Change Your Image
love_for_nails
Reviews
Anna Karenina (1997)
Very beautiful in it's own way!
Though not a faithful adaptation like any other until now, it's a very decent and well done with no doubt. Sophie Marceau played Anna beautifully and Sean Bean was very good as Vronsky. The only versions I watched about Leo Tolstoy's novel are this and the 2012 one, which I consider a gorgeous adaptation, despite the critics and public review, and also refreshing and interesting which it's what I admire from an new adaptation.
This adaptation retains most of the Russian feeling and atmosphere, being filmed there, and also including some Russian dialog from time to time. It's something that inspires a lot of respect indeed, but that doesn't mean we should criticize the other adaptations for being filmed in Britain or America or, the most common complain nowadays, for having British accents.
This one has British accents too, but because there are more well-known actors/actress appreciated by the public and most important because it was filmed in Russia with some mild Russian dialog, some parts for which other adaptations suffer has been overlooked here. I, as a viewer and a fan of movies, never ever paid attention that much to accents. If that's a good thing or not, it's up to every persons personal view, but for me it's a very silly and childish thing to judge a movie and the actors performances 70% based on what accents they perform. This brings in my view the theory that people get very bored in this life lately and prefer to pick up on silly matters in every aspect of his life. This only will downfall this world. One should learn to appreciate simple things more and pay attention to what matters.
I recommend this one, for being a very decent adaptation, not all faithful but it doesn't matter in my opinion.The performances were great, the actors did a superb job, and Russia looks stunning. But I also recommend the 2012 version too. They are both brilliant in their own way, but warning: tell them apart and don't compare them. They are different. For me Keira was a perfect Anna Karenina. Sophie did a wonderful job too, but I love Keira more and so does my mother, who loves the book and this version, but admires the new one too.
8/10
Les Misérables (2012)
Not Victor Hugo, not the truly Les Miserables, but very good and inspiring in it's own way!
Now, don't get me wrong people, I'm not a purist "Les Miserables" book nerd or a musical hater. Not at all in any meaning, so you can scroll your eyes peacefully through this review. It will be a kind of a long review but I hope that some of you will find the patience to read thoroughly in order to understand the idea. I feel the need to point out as an avid reader and as an admiring and respectfully reader of Victor Hugo that no adaption did capture by now the complex essence of Victor Hugo's work (that's NOT a bad thing) nor I do think it will ever capture, unless a very long TV series will be made. In a movie or musical you can capture only bits of what this story wants to communicate to the public.I know that probably some of the viewers can get easily intimidated by the amount of pages and informations the book preserves, I really hope some of you will find the patience to read the book, it's worth your time.
And now for this adaptation. This and the 1998 version are the only so far adaptations I have watched until now. The ones that impressed me were not Anne Hathaway, not Hugh Jackman although he did a good job but non-other than Russell Crowe for whom I expected the biggest disappointment and the utmost failure as I didn't saw him as a great actor (sorry but this is the truth). But here, in "Les Miserables" maybe he was not Javert (he was NOT that Javert at all) but as a little villain he portrayed the character with very much talent and managed to show more of that little side of the tormented and human Javert that we never got to see from the story but we thought about it. And his voice was very good. I admit at some parts I couldn't help not to chuckle when he began singing but he did a very very good job. Even great if I can say that and I totally changed my opinion towards him. I appreciate him very much for his work and I praise Tom Hooper now for his insistence in casting him. He was right for this movie. For this movie, as Geoffrey Rush is and will always be the truly Javert for me. He will always be Javert for me because that was how Javert really was in almost his entire life. But it's good to see Russell Crowe's Javert too, no doubt.
- Hugh Jackman did again a very good job, as well, as Jean Valijean though I think that his character wasn't developed properly as I almost forgotten him in the scenes were he didn't appear, and that's not good since he is a key character. The only parts were he managed to impress me was when he sung "Suddenly" (kind of ironic since this song only appeared now) and at the end when he *spoiler* died *spoiler*.
- Samantha Barks was a very good casting choice for Eponine since she already played the character on Broadway, so she was familiar with the role and did a great job. Nothing more to say about her, but honestly now, Eponine it's not actual a key character. While she has a pretty large role in the book, she is not a key character and her story arc is not very important, but nonetheless romantic and sweet for others. In the 1998 version everybody bemoaned her absence and love triangle with Marius, but that version wasn't supposed to be romantic and her part would have been nothing but a villain who tries to ruin Cosette's life after she settles down for a while, and not a tragic character. It was for her image sake to not be included and I respect that choice and consider it very wise. Remember the Gerard Depardieu version where she is actually portrayed as it's said a bit mean and selfish.
-Aaron Tveit was truly amazing as Enjorlas. He was the perfect handsome and patriotic young man that the adaptations will have in my opinion. I loved Aaron's performance, I was very impressed by his Enjorlas and his power and strenght of how he fought to the very end. He is the main hero of the June's Rebellion and Aaron did justice to his character. Congratulations!
- And Anne Hathaway. Here is my little problem. I'm not a hater, I respect her very much for her work and devotion toward this movie, but I felt that she did too much for the part. It's not really about cutting her hair and losing pounds but with all Fantine's sad and tragic story I couldn't manage to connect with her and feel sorry for her. And again, as I mentioned with Hugh Jackman, maybe her character wasn't developed properly for this version too. Anne Hathaway while she indeed managed to express the miserable life and feelings of Fantine she still missed something very important from what defined Fantine, and for which I apologize but can't describe. She was great but I'm really really sorry, she tried to much. She doesn't deserve the Oscar for her performance, but maybe she deserves it for the hard-work and sacrifices she made for the role.
As for the production, it was very interesting but lacked certain things again for which it got a black mark. The story wasn't developed properly, that was the main flaw for sure. I couldn't connect with the characters nor feel emotions towards their situations. I felt everything was rushed but knowing the story I don't complain. But for those unfamiliar with the story it's very hard to understand. The only part that captured me and impressed me was the revolution. The revolution was the most exciting and beautiful part of the whole movie. I think it expressed perfectly the feelings and the miserable situations of the people back then.
8/10
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
I feel both love and respect towards this story!
Beautiful cinematography, beautiful design, make-up, special effects. Everything is perfect. The cast is a joy to watch. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo Baggins, Ian Mackellen can't be described in words, he is perfect as Gandalf as always. I actually thought he was even better here than in "The Lord of the Rings". He captured the atmosphere more. I loved that Elijah Wood reprized his role as Frodo even for a short period of time. He broke my heart in "Return of the King" with his powerful performance. He nails the character and I hope he will make an appearance in the next two movies as well. Oh, and the famous Gollum! How could I have missed him from my review? It's great to have Andy Serkis back.
Please people don't listen to the critics, they are the ones who influence the public, but they are not always right. It has the same magic. Maybe in a less darker tone than the previous movies had been, but in a way, that's why I really liked it. It's like a deep breath from all the stressful situation the hobbits had been in "The Lord of the Rings". It's been a though year with a lot of good movies, but in the end, this still is among the best ones.
Worth watching!
10/10
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
The first musical I gave a shot!
And I was not disappointed. I know how musicals work and that's why I was not willing to watch them: lots of singing, sometimes stupid scenes with lots of pathetic dialogs, their unrealism over the real life, etc.
But the stories are good, and I found myself without knowing much about this, very attracted to this particular one and that's how I decided to build myself with patience and watch it. It was wonderful. I know the stage play too, but only on the internet. People need to understand that not everyone can afford and have the possibilities to go in America or even London and see the stage play. It's just not that possible to everyone. So we watch this movie and read the book in order to make an opinion, which I don't think it's wrong, but rather different than others which sadly offends a lot of people nowadays. Well the truth is, that every person is unique in this world, and we can't think alike (thank God! that would be boring).
I consider it a very good musical, with lots of thrilling scenes, great acting, and well developed story. I find it really perfect. Sure it's another view of the story, but this is the magic. If every movie made the same version over and over again, how that could have been, huh? I think really dull.
I like the performances, the acting, the story, the design, everything. It's a sad story but in the same time really beautiful and in a clever way showed.
And something I really want to point out, is that people need to stop to make the snobbish mistake (or not?) in comparing a live stage musical with a movie. It's like comparing an apple with an orange. Both have different situation in order to capture the attention of the public and also have a way different set, and of course actors! The stage players are hard trained, talented sopranos that are obliged to not make a single mistake in order for the public to be satisfied, while the actors in a movie, as everyone knows have the chance to repeat the scene over and over again, until it meets the directors expectations, not to mention that (until now) they record their songs first, playing being the last chapter.
So it's not the same situation, and it's just plain stupid discussing those aspects forever without reaching of course to any consent. Just enjoy what you see and if you don't, don't spoil the others joy by bringing the same idea over and over again. It's a message to all that think like this.
Brilliant in it's own way, worth watching for sure!
10/10
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Great movie!
It was a very good movie. If you want to learn history, if you want to know exactly, bit by bit, what happened in that period you must read. Even if you have work, school and kids. People are very lazy nowadays and blame their lack of culture and knowledge about history and other stuff on work, school and the day-to-day responsibilities. Well I'm sorry to disappoint but the hurting truth is that you must read in order to learn more about everything. Movies entertain, that is their meant to be. If you rely on movies in order to get educated then you are not only stupid but even a fool.
Still, like it is shown in the DVD commentaries the aspects altered in this movie where only made in order to have a good plot line. But that doesn't make it "historycal inaccurate", it's just what defines it and what defines in general a movie.
It was great. The performances were wonderful. Orlando is a very good actor, he is one of my favorite actors, because of the simplicity, and at the same the level, the complicated way he delivers his characters. It cannot be described properly in words, he is just perfect for me, and I think he deserves more credit for his work, but in a basket full of snakes like Hollywood is, if you don't fight harder and don't bite nastier, you get trashed and called wooden.
He deserves more, not this type of foolish fight. Anyway, the other actors were great as well. Liam Neeson was again a star in my eyes. He lightened the movie more with his, short is true, but lovable presence. Another character which I loved was the king. The real king, if I can call it like that. He was the soul of the hole situation, but his fate made me real sad.
I consider it better than "Gladiator" because of it's more serious subject. The only good thing from that movie was Joaquin Phoenix who gave a wonderful performance and deserved the Oscar more than Russell Crowe, whom I personally don't consider him an Oscar-worthy actor.
Anyway, worth watching.
10/10
Valentine's Day (2010)
Really awful!
This is the first movie I rated like this for it's worth. It's really awful. No plot, no real characters, just a couple of laughs, but even those a bit forced. I like to think that the writer and director for this movie wanted to make the actors have some fun. And I think they did. Actors are having a lot of fun when they do bad movies (I watched the extras from The Turist). Next time when I will see too much celebrities in a movie I will pay way more attention to the content before I will watch it.
Not that I hate the movie, I'm not one of those folks who are obsessed that a good movie needs to have 10 Oscar nominations or something. On the contrary, my all time favorite movie has only 1 win and 1 nomination, and even those not so important, but I don't care. This movie is really stupid, but it's stupidity I think it's what makes people laugh.
1/10 for sure!
Anna Karenina (2012)
Really clever, bold and beautiful!
These are the perfect words to describe this movie. Although I admit at first when I saw the movie, with all theater background I was a bit confused and I almost disliked it, but as the movie progressed I got into the story and by the end I really liked it. It's something new. The director is a really bold person, for choosing this background and for this type of adaptation. I saw both "Atonement" and "Pride and Prejudice" the last one being the most fine movie of 2005 and the most beautiful adaptation of the novel for a movie.
I understand why he chose to cast Keira again as the leading role. She is a fantastic actress no matter what others say. Well some others, because they aren't many. I disagree with some people that said that Alicia Vikander that played Kitty would have made a better Anna Karenina. On the contrary. I considered Alicia a bit dull, not very captivated in the atmosphere, and at some times bored. Kitty was in love with Vronsky, and she was very hurt when she heard about the affair. Alicia should have showed that more. She was very sweet and good nonetheless for the rest of the movie, but not so interesting as it praised. Keira Knightley was a perfect Anna Karenina. She played with so much love and passion her character that I really empathized with her. Her distress and sadness caught me by the end of the movie that I almost cried when her character committed suicide. As for Aaron Taylor-Johnson as others said maybe was not the Vronsky from the book, but it was the Vronsky for this movie. In this movie Vronsky was portrayed as an immature, young and unexperienced lover that , not that he wasn't willing to fight for Anna, but was rather (at some points not all) afraid of the situation. Honestly in that century's society, even because of love, you are not doing any good for the woman you love by allowing her into this mess. Anna acted typical for the woman in that period sacrificing everything for Vronsky, because she was silly and unhappy, but if Vronsky thought more wisely of the situation he would have protected Anna from all this circus. Practically Vronsky is showed here as someone very reckless and stubborn who didn't act in the right way at the right moment, with all the tempest around him. Aaron was a good actor. He really was. He is not a bad actor, not a great one either because he is still young, but is doing a nice job. And it was not his fault for portraying the beloved Vronsky in that way, it was the script and probably the director that told him to act like this. But he was not supposed to be liked. Jude Law, was supposed to be liked as Karenin, showing that in the end, he is the only one that cared for Anna with all the shame she brought upon him. Although he was mad at Anna and forbid her to see her child, he realized about Anna's situation and felt sorry for her. He was willing to help her but she refused, and with this decision her miserable life started. In the end, after her death he raised her child with Vronsky, which was a very sweet and wise thing, because he realized the child had no fault and in this way he apologized to Anna. Jude Law acted great as well.
And last but not least, the soundtrack was wonderful, the costumes were stunning, I really wish it will win an Oscar for Best Costume Design, because it deserves it. It was a great movie and stunning for its cinematography. Something new and refreshing. I really enjoyed it. I empathized very much with the characters despite what some others critics said. They are wrong. It's a wonderful production. And I was not the only one who thought that. At the end of the movie in my cinema the audience begun to clap and were praising it until I reached the exit.
Clever, bold and beautiful! Worth watching for sure, and will be appreciated more in the future when people will come to realize how it was done. It will happen one day I'm sure when people will look more carefully and deeper.
10/10
Elizabeth (1998)
Don't know what to say honestly.
I like the history of Britain. I should thank first of all to this movie that it made me search and learn more about the famous Golden Age, the most promising Queen that Britan ever had that brought them not only an economical strenght but also led Britan to have one of the most powerful battle navy in history at that time. It was very entertaining for me to learn about those things giving the fact that we didn't learn about this in school yet and I don't think we will learn very soon.
But what I have to criticize about this movie it's it lack of showing those important things, concentrating the plot more on silly events that probably didn't even occurred, transforming all what would have been a good movie in a pathetic, dull at some points story. They focused the story on Elizabeth's feelings and how she manages to exceed in becoming a good queen. That's a very fine thing for sure, because everybody wonders sometimes how those people lived. But again, we can never be sure that the queen really had an affair with Robert Dudley and didn't die a virgin as she pretends. Remember that she was the most successful monarch that Britain ever had in that century that gossips couldn't have missed. Showing the affair in the movie didn't bother me, though.
Another thing that bothered me it's the constant idea that it's implemented from time to time, that Walsingham helped Elizabeth in almost 80% of her reign to succeed, otherwise she would have been destroyed. I have a history book, and when I read about Elizabeth's reign I was completely shocked that it didn't even mentioned Walsingham at least once. From that and from what I have further read and searched it seemed Walsingham's role was over shown in this movie only for Geoffrey Rush. I don't want to be misunderstood for this. Walsingham, had of course a lot of influence and helped Elizabeth a lot granted for his experience in politics, but I think that he had a much larger role in the movie thanks to Mr. Rush. Elizabeth was a strong woman that fought for Britain's reputations and for her people, and I think that, while she sure received some help from Walsingham, she wasn't that helpless and not aware of the danger that surrounded her.
Anyway, those are my opinions regarding the history. Not necessary about how the movie really is. It was a good movie, with a good cast, a bit dark but that's what makes it good. But, again, something to say against, I don't think that Cate Blanchett was a good choice. I like how she expresses her authority in some scenes, I really like that side of her Elizabeth, but most of the movie, until she realizes the gravity of the situation, she acts a bit childish. Maybe it's not Cate's fault it's the plot. But she acted great nonetheless. Geoffrey Rush is great as Walsingham, he delivered a great performance. As for Joseph Fiennes, well, he seems like he has only a way of acting. The way he acted in "Shakespeare in love" he acted here as well. With some differences of course, but he didn't impressed me.
All in all it's a good movie. Not as "wow" as everyone else praise, but still very good and worth watching.
8/10
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
So underrated!
That's very sad. It's too underrated, and this movie is really good. The story is good and emotional (not in girly way), the cast is nice and talented. I don't know what people were expecting more. Leonardo DiCaprio is such an annoying little brat here, but acts so well. Jeremy Irons delivers such a powerful and empathetic character in a way that you can actually feel and see in his eyes the pain he's going through the whole movie. At the end you find out why Aramis was acting that way towards his old friends that you wonder how he resisted and not broke down in any moment. We have some comic relief coming from Gérard Depardieu's Porthos. He manages to calm down the tense atmosphere and give some sense of relieve to others as well. He is a very talented actor, and he really made me laugh in this.
It deserved some more nominations for sure. At least DiCaprio and Irons whom gave some really wonderful performances. It's very sad. I hope in the future the users will rate this higher. It doesn't deserve 6,3. At least a 7. AT LEAST!
Worth watching, very good movie, way underrated. It stands in the 3rd place in my own personal favorite movies of all time (The first is "Les Miserables" 1998, the second is "The painted veil" 2004).
9/10
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
This was the Academy Awards most unforgivable mistake!!
This is a fine movie, but absolutely not an Oscar worthy one! And most certainly NOT AN 7 Oscars worthy one! They totally wasted those nominations on this thing! Sure, the acting was good and funny, but it's not a 7 Oscar worthy movie. The movie is funny, is interesting as seen from the perspective of the famous Shakespeare life, but good grace, people need to look more wide at the screen. It transmitted nothing to me. It was almost like a musical at some points. It's amazing how Oscars pop up when actresses begin to take their clothes off and the movie is rated R for sexuality. Gwyneth Paltrow was naked half of this movie. And those passion scenes were so unrealistic and pathetic that they really bored me. And it's too long! I felt like it was never going to end already after an hour of viewing. Geoffrey Rush got nominated for this piece of waste for best supporting actor and he didn't even won. He should have been nominated for best supporting actor in "Les miserables" and he surely would have won. But as I said those at the Academy Awards were so blind that I won't waste my words anymore for them.
I'm not saying it's a terrible movie. Not at all. Watch it people, but it's not a 7 Oscars worthy. And not even a 7,2 rated movie. It's way, way overrated. Put a couple Oscars more and it reaches "Gone with the wind"! How in God's name would this sound? It's really pathetic. Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress and I love her, but this movie didn't suit her. I don't like Joesph Fiennes. He acts like a macho, not an actor, in Elizabeth he acted the same way. He is not the actor that everyone praise, his brother Ralph is way more talented and has a lot more potential. Anyway, as a viewer I was disappointed. Good movie, but not the way it's shown for sure.
7\10
Les Misérables (1998)
Truly an Utopia!
With no doubt this movie is an utopia. Never ever in my life I have been so mesmerized by a movie in the way this one did to me. This is the movie of my life, a masterpiece, a perfect movie that warms your hearth and changes you as a person if you allow it. In a good manner. This movie also made me read the books. I love this story so much that I will build myself with patience and even go to see the new musical, for which I don't have the high expectations everyone has right now but I'm not going to criticize either. I will go for the story. For the wonderful story of Jean Valijean and Javert. I don't care about the differences. There are always going to be differences, between a movie and a book, but that doesn't matter. The message matters. The message that carries what we all should do more in our life: be a better person than others, be able to forgive and give up hating. This is what really matters and a true "Les miserables" fan will notice and follow that. As for the cast I have no words. Liam Neeson IS Jean Valijean! He's the perfect Jean Valijean that the world will have on screen, no matter what some others say. Geoffrey Rush IS the one and only Javert. He IS and WILL always be the one and only person that could portray the fanatic, perfectionist and twisted Javert. He is the only person by now that could pull all this emotions together and give this perfect performance. If the Academy Awards wouldn't have been so blind at the edition and toss around the Oscars with no sense as they did and would have notice more carefully the wonderful performance of those two the Oscars would have been now at their rightfully owners. But I don't care. For me and for others as well they are the best from that year. Not "Elizabeth", NOT "Shakespeare in love", THIS! Uma Thurman and Claire Danes are the most talented (especially Danes) Fantine and Cosette. Claire Danes will always be Cosette for me. She was the most sweet person in the movie. With the most beautiful eyes as well. The score was perfect especially at the Revolution scene. Very powerful.
Watch it people. If you care about good movies watch it as soon as you read this! Otherwise you live in vain.
10* PERFECTION!
Marie Antoinette (2006)
Really disappointing!!
Being a period pieces fan, I wanted to see a movie that could combine drama, with comedy and all the old-fashioned traditions. Then I saw Marie Antoinette here, on a list with "GREAT" period pieces. Oscar won, famous actors and actresses's (Kirsten Dust, Judy Davis, etc.), a good metascore review, I said to myself "wow, this seems like a must watch". I saw it like 30 minutes ago, and I feel for the first time that I wasted 2 hours. I learned about the controverted history of Marie Antoinette and I usually enjoy historical-based movies, but this...this is just a stupid joke. Seriously? Childish parties, weak plot line, only pink dresses and cake's and strawberry's. What can I learn from here about Marie Antoinette? Absolutely nothing!! Sure the acting was fine and all, but the actors can't do anything for themselves! They need a good plot line, a story, something that could make the public tick! What on earth was this?! And I thought that The Turist was bad. Comparing the movies again, The Turist could gain an 8 now from me. They just made fun of all the history! The France history, Marie Antoinette's history, everything. It was not funny, there were hard times back then. I know they wanted to focus on her other side, a more childish, innocent side, but they failed to impress. At least in my point of view.
And I recently read here a post that said that this is a masterpiece, and that even someone re-watched three times or so... I wanted to stop it at the half of its running, but my mother made me not to, because she hoped for a better evolution. Didn't happened. And when someone intervened there and said that it was weak, someone trashed the guy, for not interfering because it's "a girl" post. Well I'm a girl and I found it awful. I like parties, but this movie is beyond ridiculous. Ridiculos is a big word for this movie.
And the soundtrack...please. It scratched my ears.
I'm not a grumpy person, on the contrary I enjoy every bit about this life whether it's funny or not, but this movie really doesn't capture anything. Nor the teenage theme, nor the history theme (or whatever), nor anything. Poorly directed, poorly written, very good acting. That why it receives an 5 from me, because the actors had no fault.
I don't recommend for those seeking history, but only for those animal party lovers.
5\10
The Young Victoria (2009)
A good production.
As I said on another post, I love period pieces. This one was very good too from a lot I have watched until now. But a bit flawed too. Emily Blunt was a great actress, she did a very good job, but not her best. Now I'm not an actress to dispute other's abilities to portray a character, but as a viewer giving his three cents I just got a little bit annoyed by her constant laughing at some scenes. I don't know the history about Queen Victoria, nor I read or learned about who and how she really was, but from this movie she seemed not that royal-sh. But Mrs Blunt still did a great job though, her laugh didn't made me rank lower this movie. The story was slow, decent and beautiful by the end. The acting was great, Rupert did a wonderful job as prince Albert. He is new for me on screen, unfortunately I haven't seen other production's by him until now, but I'm looking forward from now on. The costume and designer's were great also. But it didn't make me feel that I was watching a 1800's placed movie but a really modern one. Hope everyone understands what I mean.
All in all it was good. Minor flaws, but worth watching.
8/10
Lady Jane (1986)
Well acted, Sweet story!
I love watching period movies. I really like Helena Bonham Carter, she is one from my list of favorite actresses, and I really looked forward to watch an old movie of her when she was young and at the beginning. She is a talented actress and even when she was young she still gave great performances. I look forward to watch Hamlet too because I've seen some samples on the internet of her Ophelia and I enjoyed them. As for this movie, I like it. A decent and bittersweet story of two young people who are persecuted by the ones who gave them life only to accomplish their own selfish interests in ruling a kingdom. But when they discover how much power they posses as the next rulers, their ideas to change the world and make a better place, while also enjoying life and their love makes everything interesting and sweet. The actors did a great job, the costume's were amazing, and it's a really inspiring story about how power, money and selfishness can change some innocent's people destiny.
Worth watching in a quiet evening.
Revolutionary Road (2008)
Tragic and different.
Most of us remained with the Jack/Rose feeling from Titanic and seeing the most perfect on screen couple like this was most likely a shocking appearance. I didn't thought about this side of a story between Leo and Kate, but honestly was not that awful as I expected to be. Yes, it was sad and tragic, but I don't know why I couldn't feel that magic that I felt watching Titanic. The fight scenes were intense and that were probably the parts that delivered the seriousness of the situation, but except for that it was a pretty weak story. I understood that it was inspired from a book. I haven't heard of it nor read it so I can't judge the storyline properly, but as a viewer I thought the story was pretty weak and poor written. The actors acted fantastic, Leo and Kate were brilliant as always, I always loved those two and still love them. They delivered their characters with talent and passion and I was impressed by their performance even in this unfortunate couple state. It wasn't their fault that I didn't found the movie over all impressive, it was the screenplay which I think, thought more wisely would have been great.
Worth watching for sure though. Especially if you are a Leo or Kate fan. Or both.
Jane Eyre (2011)
Very beautiful.
A very beautiful and moving production. Well, maybe not as moving as The Duchess, which in my opinion was the most heartbreaking movie I ever watched, but I think that as a period movie is definitely beautiful. I haven't had the chance to read the book, but my mother did and she loved the film. So I guess it captures the essential idea. Mia Wasikowska is a new appearance for me. Although I've seen Alice in Wonderland, these are the only movies with her so far that I have seen. She does a very good job, she is a very good actress in my opinion, at least she didn't disappoint me until now. Michael Fassbender did a great portrayal also, he delivered his character with talent. I loved the performance of Judi Dench also. All of them were wonderful.
All in all it was a great movie, well directed, a good screenplay, that captured the story perfectly, and of course with talented actors.
Definitely worth watching.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
OK so...
I watched the movie almost fifteen minutes ago and I could say that I surprisingly enjoyed it. I didn't understood all of those awe thoughts about the story of Alice, I personally didn't liked the story, thought it was too unreal, kind of childish, but the movie was more appealing and gave a different point of view to the hole story. The effects were good, the actors (the real ones) acted very good as well (the animated one too). Seeing Johnny as the Mad Hatter first time shock me a bit, even if I expected to look strange. I didn't know what to think about him, even his voice sounded different, but after a few moments since his introduction I recognized him and even going so far to really like him. He acted great, and he became my second favorite character from the movie after the Cheshire cat. The cat is my first favorite character, just for her teasing and shifty personality, Stephen Fry was great. As for the queens, I like both Anne Hathway's White Quenn as well as Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen, but I must admit I liked the Red queen more. It's just that magic that Helena pours in every villain she portrays that you can't possibly despise her. Last but not least Mia did a wonderful job playing Alice, at first I must admit I didn't like her, but after a few scenes I started to enjoy her presence. I felt sad that she didn't stay with the Hatter at the end but, it was necessary for her to leave, as she belonged to the real world, but I kind of hoped she would have had met the Hatter in some person she knew in her real life. (like she did with the two brother's for example) The special effects were good but not among the best in my opinion, so I don't know what to say about the won Oscar, but surely they worked hard so I guess the producers deserved some "thanks". But I agree with the costume design prize. I really liked Alice's dresses throughout the movie and other costumes as well. All in all was a good movie.
8.5/10
Atonement (2007)
Honestly...
I don't know what to say about this one. A very twisted, pathetic, pitiful story. Not that I don't liked it, it was a good movie. The acting was great, the background and score gave a more deep significance to the story, and the story itself with the all the twist and turns was OK, but it left me with a "blank" feeling. I really don't know what to think about it. Did I understood what happened? Did I really enjoy it or it's just my nature to not criticize so harsh a work? Did the story it's just that captivating and interesting as many others say? Or I just applied the "sheep" thing and convinced myself it was a good film based on others opinions?
These are my feelings for now after a half hour waiting, after seeing the movie to put all the pieces together in order to write my opinion. I understood the hole point of the story, I understood the story itself and what happened, but...I don't know. Maybe I expected more. What "more" exactly that is I don't know, 'cause in many cases (including me) viewers tend to like twisted stories, because they act like riddles. You love that sense of "misteryous events that need to guessed" feeling. But this one left me with a really "blank" feeling.
It took me a almost a half hour to decide what to write here, and almost three minutes to decide whether to give a seven or an eight to this movie. But in the end I thought seven suits the story more in my point of view.
Worth watching people, but aim yourself with patience and don't give up if it confuses you a bit, just pay attention. Details of the story are hidden throughout every film's bit.
The Duchess (2008)
Heartbreaking, but brilliant!
First I have to say that this is very heartbreaking. I can't help myself not to feel sad about women in that period. I really don't know how could they could lived such a life. Rich, but very poor in a way and pitiful. The story was heartbreaking and tragic. But, the actors did a fantastic job. Keira Knightley is a wonderful and brilliant actress, she is just made for these period roles, she nails them in an outstanding way. And she is a perfect "on screen" mother. Although she doesn't have a child on her own, she acts like a truly mother when required. I'm a very though person but I must admit that the scene, where little Eliza is token away from her arms, I feel like my heart was ripping apart, even though I don't know that feeling, but the hole point is....amazingly acted and done. Ralph Fiennes, I must be forgiven for this, but I won't praise him much. He is great actor, he did a great job, but I totally hate his character, which is more tragic given the fact that that person existed. And persons like him still exists somewhere in this world. The cast did a wonderful job. It deserved it's Oscar and even much more if it could receive, no doubt! I love the movie, but I can't give it a 10 because the story it's cruel. And it's nobody's fault, it's just a fact and I feel sorry for this.
Worth watching!
8/10
The Tourist (2010)
A bit confusing movie, but not horrible.
The plot line wasn't one of the greatest I have seen, pretty confusing and at some point it seemed that the actors were starting to improvise the story on their on. Over all it was OK, the acting was good, there are some parts that may thrill some of you. I have nothing to complain except for the plot line which as I said, was not very great. Johnny Depp did a very good job, though I don't think this may be categorized as one of his best roles.
Half good, half bad. But nothing more to say. I don't usually complain about movies, even if they are really bad (which is not really the case here). I just watch it and be happy that I didn't miss it, and add it to my "watched" list.
OK movie. Watch it if you have nothing to do in a free day. (like me)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Over all good but...
...like any other sequels as well a bit flawed. I'm probably one of the fewest viewers who didn't ship an attraction between Elizabeth and Jack, but now please guys don't get me wrong, this movie is still brilliant. Johnny does a fantastic job as captain Jack once again. Orlando Bloom's Will Turner has a small character growth and shows more of his willingness's to do whatever is necessary to ensure Elizabeth's safety, including once again, risking his life. I felt really bad for Norrington in this one. I founded his twisted fate a great turn up, but I was still unable to not feel sorry for him. Still, Jack Davenport gave us an amazing performance. Keira Knightley did a wonderful job also, her character changed and become more mature and brave and let aside her "damsel-in-distress" image for good. One thing that I didn't like about her, were her clothes. Those didn't suite her at all, especially that hat, but this is not a reason to hate the movie, so let's continue. The CGI were excellent worked in this movie. Davy Jones appearance is a really jaw dropping scene, because he is such an unpredictable character and you can't really make a single opinion about him. A bit cruel and sadistic, but a very complicated and twisted character, Bill Nighy did a fantastic job over all. Also the appearance of Cutler Beckett and his scenes after would make you want to slap Tom Hollander, and by saying this I'm praising Tom's performance. Surely I find him more evil than Davy Jones. Now I want to congratulate Gore Verbinski for the stunning visual effects and the epic battle scenes, especially those involving the Kraken. By the way, the Kraken is one awesome made monster and I really hold my breath at the final battle scene when everything seemed to be doomed, but at least, not every loved character paid the harsh price of death. And the one who paid clearly has a chance of coming back in the next sequel. The soundtrack was awesome. Hans Zimmer is as always a truly artist and no doubt my favorite composer.
And the ending is indeed shocking but brilliant. The most awesome shocking endings you can experience. And if it comes from a favorite character it is likely to get suck on your head for good. Brilliant acting, stunning visual effects, awesome battle scenes, several breathtaking and anxious action sequences, and a dramatic ending as well. It's a worth watching movie, and not a ( I really despise this line) two and a half hours movie that you will never get back as some (in my opinion)immature audiences and critics say. You can easily lose an hour or two from your life staying in a supermarket crowd to get some food, but in my opinion you don't lose nothing from seeing a movie. Each movie has his own flaws and qualities, but that doesn't mean you have to put a cloud to everyone's sunny day by saying like you are the supreme critic that this sucks. People need to learn to enjoy life more, and those cloudy people need to stay where they feel better and stop ruining the joy of other people.
WATCH IT GUYS! (and now I say this to the fans and a more plausible audience that won't spoil the whole atmosphere after watching. Certainly not watchable for the haters and cloudy people. Please back up!)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Very good start!
I love this movie as much as I love the sequels as well. A very great beginning, though I must admit that regarding the special effect's and action sequences , they improve later in the following sequels. Nevertheless, the film is great. The plot is twisted and catchy, the action sequences are great also, especially the battle between the two ships later in the movie, the actors are very talented, they made each of their character unique and lovable, and last but not least the score is amazing and draws perfect with the epic scenes, Klaus Badelt and Hans Zimmer did a perfect job.
An awesome movie, surely worth watching. Gore Verbinski did a fantastic job. Johnny Depp portraying the funny and a bit lumpy captain Jack is beyond amazing and hilarious the same time. Geoffrey Rush portraying the cursed and twisted captain Barbossa is surely the best performance I've seen. Orlando Bloom plays the perfect knight in shinny armor for our Keira Knightley's though lady character. And also, although they play "small" character's, Lee Arenberg's and Mackenzie Crook's Pintel and Raggeti are by far the most hilarious little villains in the movie.
This being said, like I mentioned earlier a great beginning for what will be an awesome series from that day forward. Congratulations to everyone who contributed in making of this movie.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
All I have to say is
Probably the best of the series regarding action and visual effects. It was astonishing. The action sequences were amazing, the actor's were fabulous and very talented. The maelstrom at the end of the movie was the most brilliant battle I have ever seen combined with the soundtrack. Please people, do not make the mistake of taking seriously what the others say. This movie is worth watching, you don't lose anything, except maybe the fact that you will miss the most epic ending of the story (for me this is the real ending of Pirates of the Caribbean until now). Trust me. Yes the plot line is complicated a bit but not completely not understandable like other's say. If it's necessary re watch Dead Man's Chest, but please watch the movie.
Respect for the cast and crew for their effort especially Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom, director Gore Verbinsky and the awesome composer Hans Zimmer. I'm happy that I had the opportunity to see it.