adudewhoiscool

In 1997 JK Rowling introduced to the world a small eleven-year-old boy who discovers that he is a wizard. Fast forward to today (seven books, five films later) this boy, Harry Potter, is one of the biggest phenomenons of today. With an amazing book series and four brilliant films to the résumé, will the newest film, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," still have that "Harry Potter" magic? To this reviewer's surprise, considering that the book was his least favorite, the movie was one of the best of the series.

Harry returns to his fifth year at Hogwarts full of ill fortune. Few of students and parents believe him, or Dumbledore, that Voldemort is back. The Ministry of Magic had decided to step in by appointing a new Defense against the Dark Arts teacher, Delores Umbridge, which proves to be the nastiest person Harry has ever encountered. To top it off, Harry is having some mysterious dreams featuring Voldemort. Can Harry Potter survive his toughest year at Hogwarts yet?

If you are a hardcore Harry Potter nerd you will probably trash this movie to pieces. There are a lot of missing subplots but if you have watched any of the Harry Potter movies, or any book adaptations for that matter, you will realize that most adaptations is not 100% the book. Just look at the runtime, 2 Hrs and 18 minutes (the shortest of the films), and you would realize that it would have been impossible to fit all 870 pages. They cut out some good sub plots, for example: zero references to Quidditch, but they kept the theme of the book intact and that is what this reviewer wanted and hoped for as a companion to the book.

The acting was amazing. There should be props given out to David Yates for getting the best performances out of the young actors, especially Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley). For the first time, it felt like Ron Weasley was more then just the butt of the jokes. The veteran actors (Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Garry Oldman, Emma Thompson, and others) are always great. The newest additions: Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix), newcomer, Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Natalia Tena (Nymphadora Tonks) were also great. The best was Imelda Staunton as Professor Umbridge. She pulled off her villainous role so well that you hate her more then Voldemort.

This is the most mature of the series. As the book series continues, as well as the movies, it gets darker and the same goes for this film. There are also many themes about how everyone has their own dark side and how you can fight your own dark side. Though it is the most adult of the series, the kids can see it and enjoy it too. If you expect a big action packed film, with many special effects, you might be bored with this movie because it concentrates most on the characters and the story.

The action and the special effects are amazing. They introduce Hagrid's half-brother giant named Grawp. There is also an introduction to Thestrals, which are these skeletal horses with wings. The action is not much until the climax of the story at the Department of Mysteries, so if you expect a big action packed, special effects film, as they showed in the trailers, you will be disappointed. Nonetheless, the climax is very thrilling with all of the wizardry battles and it gave a "Star Wars" type feel.

Overall if you are a fan of the series, you should like it. However, as this reviewer has mentioned earlier, if you are a die hard Harry Potter freak who wants everything in the book and complains when something is different you will not like this. There is very little this reviewer does not like about this movie besides the absence of Quidditch. Go see it because this reviewer is sure you will enjoy it. This reviewer hopes that David Yates will continue his magic on the next installment, "Half Blood Prince." One big warning: if you want to get into Harry Potter, do not start with this film. The story does rely on your knowledge of the previous installments and does not work as a stand-alone film like the others.

What is this "Transformers?" If you grew up in 1980s, especially if you were a male, the answer would have been part of your daily knowledge. This reviewer grew up in the 1990s, so even though the "Transformers" phenomenon was not as powerful as it was in the 1980s, this reviewer still remembers watching the many reruns on "Cartoon Network." Nonetheless, this reviewer remembers watching the reruns of the television show, along with many other ones from that era. The question will be asked: will fans of the television show like the movie? Will it appeal to the non-fans as well? The answer to those questions is an absolute yes.

Sam Witwicky buys his first car, but, to his surprise, that car was actually Bumblebee, a member of the Autobots, disguised as a Camaro. Through Bumblebee, Sam discovers the secrets about the mysterious "Allspark," a cube that gives machines the gift of life, and the war that is going on between Autobots and Decepticons. Unfortunately, Bumblebee is not the only Transformer to have landed on earth. In Qatar, there was an attack on the US military base, but those attacks were not from any particular human terrorist but two Decepticons. In addition, two other Decepticons attacked Sam and his girlfriend, Mikaela. These Decepticons want the Allspark for their own needs greedy needs, while the Autobots want to destroy it because of its corruptive power. With more and more Decepticons appearing, Bumblebee sends a message for other Autobots to come to Earth. Now the war hits the Earth and it is up to Sam, with the help of the Autobots, to ensure humanities survival.

The special effects, created by Industrial Lights and Magic (ILM), and fight scenes were phenomenal. Every time one of them did their transformations, your jaw will literally hit the floor. Special effects have been amazing over the years, but you have not felt this overwhelmed since seeing the Dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park." Never once did you feel that it was computer generated. It is consistently action packed, and never once during its 144 minutes does it feel boring. Sure there is at times, when the trademark "shaky" cam came into play, making it very difficult to tell what was going on, but there is also times where they would slow down the fights to show you the most important scenes.

There are many references to the cartoon series. Some lines from the original cartoon series are quoted in this. The great Peter Cullen, who was the voice of Optimus in the animated series, voices Optimus Prime in this one too. They do make little tiny tweaks to the designs of the characters, for a more modern look, but it would have looked extremely cheesy if it was left unaltered. If you were a fan of the series, you are going to love the references.

Besides the action, special effects, and many references to the cartoon series, the humor was surprisingly well done. It is surprising how much humor is actually there and even more surprising how much it works. There are some parts where the audiences, and this reviewer, are laughing so hard that you could not even hear what the characters are saying after words. Warning to parents: some of the most humorous scenes are very adult, so if you do not want to explain to your young children some awkward things, do not show them this movie.

The acting is nothing special, but it does the job. The most impressive is Shia LeBeouf as Sam. This role really showed that he can do big budget lead roles, a big step up from his days as Lewis Stevens in "Even Stevens." Megan Fox is in this for nothing else but eye candy. Tyrese Gibson and Josh Duhamel are in this film, but as expected, do not do anything for their roles but play Soldiers. Anthony Anderson and Bernie Mac bring great comedic relief. Peter Cullen shows off his iconic voice as Optimus Prime. John Voight is a great president too!

In conclusion, go see "Transformers" because it is an awesome action movie. Fans of the series are going to love it and the casual fans are going to love it as well. As a fan of the show, this is everything expected, and much more. You should see it as soon as you can to get the full effect. The audience, this reviewer saw it with, loved it. There were many laughs at appropriate times, lots of cheering for great action scenes and the appearances of popular characters like Megatron or Optimus and a big applause at the end credits. It just made the film so much more enjoyable, and that is why you see a big budget "Transformers" movie. It is not "The Godfather," nor should the audience pretend it was. "Transformers" is a movie to have fun viewing, and boy is it!

In 1994 Quentin Tarantino made an academy award winning film that would influence many films, even today. Many filmmakers have tried to duplicate Tarantino's style and "Boondock Saints" is another one of those films. Do you know what that original film was? Your right, it was "Pulp Fiction." Regardless of how much "influence" "Pulp Fiction" has had on the making of "Boondock Saints," is "Boondock Saints" a good or a bad film?

Two Irish brothers feel that they have had a mission from God to get rid of evil human beings. FBI agent Paul Smecker, while trying to figure out the murders, discovers that what the boys are doing is right. By fighting for truth and justice, are the Irish brothers accepted by the public or are they considered cold hard murderers?

"Boondock Saints" is a lousy film, and it is not only because it is a "Pulp Fiction" wannabe because throughout history we have seen film, television, and or literature that borrows significantly from something else. "Boondock Saints" had a lot of potential because of the premise but the writing is not very good. Even though they infused many bits from "Pulp Fiction," if this reviewer had a lot of fun of viewing the movie, it would not have mattered.

Like "Pulp Fiction," "Boondock Saints" puts a lot of emphasis on the crime/action genre, sprinkled with comedic elements throughout, but the problem is "Pulp Fiction" was actually funny. This reviewer laughed more unintentionally then intentionally. In fact, the funniest intentional part of the movie was done a lot better in "Pulp Fiction." It got to the point where it felt like an unintentional parody on the genre.

The acting was okay. Billy Connolly is one of the bright spots as Il Duce. William Dafoe is the main reason to watch this film as a gay FBI agent, Paul Smecker. Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus plays two Irish twins. Though they are twins, the viewer will feel that they are just a bit closer then that (if you know what this reviewer means.) David Della Rocco was just as pointless as his character, Rocco. The biggest error of film is casting Ron Jeremy as a member of the mafia, Vincenzo Lipazzi. Lesson in film, if you want to be taken seriously, never cast Ron Jeremy.

In conclusion, you could watch something a lot better then "Boondock Saints." If Billy Connolly and William Dafoe were not in there, this reviewer would probably say that this film could not have gotten any worse. The whole film felt like it was trying to be too cool. Though just because you say the F-word and fire many bullets, does not mean that you are cool. Unlike "Pulp Fiction," there is not that character or phrases that are very memorable and there are no characters to root for. It was just a mess all together.