Reviews

I am not a fan of French movies, especially since I watched Queen Margot. This movie did nothing to change my view. I don't like the way it is scripted, edited, and the unreveling of plot. Nevertheless, this does not mean my opinion on the movie is low. Movie is actually quite good. Only big complaint that I have about it is those little historical episodes, which are quite unnerving. Certain knowledge of French history is prerequisite for watching the movie and no one minute stories are going to help people get better outlook on it.

Actor portraying Restif was annoying (I really can't remember his name). Marchello Mastroiani, needless to say, was remarkable.

Characters in the movie are by most part quite commical, especially Restif and M Jacob. Comtesse is annoying and her sluttiness becomes such an obstacle to enjoying the movie most of the time.

In general, this is a good movie, just that I didn't like it. I give it seven out of ten.

Movie, despite being kind of low-budget, was done very well. Only annoying thing was that the props and costumes seemed out of its time, and people looked too clean.

Plot is okay, but kind of unexplained. Like, how does Vlad get so much suppoert.

I liked the movie because it tries to clear up Vlad's name. Everybody looks at him as this evil-incarnate who killed people, but all that he wanted to do was liberate his people.

If you like those gloomy historical movies, then this is for you. I'm giving it 9/10.

Movie is terrible. It's not scary. The plot is overwhelming. I wanted to take the nap in the middle of the movie.

First, some people say how it's scary, because you can relate to it. How? It's totally impossible. How was the little girl controlling the tape? The movie doens't even give you sufficient explanation about the supernatural.

Second, the should've ended it after Rachel was saved. Noah's death was just too much.

It was it better than most of the current horror movies, including the other ones in this class of newly revived thriller-horrors, but skip it. I give it 3/10.

...which exactly is the case with this movie. It's more mature and far more interesting. Of course, as an eager fan of Harry Potter, it wasn't all the original excitment I felt before seeing the first movie, but rather a routine, as 'Oh well, second part is here'.

Acting was superb. Kenneth Branagh was far the best, which is undeniable since every movie he's been in, he's thrown other actors in his shadow. I could not imagine Lockhart being anybody else but him, after he's left the mark. Alan Rickman was not as good in the first movie and didn't get as nearly as much screen time. In the first scene we see him, after Ron says: 'But honestly Professor, I think it has done more damage to us', Professor shouts 'Silence'. That was poorely done and badly cut.

Fiona Shaw was not as nearly as good as in the first movie, where I think she did her part best of all. Maggie Smith and Richard Harris were traditionally good. Jason Isaacs surely did give Lucius a person touch, but I felt that his voice was far too silky and auditious in some parts, such as when he is in Hagrid's hut. Robbie Coltrane wasn't as nearly as funny as in the first movie, but equally excellent.

Children actors were again in the shadow of the older and more experienced actors, and despite their attempts to act, they looked funny and immature comparing to the icons of the British film. Daniel was all right, but he lacks zealousness as Harry Potter, being too timid. Rupert Grint, despite being very funny, was very bad. Emma Watson wasn't as nearly as annoying as in the first movie, but just trying too hard. Tom Felton overdid Draco, so Draco did not seem like a real person anymore.

Overall, movie is great and very fun. A definite classic.

This is as butchered as Shakespeare can get, if you for a moment forget about a insulting Romeo and Juliet with Leo Di Caprio and Claire Danes, or pitiful Titus with Anthony Hopkins. Movie, not just that it's very boring and pointless, but it's decapitation of Shakespeare's working. It's offensive to take his original setting of old Denmark, and put it into America.

Movie is not worth watching and is a big mistake.

I generally hated this movie, only reason I picked it up from Blockbuster shalves in the first place was the fact that Jason Isaacs plays in it. It's one of those romance movies that makes you cry, that I generally try to stay away from.

It's worth watching because it carries some basic values of love of the life and life the life to it's fullest, but I just believe that there are far more sophisticated ways to send out that message to people, other than a cheap romance flick. Overall acting in the movie is okay. No specific flaws, but nothing to commemorate Charlize and Keanu on.

So, if you like these kinds of movies, then you should definitely see it. It may be even funny to you. If you are looking for something with more depth then skip it.

This is my favourite movie ever. I've seen it over dozens of times, and yet I regret it for not having it on DVD nor VHS.

First time I saw it was when I was fourteen. For some strange reason, I had problems with keeping up with Scottish slang. Second time I saw it was a year ago. I fell in love with it. Ewan McGregor does a great job acting as a heroin junkie. I also loved Johnny Lee Miller, for doing deceitful yet charming Sick Boy.

The movie gave me a new vision on the drugs and Scotland, yet I can't help thinking that the movie wasn't harsh enough in its portrayal of heroin. I guess it shows the 'up-side' if there is such a thing in drug usage.

However, if you like European movies, have not problem with Scots, and want to see something new, this is the right movie for you. It's very bleak with the imagery, yet I can't stop laughing at all the jokes. Just one thing, it's almost nothing like the book.