kiddb23 Reviews

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Lovely!

[10/10 · 1 January 2006]

I fell in love with this adaptation of the book and was so relieved that the hype over it wasn't in vain. From start to finish it was captivating, with the characters, the musical themes, and the special effects pulling people into a world that literally and figuratively left stars in my eyes. The film carried on the major themes that made the book so popular--family and fraternity, the power of belief, betrayal and then forgiveness, sacrifice, and ultimately, the triumph over evil. If anything was left out or improvised, it was enhancing and not damaging--like the broadened role of the fox in the film. The Talking Beasts were endearing (my six-year-old-niece actually asked, "Do all foxes have that voice? Can we go see the one in the zoo?") and I appreciate the voice actors as much as the actual ones. There were a few details that I did take note of that made me wonder (it's funny--it's mostly about hair color! :D Like, isn't Edmund supposed to be the fair-haired one? And the White Witch supposedly has dark hair, or did I look at the wrong illustration?), though at the end of the film the changes hardly mattered.

I recommend this film to any and everybody. If you haven't read the book this is the best screen adaptation yet, and if you have then this film won't disappoint you.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Special Effects Rule This One...

[5/10 · 1 January 2006]

To clarify, I'm a big fan of Harry Potter and I'm hoping I won't be bashed for this, but in comparison to the movie I vastly prefer the book. I dropped cash like it was no object to watch the advanced screening and walked out feeling strongly disappointed in the film.

Where do I begin? First of all, the film's projected plot had no fluidity. It's like the director flipped through the book, picked out the scenes he liked, and said, "All right, this is what I think we'll do." For example--we have a shot of Karkaroff closing the doors to the Hall, where the Goblet is placed. For those who have read the book it's like, "Oh, sure, get everybody to think he's the culprit." And sure enough, amongst those who haven't read the book there are some who think so. But by the movie's end, when it's clear Mad-Eye the fake did it, the same people ask, "So what's with Karkaroff and the door then? I mean, what was he doing there?" Harry stumbles across Barty Crouch Sr.'s dead body and we're deprived of the essence of "The Madness of Mr. Crouch" chapter. We jump from scene to scene so abruptly that it looks like a random-pick thing. Not only do we miss scenes that we've been looking forward to (who got to see what was so great about the World Cup?), but onto the second point, for those who have not read the books, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was utterly confusing. "How," my cousin who accompanied me asks, "did Barty Crouch Jr. get loose in the first place?" Also, have you noticed that, apart from after the 2nd task, all Fleur Delacour seems capable of doing is screaming in distress? What happened to the arrogant, self-assured, haughty ice-queen we've all got plastered onto our minds? The surly, scowling Krum, for that matter? Write down the things these characters have said throughout the film and I wonder if you'd be impressed with their script. All in the interest of focusing on the major character development of course (Ron is still adorable), but even that had some flaws. For one thing, why is it that Hermione seems so angry throughout the film? Count the instances she's smiling. Seriously. The only character development I appreciated was Neville's.

The only reason the film isn't a 1 on my scale is because of the special effects. I really did like the dragon scene--some would find it was blown out of proportion and demonstrated Harry's skill at fleeing than actually flying and powers of strategy (I didn't see him baiting the dragon at any point, did you?)--but the special effects were excellent. The Yule Ball was something to look at, as were the modes of transportation of the other schools.

I truly feel Alfonso Cuaron should have been persuaded to do the fourth film--so far the third film is by far the best.

In any case, to those who want to understand Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, I recommend you borrow or buy the book rather than buy a ticket or DVD.

Ants in the Pants (2000)

Funny, if you go watch it without expecting anything substantial...

[5/10 · 5 December 2005]

The film is a disappointment when it comes to depth, and the humor is either slapstick or sexual--which is fine, if you don't expect anything else. The concept of a very verbally assertive penis is what I found to be the funniest element of the film, while the initiation into sex and all the pains of adolescence portrayed was nothing more than light, insignificant fluff. I watched the dubbed English version of the film, and I agree with other reviewers on the issues of misrepresenting the original script and giving the characters accents that did not help the already somewhat flailing acting prowess within the film. Regardless of all this, however, the film has its moments--if you have time to filter them out.