of the year. And the trilogy will grow in stature as time goes by.
Gods and Generals (2003)
One long, distorted disappointment of a movie
It's not often I look forward to watching a new(ish) movie, but usually they deliver and leave a satisfying after-taste. Unfortunately this movie just proved to be a big disappointment.
To be fair, Gods and Generals does deserve a some credit. The cinematography was marvelous. The attention to detail on machinery, clothing and architecture was good. The camera work was well done, and and the battle scenes were impressive.
But this movie has some fundamental flaws that totally eclipsed these good points. Firstly, it was too long and contained too much detritus that added nothing to the storyline. Despite the best efforts of the actors (who did admirably considering the poor material they were working with), the character portrayals often went off on dead-end tangents. The script was also peppered with pompous, sentimental fluff that dragged on for far too long.
Secondly, this movie portrayed slavery in the south in a shamefully distorted light. The only two black characters in the movie are both treated in a patronizing and overly simplistic way, and no real account is given of the countless slaves who were grossly mistreated by southern land-owners at that time. Most movies in this genre overplay the role of slavery in the American civil war. That Gods and Generals actually underplays it is a most dubious distinction.
Thirdly, Gods and Generals is fundamentally bias against the union. Yes, the movie might have been focusing on Stonewall Jackson, but that is no excuse for failing to cover the union's opinions in an objective light. Aside from a couple of token scenes, the myriad reasons for the union's decisions to confront the south are ignored. And speaking of tokens, there is only one major character in this movie who comes from the north and is portrayed in a good light - Chamberlain, as played by Jeff Daniels.
If you are interested in the civil war and look for relatively objective portrayals, this film will be a disappointment. If it isn't, then you have some serious soul-searching to do about how impartial you really are on this still tender subject.
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
It's a hard-to-knock film!
More hot and cold than a ride in Dr Evil's 'Big Boy', Goldmember's strengths ultimately crush its weaknesses.
After the tired and predictable "Spy Who Shagged Me", Myers and his cohorts have obviously pulled out all the stops to find new and original material, and with great success on this occasion. The beginning in itself is witty and ingenious, with lots of great cameo appearances. This fast and furious comedy theme is, generally, kept going throughout the rest of the film. Among the comic highlights are Austin's medical exam and his visit to Studio 69. Also, Dr Evil's corporal punishment song is hilarious!
As others have mentioned, this one is much smuttier than the other two, and mainly wallows in toilet humor with the odd flash of sophisticated wit and ridicule of everything from modern medicine to Hollywood. Virtually all of the old characters make some sort of appearance, along with some fresh faces. Among these are Austin's dad Nigel (played brilliantly by Michael Caine), and the disturbed and disgusting Goldmember (another alter-ego played by Myers). You've got to wonder how many characters Myers will end up playing by the time this franchise ends! I think in this one alone he equalled Peter Sellers in Doctor Strangelove!
There are some frailties to this movie. The plot is somewhat messy and disjointed, and the ending is a little contrived, even for an Austin Powers film. The ending alone certainly leaves you wondering where the series is heading. Without giving too much away, you are left wondering how the main rivalry can continue. Also, where was Mr Bigglesworth?!!
Overall this one is pretty groovy. It's a definite improvement on the previouis outing, and comedy fans (especially fans of Autsin Powers) shouldn't be disappointed.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
As good as it gets
Being a huge Star Wars fan I've been looking forward to Attack of the Clones. And I've got to say, I wasn't disappointed.
In a lot of ways this movie is a throwback to episodes four, five and six. The plot is interesting and flows along nicely, and it has a much darker and more complex feel that The Phantom Menace. In addition, it has very few appearances by Jar Jar Binks, and it brings back that great comedy double act of R2D2 and C3PO.
Overall the acting is very good. Hayden Christensen does a really good job, especially considering the character baggage he has to adopt. Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor both put in great performances, as do Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid. The script is a bit weak in places, but that is a known problem with George Lucas movies. It is certainly no worse that The Phantom Menace in that department.
The special effects and action sequences are awesome. The light sabre fights, the hover car chase, the land battle scenes, the space fighting scenes. There are so many of them that the movie generally keeps moving very well. There are a few slow spots (mainly involving Anakin and Padme's romance), but they are minimal and are necessary to the overall plot development. The storyline has obviously been very carefully thought out and really sets the scene for the later films.
I really enjoyed The Phantom Menace, but it wasn't quite up there. In my opinion this movie is right up there with episodes four, five and six. While it doesn't have the character chemistry that episodes four five and six had (courtesy of Hamill, Ford, and Fisher), it has its own good qualities and virtues. It is set in a different era and as such it shouldn't have to be a carbon copy of the other three.
And for all you Star Wars purists who keep slamming the prequels, why don't you do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour and avoid seeing them. If you are convinced that Lucas has ruined the trilogy I can guarantee you won't like this movie. Why? because it's not exactly like four, five and six, and when you leave the theatre you won't have physically turned back into a kid/teenager. But the truth is no matter how he could have done it you people wouldn't have liked it, so you may as well just save your money and your time.
For the rest of us, I strongly recommend this movie.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Absolutely stunning
This film is without a doubt the best film I have ever seen. And I've seen a lot of great films. Even though I'd read the books beforehand and thus knew the storyline, I still got clammy palms throughout this cinematic masterpiece.
Everyone I've met has been impressed by this movie, and for obvious reasons. The casting is perfect. The acting is outstanding. The scenary is breathtaking. Peter Jackson's directing is inspired. The special effects are mind-blowing. The action sequences totally rock. The music is beautiful. And the attention to detail in the props and buildings is excellent.
I know a few purists have frowned on some of the plot changes in this movie, but if they'd have made the film exactly like the first book it would have been nine hours long, with the first four hours being very slow and pretty dull for most of the audience. As it is, most of the plot changes are inspired, and really add to the cinematic experience.
I cannot wait until December 2002 when The Two Towers comes out! In the meantime I will be seeing The Fellowship a few more times. It is so rich and full that you still notice new details and marvel at its quality even after several viewings.
That the acting in this film didn't sweep the Oscars says just how blind, corrupt and pathetic Hollywood really is. That this movie made so much money in the box office, and has gathered such a huge amount of praise and a vast throng of fanatical fans says much about the quality of this modern masterpiece.
If you are a purist of Tolkien's novels or you feel uncomfortable around sword and sorcery stories maybe you should avoid this film. Otherwise you simply must see this instant classic!
Forrest Gump (1994)
More corn than Kelloggs
This has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen. Despite the best efforts of the actors, most of whom are very talented, the ridiculous and corny plot makes this a real chore to watch.
You get the feeling that the director was trying to make a modern "Homer's Odyssey", but ended up instead with "Homer Simpson's Odyssey" - sans laughs. This movie offers lowest common denominator entertainment: patronization to those with learning difficulties, a twisted view on history, naive jingoism, and a nauseatingly contrived ending.
When I first saw this movie I began wondering whether I was being too harsh on it. However, after talking to between fifteen and twenty other people, I've come to the conclusion that I was being quite fair. None of those I've spoken to liked this film.
If you like bubble-gum then you will probably like Forrest Gump. If however, you like movies with some semblance of intelligence or real entertainment you will probably be disappointed by this movie.
Innocent Blood (1992)
Tedious, predictable effort that lacks depth and substance
This film, which can't seem to decide whether it's a romantic comedy or a horror flick, fails on both counts.
It's too shallow to be funny, and about as scary as a baby's teddy bear. Even worse, the storyline is totally predictable. The acting is poor and the script is terrible.
Well worth avoiding.