Change Your Image
dileepa
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
So religiously faithful to the book that it fails
I REALLY tried to enjoy this movie but it just didn't happen. Perhaps I got too caught up in the unneccessary hype but in that case I think that reviewers and critics alike got caught up too much in the same stuff, so much caught up were they that they didn't really see this film for how bland it really was. Had this been a kids fantasy film released without the unneccessary baggage it would have recieved a whole string of 5s out of 10 as opposed to the sometimes insanely brilliant reviews critics accorded it.
To put it succintly the special effects were average (come on! compare it to the most modern of films and you will realise that you were shortchanged, only the quidditch match came close to modern special effects standards), the set pieces were good, the acting cast underperformed, the cinematography was also average, the story was reasonable though it stuck so religiously to the book that people who had read the book beforehand would not have been surprised at all by the storyline (and the Harry Potter plot in the book is designed to actually surprise you) and the same goes for the satirical gimmicks which are exactly the same as in the book.
If I had simply watched the movie and simply not read the book perhaps I would have given this movie a higher rating but I didn't and so there were absolutely no surprises in it for me, except disappointment at the parts left out.
The performances were uninspired and featured no originality, almost all character types played you've seen before. The exceptions are Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman and the child actors (excluding the kid that plays Harry Potter). These characters were original but Robbie Coltrane's character was underused. He only really takes part in a few minutes of film and his character is given some space to grow but then Chris Columbus shuts him off again to focus more on the bland, overcliched characters. The young actress who plays Hermoine did a good job, as did the orange haired actor that played Potter's friend (can't remember the name off the top of my head!) and of course in an otherwise bland film Alan Rickman adds more colour (as Robbie Coltrane has done) as an evil (or is he?) schoolteacher Snape.
You'll wonder with all the characters I've named displaying good performances how this movie could possibly be average. The answer probably lies in the structure of the story which doesn't differ from the book at all, even to provide a more cinema-suited experience thus young fans (my 11 year old sister, an avid Potter fan, thought the movie quite bad) will be bored to death by a movie which is exactly the same as the book they read. Why spend more money for a pop-up picture book when you've got the paperback at home?
The biggest complaints with this movie however (and also with regards to its structure) is that it is far too long! 2 and a half hours may be half an hour shorter than Titanic or Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of the Ring but those movies have complex story and character development to occupy the three hours, Harry Potter is a childrens movie with characters that do not change at all throughout the film (as you would expect from a childrens movie), therefore it does not have anything to fill the extra hour (the film should really have been 1 and a half hours) and as such it drags on to the point where it nears a coma-induction stage. At one point I was checking my watch every five minutes!
Sure, this movie is faithful to the book but with average acting, average special effects, a predictable plot and an overlong running time is this movie really faithful to the magic and spirit of the book?
In the Heat of the Night (1967)
Interesting Characters, Insightful messages but a poor mystery movie
I enjoyed this movie, however if this movie recieved an oscar for best picture in 1967 the competition must have been pretty poor! I could be mistaken, The selectors that year may have accurately reasoned that the movie wasn't really meant to be a murder mystery at all but more a commentary of race relations in 1960s USA.
The performances and acting are superb especially from Sydney Poitier who plays a mysteriously high class but at the same time ruthless character (who seems to hold his own stereotypes about people in the South) but in the end the Sheriff takes the part of the day as the bigoted sheriff who by the end of the movie gains a liking towards the black homicide cop .
The way the film is directed and the insightful messages that the film offers are also very good but we must also remember that this movie is styled as a murder mystery. In that section it fails miserably. A good murder mystery should see you able to connect the dots between different events and hold you by making you guess different people along the way. The murder mystery in this movie offers little "dots" as such and the mystery is solved by Sydney Poitier's character seemingly picking out a character at random and suddenly twisting all the facts so that he suddenly becomes the killer. In the end the murder mystery doesn't really leave you with a finished connect-the-dot picture at all, rather an outline of one with half the dots unconnected.
However for top notch entertainment and insight value you should definately hire this film and it is much better than the race relations rubbish that hollywood churns out now on a regular basis (which seems to be a race to see how many people can film movies involving the ku klux klan burning crosses on the property of an african american activist no one has heard of, and in most cases is made up).
Just don't expect Sherlock Holmes.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
One Movie to Rule them all and in the darkness shame them
This movie sinks titanic like even the iceberg couldn't, it outflies Harry Potter, outguns The Godfather and dances faster than the Matrix make no mistake this is THE best movie produced so far this century. Have you seen the billboards, advertisements, trailers, competitions, newspaper articles, documentaries, CDs and official merchandise? Well once you've seen this movie you'll realise that even with all of that this movie is UNDER hyped!
The acting is superb, the camera shots are breathtaking, the special effects are dazzling, the storyline and script are exquisite, the energy surrounding the whole movie is infectiously high and by the end of the movie you'll be clapping and cheering just like everyone that was in the cinema with me!
Fellowship of the Ring starts off low key enough with a narrative explaining how the Ring came to be, what exactly it is and how Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) would come in possession of it, the plot then cruises along slowly building momentum but 1/2 way through the movie Peter Jackson(the director) pulls out all the stops and lets everything rip with high paced chases, battles and then adds 20 litres of emotional morphine to the movie to make this a very VERY great movie. No, that is too light a compliment, this movie will leave you in awe at its very being because it is so grand and beautiful this is one hell of a movie. Forget Harry Potter, Episode One (and probably even Episode Two), Star Wars, Titanic, The Matrix, The Godfather and all other movies before this one because there is only One Movie to Rule Them all and in the darkness shame them.
Down to Earth (2001)
This movie deserves more than 5.2/10!
Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.
As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.
There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.
Well to the actual plot of the film.
Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie!