|
|
Post by Lady Edfeil on Dec 11, 2004 7:59:10 GMT -5
With a few of us avid movie fans, I thought it a good idea to reïnstall the cinema thread for reviews, comments, group swooning, etc. Feel free to give your reviews, recommendations, comments, etc on movies that are running, movies that you love, movies that are expected... and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Edfeil on Dec 11, 2004 8:08:22 GMT -5
Let me start first with two short reviews:
Bridget Jones
If you liked the first one, you'll like the second one. It's sweet, cheesy, dysfunctional, funny, and sometimes recognisable. I loved it, but it's a genre you'll either like or dislike. It's a 'cute' movie in the genre of 'love actually' but much more straightforward in the storytelling. The funny idea in it is mostly that where the first movie ends with the hopeful "and they lived happily ever after" as Bridget and Mark Darcy start a relationship, this is the 'what happens after' part. How can you muddle up a relationship that started promising... what are the pitfalls... all seen through the humoristic glasses of a thirty something woman without perfect measures.
The acting is good and though the story is not the worlds greatest eye opener, it's charming and told with enough humouristic notes that it will keep you entertained. The movie mocks itsself and it genre at times, and it's that that keeps it from being overly sweet. Though there are moments of cotton candy sweetness those... work somehow in the flow of things.
Conclusion: sweet and funny movie in the romantic genre about the search of thirty somethings and the ways they aproach relationships. For those who like romantic comedies: this one is one of the good ones in the genres. For those who don't like romantic comedies: stay far, far away!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Edfeil on Dec 11, 2004 8:31:48 GMT -5
Stage Beauty
Beren and I went to see that one last night and lets just say our adrenaline levels were peeked when we came home.
Let me start by saying that the movie is 15 + and is so for very good reasons. Though we don't actually 'see' more than a breast once, the sexuality in the movie is everywhere and going from sweet to more coarse aproaches. Not that I think we need to shield children from everyone form of sexuality but lets wait till they're mature enough to handle this movie in the context it's needed.
As for the storyline... King Charles II has returned from his exile in Holland and the monarchy in England has been restored. To this backdrop we follow Kinaston, the most famed 'leading lady' of the London theater at the time. As all actors of ladies parts, Kinaston is a man. Women of course are not allowed to perform on stage. Throughout the movie we find out more about Kinaston. How he was.. made by a tutor who picked up young, pretty boys off the street to make them into female actors through a rigourous and implied abusive training.
At this moment however Kinaston is revelling in his glory as Desdemona in Othello, when things are about to change. King Charles first makes an order that allows women also to play female parts.
Kinastons own dresser, who has always loved and admired him, is part of that decision, part of what causes the tide to turn. And when Kinaston exercises his right as a star to decide who shares the stage with him and refuses to play oposite a woman, the Kings mistress who also wanted to audition is enraged and persuades the king to now forbid men to play female parts anymore.
Kinastons entire reason for being... has dissapeared. He doesn't know how to play a man... how to be a man. From star status he feels betrayed by those around him and sinks into loneliness and the fringes of society.
I can't tell what happens from there as that would give too much away. However... the movie is.. harsh and painful at some points, and yet beautiful as well and it certainly stirrs you. The acting is superb, the research about the theater spot on and the storytelling very well done and original. It's a story about deconstructing of identity and gender. About loneliness amidst succes and when that success is taken away. It's poignantly told, superbly acted and well timed.
Conclusion: Really a great, great movie. Won't be to everyones liking, and not what you're going for if you want an eve of mindless entertainment. But if you're going for a really good movie: two thumbs up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sinold Bragasson on Dec 11, 2004 12:39:31 GMT -5
I'd love to watch Stage Beauty if its ever being shown here in Geramny!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Edfeil on Dec 16, 2004 15:14:23 GMT -5
Polar Express
A strange concept this movie: acted but then put in 3 D animation. The movie is sugary sweet all over, but for a christmas movie, that's okay. It has a bit of a Victorian feel over it in the drawings, which is something I can apreciate.
Nice colours, nice drawing, very interesting and new techniques. Of course it's very American in the sense that Santa is the center of Christmas and christmas celebration. But still a nice movie about 'believing' in the magic of it. With the bell as a sort of tinkerbell effect.
Still, no matter how nice that sounds... there is something missing to lift it up to the level of such magical movies as 'miracle on 34th street' for example. I can't exactly put my finger on what that 'something missing is', but it's there.
Conclusion: a good movie, especially to go see with children. Nice, having a laugh and new techniques. Not in the category of 'greatest holiday movies of all times' though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pensive on Jan 1, 2005 18:11:39 GMT -5
I'm not the 'professional critic' that Edie is but will share my views on three movies Daniel and I have seen this past weekend....
Meet the Fockers:
Not as good as the first one by any means...was entertaining, but fell short of being as funny as Meet the Parents...
King Arthur (DVD)
Finally got to see the movie...Wasn't what I was expecting, but definately a different view by Jerry Bruckheimer...I preferred the 'alternate ending' they show on the directors cut DVD...That ending is FAR better than the original ending of the movie...The actors were all GREAT however, and seems that there could be several stills from the picture for Avatars for Sir Joseph and for Amyra... ~grins~
Neverland
I am a "HUGE" Johnny Depp fan, and this one makes me even a 'BIGGER' fan...One word is all I need to describe this movie...
WOW!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Edfeil on Jan 4, 2005 7:17:04 GMT -5
Amyra, I've had my eyes on Never Land, eagerly watching for it to be released in movie theaters here. That finally happened last week when I couldn't go, but this week will definitely find me in the theater to see it! I loved Peter Pan (not the disney cartoon but the book, and actually enjoyed 'Hook' it was titled I think with Robin Williams, which captured a lot of the idea behind the book.).
I'm quite curious as to see Johny Depp as Barry. Just like you I've been an avid Depp fan for a long time. NOT just because he is incredibly atractive (though I admit.. *G* He IS very pleasing on the eye), but simply because he is a magnificent actor who always knows to give something extra to his parts, and because he has a great choice in what kind of movies he plays.
Now... my own review: Phantom of the Opera
As a fan of musicals I was eagerly awaiting this one. I loved the way they did Cats, Joseph and Evita, so I wasn't having many doubts about this being a great experience as well. Phantom is certainly not my favorite musical, but I like it enough to have been looking forward to seeing the movie a lot. I've seen it twice so far in the week before leaving for Rome.
First view of it made me... hesitant. There was something that didn't seem right with it. On second viewing that feeling was much less.
Probably this was the result of seeing it in avant premiere the first time which was in the 'smaller' halls of the movie theater and the sound not being loud enough. ((a movie where the sound is not loud enough instead of too loud, a big exception.)). Due to this there was often a.. contrast so to speak with the feeling of being in the movietheater, the movement and hurry and urgency of the images and the sound that didn't exactly seem to match. On second viewing however, in the big hall, this discrepancy wasn't felt anymore and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Still in reviewing I must say that Phantom of the Operan does not have the quality of Evita, and certainly not the originality of Moulin Rouge or the sharpness of Chicago. Sometimes the transition between theater and movie has not been well made. The movie is told as a memory, and of course due to subjects and music the style of the suroundings and acting is very baroque. That's not a problem when they stay in the Opera house where all the theatrality is part of the story. You expect bombastic decors there, it fits. At certain moments however things just get a bit too much and this is felt for example when seeing the graveyard scene where Christine sings to her deceased father. The graveyard is so ridiculously over the top with mist creeping over the ground that you can almost see pumped into the scene and grave statues that are so deliberately chose and placed that it's JUST too much.
What works in the theater does not work there in the movie. It's 'too much' for the realism of the medium. Generally if you want to translate a story that is so... baroque, so.. over the top from a book or a theater play to a movie, you need to do something more with it than just tell it. Baz Luhrman did that in moulin rouge: taking what basically is a scrap of a story and completely over the top and made it, completely unrealistic and therefor totally believable.
But back to Phantom of the Opera. The acting is decent to very good. The singing varies. Some moments are absolutely magnificent, at others I wince a bit: a common occurance when people trained mostly as actors try on a role in a musical. I had the same reaction on Antonio Banderas in Evita, though I have seen and heard him sing a few years later with much more experience and training in which he did his part complete justice.
With a musical of which you have heard the original so many times it is always difficult to leave the 'mental imprint' of previous performers and I think I'll need to hear these performers quite a few times before I can give a fair judgement.
What IS remarkable in the first place though is that 'Christine' manages to sing her part without 'screaming', a common mistake it seems in soprano's who tackle the part. She keeps her voice clear and unforced, which really brings the music to life. She managed to play a wide eyed innocence and be convincing in it, a remarkable feet for an actress.
On our 'phantom' I really can't give a judgement yet as to the singing, though there are moments of brilliancy for sure, and others that make me doubt. His acting however makes you shiver: this is a different 'phantom' than I had in my head at first. My phantom based on what I had seen before seemed quite cool. However in seeing this performance, in listening to the text I have gradually become more and more aware of how seductive, how utterly about sexual tensions, seductions and inner battles this musical is. The phantom is the big, dark and dangerous stranger. You know it is wrong to give in to him but he is so seductive as playing with fire. Genius in darkness or sweetness within light. The role is portrayed by Gerard Butler, who also made us swoon in Timeline and who plays in Beowulf and Grendel which is currently in post production....
I can't be sure yet about the portrayal of 'Raoul, count the Chegny', he sings absolutely convincing, but there are moments of doubt. A few more viewings will probably determine wether there is any reason for that or that I'm just not used to seeing this role performed by anyone else but Michael Ball. *G*
So... the summarisation: a yes for musical adepts! Go see it in the theater, I doubt it will give much on your tv screen. If you don't like musicals, stay as FAR away as possible: this will be worse for you than Chicago and Moulin Rouge put together. There are moments that are absolutely spectacular, there are others of which I'm not sure. Generally a bit more of originality in the filming process wouldn't have hurt. It's not in my top five of movies or even of musicals, but the convincing part of the utter seductiveness in the interaction between music and actors does make it worth the while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Beren on Jan 7, 2005 17:32:02 GMT -5
Thank you for your reviews, dear Ladies  I think I would be one of those unable to appreciate the Phantom ...so I will probably not go. I am glad you liked 'King Arhtur' as a movie, Amyra *SS* I liked it very much (many attractive men *winks*), and as long as one does not expect to see 'the' Arthur story, it comes off really well and entertaining. Related to that subject, two days I go, I stumbled upon Excalibur...which mostly made me winch.... I have no doubt it is one of the most 'true' filmings of the story (and I liked Merlin) , but to me Arthur was unconvincing and there was far too much blood to see. This Christmas, I also saw the classic It's a wonderful life and was charmed by it . Indeed something to watch afer a nice Christmas dinner *SS* |
|
|
|
Post by Sinold Bragasson on Jan 8, 2005 14:00:46 GMT -5
I loved King Arthur and i loved even more The Mists of Avalon. Excalibur is indeed a bit surreal and bloody but otherwise very good!
Ok, I recently saw Alexander - not a movie to write home about. The acting was bad, and particularly the soundtrack by Vangelis was horrible. It's one of thsoe "bad soundtrack that ruins all" movies. First Knight[7b] and Ladyhawke fall into the same category. Very bad and, in my mind, unsuitable modern film music!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pensive on Feb 5, 2005 11:07:22 GMT -5
Haven't been to the movies enough lately...we use to go atleast once a week, but have just been too busy to take time to sit, relax, and be entertained...but have seen a couple this past week... The lastest Harry Potter--Return to Azkaban My favorite of the series so far...had me engrossed from the very beginning...would like to watch it again and will definately pick this one up for our personal collection... Phantom of the Opera We left the theater wondering 'WHY'  ??...don't know how you sat through it twice Edie...I must admit I would and could listen to Christine sing time and time again however, for the rest of it I would have to cover my ears... Definately should have been left as a theatrical performance only...we were very disappointed... |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Edfeil on Feb 5, 2005 15:16:01 GMT -5
Amyra: I'm a freak. If I don't like a movie, I often go back to see 'why I didn't like it'. *G* At least, that's what I do since I got my subscription. Doesn't cost anything except the time, and as you said, Christine's singing is worth it.
I like the phantom as well though... I'll admit it. *L* Singing he's definitely not up to par, but he does give the part of the phantom a certain credibility towards the texts of the musical. (NOT if you read the book.)
THe theatrality though is a definite miss... *L* warned you about that. And the rest of the singing is VERY varied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alita Querida Rosario on Mar 3, 2005 10:55:29 GMT -5
I thought I would add this thought to this thread and see what people thought of it. I was talking to Sinny helping pick some Medieval movies and I found this cool site and am sure there are more out there. oz.plymouth.edu/~medsoc/movies.htmlThe thought I had was why not have Windstorm movie nights. Each month a movie is selected. Everyone would have a month to get their hands on the movie and it would be a bit like we were all at the movies together? Just a thought I thought I would share with you all and see what you thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Dream Loxley on Mar 3, 2005 11:33:50 GMT -5
Lovely idea .........will watch this space  |
|
|
|
Post by Pensive on Mar 4, 2005 11:13:45 GMT -5
*asked with pleading eyes*...would ya'll include an 'Eenheider' or two in your movie night??...most of you know that if we didn't call Eenheid home we would be calling Windstorm home...   |
|
|
|
Post by Sinold Bragasson on Mar 4, 2005 12:07:27 GMT -5
Of course, Amyra!  The more the merrier. I'm game... so that makes... three so far? Four (with Dream)? |
|
??...don't know how you sat through it twice Edie...I must admit I would and could listen to Christine sing time and time again however, for the rest of it I would have to cover my ears...
