Change Your Image
writin_irish
Reviews
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Not as great as all that
Without question, this is a beautiful film. The cinematography, the sets, the costumes are all gorgeous. The acting, most of the time, is well done. Past that, though, things go downhill. Christine, for example, may have an utterly wonderful voice, but it was apparent that she was deliberately holding back through the entire movie. Her lack of oomph is most noticeable on the high notes, which are fairly painful. She is nothing compared to the Phantom, though, whose voice is clearly untrained. While he may have the potential to be a good singer, he at present should not be attempting to hit even the moderately high notes in his part. How many actors are there in the world who would love to play this role, and they chose one who cannot sing for the massive movie version.
The offenses of the other singers are not as major. Meg is guilty of the same sin as Christine, never using her full voice. Raoul acquits himself acceptably, and Firmin has arguably one of the better voices of the lot. As far as the orchestration, however, there comes a question at least as great as the casting of the Phantom. Why, in a Hollywood production with a huge budget, do they use a simulated percussion set instead of the real thing? All in all, it's a very enjoyable movie, but it's not what it could be. Someone just wasn't thinking as they were making it.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Two Movies for the Price of One
This movie's beginning is a very stylized depiction of the 1930's, with clever use of lighting, costume, and many other elements. The plot presented within the first twenty or so minutes is sufficient for an entire movie, without departure from the initial situation at all. And yet...
As it progresses, the film moves further and further from its starting location, and it seems that many of the stylized touches are lost. It becomes, in essence, a completely separate movie, and the director should have stuck with the first. This is not to say that it is a bad movie -- it is quite enjoyable for what it is. And yet, I don't personally feel it is what it could have been had the original idea been retained.
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968)
Midsummer Night's Dream Meets the 60's
I have seen many versions of the play in my life, both on stage and screen. For that matter, I actually played the role of Puck as a child. And this is unquestionably the worst version I've ever seen. The actors are stiff -- probably mostly due to the director, as they never, ever move. The camera angle, however, leaps whimsically and frequently. Characters, too, and not just the fairies, appear suddenly before freezing in place to say their lines. It reminds me of the Confuse-a-Cat sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus. Regardless of the high-powered cast, only Ian Holm as Puck and relative nobody Michael Jayston as Demetrius show any energy at all ever. I'd also like to concur with regards to what others have said about how dirty the lovers get, the strangeness of the costumes, and a number of other points. The overall effect is that of a remarkably boring two hour long drug trip, best appreciated through open mocking.
On a side note, I would not allow any daughter of mine on screen naked but for green paint.