Mister_Anderson's reviews
This page compiles all reviews Mister_Anderson has written, sharing their detailed thoughts about movies, TV shows, and more.
21 reviews
Jurassic World: Rebirth ("Rebirth") doesn't do anything offensive to Jurassic Park. And that fact alone makes it better than the last two movies in this franchise.
You don't need to know anything about the prior movies to get up to speed on this, as the plot is simplistic and mostly ignores or recons them. A ragtag group of cardboard characters goes to an isolated island to get miracle cure from dangerous creatures inhabiting said island. Unexpected (for the characters, not the audience) problems arise. Only important and worthy characters make it out alive.
The movie is directed by Gareth Edwards, who directed the 2014 Godzilla, which was divided by movie-goers, but which I very much enjoyed. Edwards borrowed heavily from that movie for this one. The opening scene for Rebirth is taken almost directly from Godzilla (although pointless here), and a few dino hybrids in Rebirth have clear resemblance to some of the monsters in Godzilla.
But that's not all that's borrowed. Rebirth often plays like the greatest hits of the Jurassic Park/World movies that came before, which works but not as good as the original. Remember the raptors in the kitchen? Check. Malcolm waiving the flare for distraction? Check. Nedry recklessly driving the jeep to steal dino DNA? Check. The list goes on. There is some stolen reference you can point to from the each of the sequels as well. However, aside from the raptors in the kitchen bit (this time with a different dinosaur), the callbacks are not in your face enough to take you out of the movie. And thankfully no one does Chris Pratt's magic hand move.
The dialogue is merely passable and the cast adequate. This is one of those movies where you know within the first 20 minutes who will die and the order in which they will die. Once again in this franchise we have a snazzy-dressed capitalist who inexplicably goes over-the-top evil. Yawn. (Any guesses on whether he makes it out OK?) The human roles were never the selling point for the sequels, so it doesn't matter too much that there's no nuance with them.
Some dinosaur encounters are shot well, although the design of these terrors will likely divide fans. The CGI is mostly solid, but several have only a passing resemblance to dinosaurs, with the idea being that they are hybrid clones gone wrong so they just kept them on this reject island. It makes no sense with what we know of the rest of the series, but that follows for this movie.
The T-Rex scene with the raft is probably the best bit, and one imagined from the first book instead of a prior movie, which is welcome, although the fact that it could be excised from this movie without affecting the plot showcases a recurring problem. Also, the end of the movie is clearly inspired from the end of the second book.
As a turn-of-your-brain monster movie, Rebirth is passable, maybe even good. Thankfully, it does not attempt to say anything profound or tarnish the original movie. Aside from a surprisingly slow start, it kept me awake. My rating is 5/10.
You don't need to know anything about the prior movies to get up to speed on this, as the plot is simplistic and mostly ignores or recons them. A ragtag group of cardboard characters goes to an isolated island to get miracle cure from dangerous creatures inhabiting said island. Unexpected (for the characters, not the audience) problems arise. Only important and worthy characters make it out alive.
The movie is directed by Gareth Edwards, who directed the 2014 Godzilla, which was divided by movie-goers, but which I very much enjoyed. Edwards borrowed heavily from that movie for this one. The opening scene for Rebirth is taken almost directly from Godzilla (although pointless here), and a few dino hybrids in Rebirth have clear resemblance to some of the monsters in Godzilla.
But that's not all that's borrowed. Rebirth often plays like the greatest hits of the Jurassic Park/World movies that came before, which works but not as good as the original. Remember the raptors in the kitchen? Check. Malcolm waiving the flare for distraction? Check. Nedry recklessly driving the jeep to steal dino DNA? Check. The list goes on. There is some stolen reference you can point to from the each of the sequels as well. However, aside from the raptors in the kitchen bit (this time with a different dinosaur), the callbacks are not in your face enough to take you out of the movie. And thankfully no one does Chris Pratt's magic hand move.
The dialogue is merely passable and the cast adequate. This is one of those movies where you know within the first 20 minutes who will die and the order in which they will die. Once again in this franchise we have a snazzy-dressed capitalist who inexplicably goes over-the-top evil. Yawn. (Any guesses on whether he makes it out OK?) The human roles were never the selling point for the sequels, so it doesn't matter too much that there's no nuance with them.
Some dinosaur encounters are shot well, although the design of these terrors will likely divide fans. The CGI is mostly solid, but several have only a passing resemblance to dinosaurs, with the idea being that they are hybrid clones gone wrong so they just kept them on this reject island. It makes no sense with what we know of the rest of the series, but that follows for this movie.
The T-Rex scene with the raft is probably the best bit, and one imagined from the first book instead of a prior movie, which is welcome, although the fact that it could be excised from this movie without affecting the plot showcases a recurring problem. Also, the end of the movie is clearly inspired from the end of the second book.
As a turn-of-your-brain monster movie, Rebirth is passable, maybe even good. Thankfully, it does not attempt to say anything profound or tarnish the original movie. Aside from a surprisingly slow start, it kept me awake. My rating is 5/10.
No spoilers, but I predicted the ending about 30 minutes in, and I know I'm not alone.
That of course makes the next hour a bit of a slog since you know nothing is as it seems.
Otherwise, the premise and execution are OK. I wish the main character Cole had been better developed. At times they seemed to insinuate that he was detached from reality as a popular social media extreme content creator. Early on, his girlfriend says there are two Coles, the private and the public, and sometimes she doesn't which one he is. But the film never really follows up on this or pays this off. There's no character growth or lesson to be learned. Just a twist ending that is barely disguised.
The problem mainly lies with the script, as the acting is decent. Not one I recommend watching, but you could do worse.
That of course makes the next hour a bit of a slog since you know nothing is as it seems.
Otherwise, the premise and execution are OK. I wish the main character Cole had been better developed. At times they seemed to insinuate that he was detached from reality as a popular social media extreme content creator. Early on, his girlfriend says there are two Coles, the private and the public, and sometimes she doesn't which one he is. But the film never really follows up on this or pays this off. There's no character growth or lesson to be learned. Just a twist ending that is barely disguised.
The problem mainly lies with the script, as the acting is decent. Not one I recommend watching, but you could do worse.
I'm a found footage fan and had heard good things about this film.
Well, they were wrong.
This was among the most dull FF movies I've seen. I was completely bored despite its mere 83 minute runtime. I almost turned it off with 15 minutes left because I was so disinterested.
The premise has potential: a grieving atheist who deals with his remorse by putting his body through the religious ringer, literally inviting in any demon, just to "prove" to the world there's no such thing. But the execution is a mess.
First, this would have worked better without the FF concept. Halfway through the film, there's no point to be holding a camera, and several shots break the illusion.
Second, the acting by the main character is merely average and not up to the task of carrying the movie on his back. (He's in the entire film.) This is particularly obvious when he begins to "change." The script doesn't do him any favors, as any actor would be challenged to make such a bland character relatable.
Third, as mentioned, this movie is boring. If you've seen a few FF horror films, you'll see nothing new here. Every trope, every jumpscare, and even the overall narrative have been done before and in much better projects.
I just wanted, at the least, something halfway decent to pass the time. But this one didn't meet my very low expectations. It slowly, SLOWLY, builds to absolutely nothing.
The only thing scary about this movie is all the high reviews it has received. That is better proof of supernatural influence than what this film delivers.
Well, they were wrong.
This was among the most dull FF movies I've seen. I was completely bored despite its mere 83 minute runtime. I almost turned it off with 15 minutes left because I was so disinterested.
The premise has potential: a grieving atheist who deals with his remorse by putting his body through the religious ringer, literally inviting in any demon, just to "prove" to the world there's no such thing. But the execution is a mess.
First, this would have worked better without the FF concept. Halfway through the film, there's no point to be holding a camera, and several shots break the illusion.
Second, the acting by the main character is merely average and not up to the task of carrying the movie on his back. (He's in the entire film.) This is particularly obvious when he begins to "change." The script doesn't do him any favors, as any actor would be challenged to make such a bland character relatable.
Third, as mentioned, this movie is boring. If you've seen a few FF horror films, you'll see nothing new here. Every trope, every jumpscare, and even the overall narrative have been done before and in much better projects.
I just wanted, at the least, something halfway decent to pass the time. But this one didn't meet my very low expectations. It slowly, SLOWLY, builds to absolutely nothing.
The only thing scary about this movie is all the high reviews it has received. That is better proof of supernatural influence than what this film delivers.
This might be the first time I've watched a film that apparently was so boring that they decided to completely switch stories at the halfway point.
I enjoyed the first movie. It wasn't excellent but it was creepy and felt authentic. Most importantly, it followed the same character for the entire film, which is more than I can say for this sequel.
The plot involving Minerva dissipated at the mid point, and suddenly we're following the disappearance of a completely different young woman with no explanation.
Like, what? All the mysteries and plot threads (and I use the term loosely) of Minerva are abandoned and never returned to. The second missing woman's plot is similarly not resolved in any way.
Unlike the first film, there was no connection with the victim(s). No character building, very little world building. The editing is so sloppy it's embarrassing, and the narrative is a mess. Any potentially interesting plot threads are inexplicably forgotten.
The 9 and 10 star reviews are clearly fake/associated with the filmmakers. This movie is unfinished!
I enjoyed the first movie. It wasn't excellent but it was creepy and felt authentic. Most importantly, it followed the same character for the entire film, which is more than I can say for this sequel.
The plot involving Minerva dissipated at the mid point, and suddenly we're following the disappearance of a completely different young woman with no explanation.
Like, what? All the mysteries and plot threads (and I use the term loosely) of Minerva are abandoned and never returned to. The second missing woman's plot is similarly not resolved in any way.
Unlike the first film, there was no connection with the victim(s). No character building, very little world building. The editing is so sloppy it's embarrassing, and the narrative is a mess. Any potentially interesting plot threads are inexplicably forgotten.
The 9 and 10 star reviews are clearly fake/associated with the filmmakers. This movie is unfinished!
I agree with many other reviews in that there's not much original or inspiring with this film. It's a by-the-numbers a trapped person must survive the elements and a crazy man. It's definitely watchable, but the third act takes a disappointing turn into Wolf Creek territory.
Not much is known about main character Mallory aside from her uncertainty about her upcoming wedding, but the actress does a good job of keeping her relatable and likable, that is until the end when she becomes an eye rolling girl boss complete with "badass repartee."
Not the worst way to pass 90 minutes, but it doesn't fiddle with anything new or inventive. You'll likely forget most of it in a day or two.
Not much is known about main character Mallory aside from her uncertainty about her upcoming wedding, but the actress does a good job of keeping her relatable and likable, that is until the end when she becomes an eye rolling girl boss complete with "badass repartee."
Not the worst way to pass 90 minutes, but it doesn't fiddle with anything new or inventive. You'll likely forget most of it in a day or two.
Godzilla (2014) was not great but I admired it for what worked, namely some suspenseful scenes, only selectively showing the monster, and even had Bryan Cranston. I watched the next sequel out of order. King of the Monsters was worse in nearly every way, but I watched it to the end and was like meh.
I finally got around to Kong Skull Island. I guess they decided to show the monster at every opportunity because that's what we got. The opening plot contrivance with the helicopters contributing to fly into Kong was incredibly stupid. Worse than the helicopters in 1998 Godzilla, and that's saying a lot. Unfortunately, here, that is the plot of the film and sets the story in mountain. It never recovers. The characters were so stereotypical and paper-thin they made King of The Monster characters look deep. There was good talent in the film, but if this is all you'd seen them in, you'd never for looking for another of their films. Peter Jackson's Kong, although an hour longer, was better in every other way. This movie didn't know what it was trying to be. I guess Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness by some of its imagery. And two of the roles are named Conrad and Marlow...how profound.
Seriously, skip this one. They make every mistake. It's not scary but I think they tried to be. Then at other times they act like it's a comedy. Half the roles have no purpose. With the opening, there's was the potential to be something interesting and inspiring. The film never latches onto this.
Finally, yes the effects are good. But they're good in so many other better films, as the aforementioned Jackson's King Kong. And did I mention how much I hated the characters and their ridiculous shifts for plot reasons?
This should have been at least decent. It was horrible, and it must have taken a lot of work to make it so horrible. Directing, writing, acting in particular are abysmal. Avoid at all costs. I'm now hesitant to watch Godzilla vs. Kong, but at least that has a different director and cast.
(This director gave an interview adamantly defending this junk, in which he said people just want to see Kong throw trees into helicopters. Well, yes, maybe, but they also want to see some things called plot and characterization. Ugh.)
I finally got around to Kong Skull Island. I guess they decided to show the monster at every opportunity because that's what we got. The opening plot contrivance with the helicopters contributing to fly into Kong was incredibly stupid. Worse than the helicopters in 1998 Godzilla, and that's saying a lot. Unfortunately, here, that is the plot of the film and sets the story in mountain. It never recovers. The characters were so stereotypical and paper-thin they made King of The Monster characters look deep. There was good talent in the film, but if this is all you'd seen them in, you'd never for looking for another of their films. Peter Jackson's Kong, although an hour longer, was better in every other way. This movie didn't know what it was trying to be. I guess Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness by some of its imagery. And two of the roles are named Conrad and Marlow...how profound.
Seriously, skip this one. They make every mistake. It's not scary but I think they tried to be. Then at other times they act like it's a comedy. Half the roles have no purpose. With the opening, there's was the potential to be something interesting and inspiring. The film never latches onto this.
Finally, yes the effects are good. But they're good in so many other better films, as the aforementioned Jackson's King Kong. And did I mention how much I hated the characters and their ridiculous shifts for plot reasons?
This should have been at least decent. It was horrible, and it must have taken a lot of work to make it so horrible. Directing, writing, acting in particular are abysmal. Avoid at all costs. I'm now hesitant to watch Godzilla vs. Kong, but at least that has a different director and cast.
(This director gave an interview adamantly defending this junk, in which he said people just want to see Kong throw trees into helicopters. Well, yes, maybe, but they also want to see some things called plot and characterization. Ugh.)
If you've seen any of Roland Emmerich's previous disaster titles, you probably know what you're in for with this one. That being said, I felt 2012 had better acting and a more exciting storyline than the others.
In order to enjoy this film, you have to ignore the ridiculously absurd premise about neutrinos and the sun catastrophically altering the earth's crust (forget about the Mayan prophecy, which is hardly mentioned). If you can overlook why the world is ending, this is actually an captivating film with some spectacular effects scenes. Yes, there are several perilous close calls that stretch the notion of "luck". Yes, the actors from all parts of the world become interconnected in what stretches the notion of "coincidence". No, it's not going to receive any best acting or screenplay nominations. Nevertheless, it's engaging.
Cusack is great as the everyman hero. Ejiofor grabs your attention as the young government scientist trying to prepare for the inevitable. Glover and Harrison are also effective in smaller roles: Glover as the resolute President, and Harrison as the wackjob conspiracy theorist who might not be so crazy after all. Many other characters are merely stereotypes (like the Russian) or one dimensional (like the wife), but let's be honest, it's not the characters that we're coming to see. If you are, you'll probably be disappointed.
2012 is not great but it entertains as a doomsday thriller. IMO it's better than Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. Worth a rental if you're into disaster flicks.
In order to enjoy this film, you have to ignore the ridiculously absurd premise about neutrinos and the sun catastrophically altering the earth's crust (forget about the Mayan prophecy, which is hardly mentioned). If you can overlook why the world is ending, this is actually an captivating film with some spectacular effects scenes. Yes, there are several perilous close calls that stretch the notion of "luck". Yes, the actors from all parts of the world become interconnected in what stretches the notion of "coincidence". No, it's not going to receive any best acting or screenplay nominations. Nevertheless, it's engaging.
Cusack is great as the everyman hero. Ejiofor grabs your attention as the young government scientist trying to prepare for the inevitable. Glover and Harrison are also effective in smaller roles: Glover as the resolute President, and Harrison as the wackjob conspiracy theorist who might not be so crazy after all. Many other characters are merely stereotypes (like the Russian) or one dimensional (like the wife), but let's be honest, it's not the characters that we're coming to see. If you are, you'll probably be disappointed.
2012 is not great but it entertains as a doomsday thriller. IMO it's better than Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. Worth a rental if you're into disaster flicks.
I got a kick reading some of the reviews on this site for this movie, namely the people complaining that this film gave them convulsions and so forth. On the contrary, this movie is so horrible that I was hypnotized. You could not pry my eyes from the TV set.
In any event, no need to describe the plot because it's too ridiculous to discuss. Let's just put it at this: a wanna-be karate kid dork fights gangsters working for a crooked real estate developer. Clichés and bad acting abound. Maybe my favorite was the character "Steve" who is another karate kid wannabe and has an inexplicable rivalry with the main character. (It would be more believable if Steve was actually cool. But nope, he's a dork too, so why no love?)
The "fight" scenes are anything but. It's the same one bad guy at a time procedure...kind of like a movie version of Streets of Rage for the Genesis.
Highlights: - Six-year-olds beating up musclemen gangsters. No really. - Jennifer Lyons and her two best friends (and I'm not talking about the girls the comic sidekick tries to hit on). - The random knife fight in the diner. - The comic sidekick's lame pick-up lines (so lame, I actually laughed). - The inexplicably evil real estate developer. - The stubborn uncle / convenience store owner who "ain't gonna let no one make him sell."
Why did I give it a 5? On one hand, it gets a 1 because sadly the director did not intend for this movie to be a joke. On the other hand, it gets a 10 for all the reasons listed above. So I picked the average.
You MUST see this movie. Preferably with a group of friends.
In any event, no need to describe the plot because it's too ridiculous to discuss. Let's just put it at this: a wanna-be karate kid dork fights gangsters working for a crooked real estate developer. Clichés and bad acting abound. Maybe my favorite was the character "Steve" who is another karate kid wannabe and has an inexplicable rivalry with the main character. (It would be more believable if Steve was actually cool. But nope, he's a dork too, so why no love?)
The "fight" scenes are anything but. It's the same one bad guy at a time procedure...kind of like a movie version of Streets of Rage for the Genesis.
Highlights: - Six-year-olds beating up musclemen gangsters. No really. - Jennifer Lyons and her two best friends (and I'm not talking about the girls the comic sidekick tries to hit on). - The random knife fight in the diner. - The comic sidekick's lame pick-up lines (so lame, I actually laughed). - The inexplicably evil real estate developer. - The stubborn uncle / convenience store owner who "ain't gonna let no one make him sell."
Why did I give it a 5? On one hand, it gets a 1 because sadly the director did not intend for this movie to be a joke. On the other hand, it gets a 10 for all the reasons listed above. So I picked the average.
You MUST see this movie. Preferably with a group of friends.
This movie is okay. Decent for a rental. However, if any of the following applies to you, I would suggest you stay away:
Since I had read the book, I decided to see this. I heard terrible things about the movie, so I came in expecting it to be horrid. Because I had such low expectations, I found I actually enjoyed it. It was not a great movie by any means, but it was definitely an enjoyable way to spend 2 hours. A lot has been changed from the book, but this is the case in all Crichton movies. Paul Walker sucks as an actor, but I knew this having seen Fast & Furious.
So, in short, if you go into this film looking for 2 hours of entertainment and nothing more, you probably won't be disappointed.
- You're a huge fan of the book and are looking for a faithful adaptation. - You can't stand Paul Walker's acting (or lack thereof). - You're an archaeologist. - You are a stickler for exact accents. - You want time-travel in time-travel movies to be described in great detail and/or in a way that would really work.
Since I had read the book, I decided to see this. I heard terrible things about the movie, so I came in expecting it to be horrid. Because I had such low expectations, I found I actually enjoyed it. It was not a great movie by any means, but it was definitely an enjoyable way to spend 2 hours. A lot has been changed from the book, but this is the case in all Crichton movies. Paul Walker sucks as an actor, but I knew this having seen Fast & Furious.
So, in short, if you go into this film looking for 2 hours of entertainment and nothing more, you probably won't be disappointed.
"Threads" is an extremely engaging film dealing with the effects of nuclear war on a British town. There's been a lot of talk comparing it to "The Day After". I'm going to side with the minority: "The Day After" (for me) is preferable (although slightly).
In reality, though, although the two films are similar in many respects, they are also very different. "Threads" is more like a documentary following the city (via a specific family) through the decades after the nuclear attack. There's even a narrator. It's like a Discovery Channel movie. As I said, very engaging, but doesn't have much of what makes a movie a movie.
"The Day After", on the other hand, deals with the same issues and presents the same horrific and hopeless outlook, but has more of a running plot and characters who remain throughout the entire film.
It's a toss-up, though. Don't listen to those who say one film is clearly better than the other. They are both too similar to make such a claim.
Best parts of each film:
"The Day After" 1. The Kansas City residents watching as the missiles are launched. 2. The attack itself. 3. Steve Guttenberg chasing the daughter outside, trying to get her back into the basement and out of the fallout. 4. The final scene. (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it.)
"Threads" 1. The woman with the dead baby. (scares the crap out of me) 2. Getting to see how subsequent generations deal with the aftereffects of nuclear war. 3. The final shot.
And now the worst parts of each:
"The Day After" - could have benefited from a bit longer running time. "Threads" - could have benefited by use of better actors. (Some of them felt like "actors", not real people.)
I recommend seeing both, but neither on a date.
In reality, though, although the two films are similar in many respects, they are also very different. "Threads" is more like a documentary following the city (via a specific family) through the decades after the nuclear attack. There's even a narrator. It's like a Discovery Channel movie. As I said, very engaging, but doesn't have much of what makes a movie a movie.
"The Day After", on the other hand, deals with the same issues and presents the same horrific and hopeless outlook, but has more of a running plot and characters who remain throughout the entire film.
It's a toss-up, though. Don't listen to those who say one film is clearly better than the other. They are both too similar to make such a claim.
Best parts of each film:
"The Day After" 1. The Kansas City residents watching as the missiles are launched. 2. The attack itself. 3. Steve Guttenberg chasing the daughter outside, trying to get her back into the basement and out of the fallout. 4. The final scene. (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it.)
"Threads" 1. The woman with the dead baby. (scares the crap out of me) 2. Getting to see how subsequent generations deal with the aftereffects of nuclear war. 3. The final shot.
And now the worst parts of each:
"The Day After" - could have benefited from a bit longer running time. "Threads" - could have benefited by use of better actors. (Some of them felt like "actors", not real people.)
I recommend seeing both, but neither on a date.
I am a harsh critic, but I give this movie 10 stars because it carries a magic with it that I haven't experienced in any other. Perhaps it's because the movie focuses more on Why the mysterious events happen more than How they happen (which is immaterial to the story).
Koster is great at playing the everyman, and he lives up to his role here. I enjoyed Madigan as his wife. She seemed so full of life, and only such an enthusiastic wife would go along with the seemingly outrageous decisions that Ray makes.
James Earl Jones and Burt Lancaster really shine, capturing the scenes they were in, and they deliver their monologues flawlessly. For me, though, it's Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe who steals the show. He is so mysterious and eerily knowledgeable, yet never poses a threat. He's like a twist of a guardian angel watching over Ray. It's hard to sum up his performance in words, and I'm surprised few commenters have mentioned Liotta.
The overall impression one gets after watching this film, though, goes far beyond the acting. It's a movie about fate and a movie about choice, yet somehow the two don't contradict each other. It had my eyes watering by the final scene, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
The movie is so...real. And that's an odd thing to say regarding a film about a talking cornfield.
Koster is great at playing the everyman, and he lives up to his role here. I enjoyed Madigan as his wife. She seemed so full of life, and only such an enthusiastic wife would go along with the seemingly outrageous decisions that Ray makes.
James Earl Jones and Burt Lancaster really shine, capturing the scenes they were in, and they deliver their monologues flawlessly. For me, though, it's Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe who steals the show. He is so mysterious and eerily knowledgeable, yet never poses a threat. He's like a twist of a guardian angel watching over Ray. It's hard to sum up his performance in words, and I'm surprised few commenters have mentioned Liotta.
The overall impression one gets after watching this film, though, goes far beyond the acting. It's a movie about fate and a movie about choice, yet somehow the two don't contradict each other. It had my eyes watering by the final scene, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
The movie is so...real. And that's an odd thing to say regarding a film about a talking cornfield.
This is a great movie. I think the people who don't like it are (1) people expecting it to be a summer blockbuster popcorn movie with a million special effects, or (2) people upset because they think it's cheesy / has scientific errors. Let me address both points.
First of all, this is not a disaster movie in the style of Armageddon or Volcano or any of them. It's a movie about humanity's struggle to deal with an impending disaster. And in doing that, it succeeds. Most of the film is supported by strong talent, including Robert Duvall and Morgan Freeman. In smaller roles, Max Schell, Vanessa Redgrave, and Ron Eldard really shine. I was disappointed by Tea Leoni's acting. And Elijah Wood and Leelee Sobieski didn't really do much for me, although they weren't bad.
Second, while the movie is not standard Hollywood flair, it doesn't altogether escape the Hollywood curse. There are a few fairly ridiculous moments and plot points. HOWEVER, compared to disaster movies, I have to say this are extremely minor. To counter this, there are some very touching scenes. I don't want to give anything away here, but most of them occur near the end of the film.
This is not the best movie ever by any means, but it comes as close as a mainstream Hollywood movie dealing with the end of the world is going to get. Also, James Horner's score was terrific.
Definitely worth a watch.
First of all, this is not a disaster movie in the style of Armageddon or Volcano or any of them. It's a movie about humanity's struggle to deal with an impending disaster. And in doing that, it succeeds. Most of the film is supported by strong talent, including Robert Duvall and Morgan Freeman. In smaller roles, Max Schell, Vanessa Redgrave, and Ron Eldard really shine. I was disappointed by Tea Leoni's acting. And Elijah Wood and Leelee Sobieski didn't really do much for me, although they weren't bad.
Second, while the movie is not standard Hollywood flair, it doesn't altogether escape the Hollywood curse. There are a few fairly ridiculous moments and plot points. HOWEVER, compared to disaster movies, I have to say this are extremely minor. To counter this, there are some very touching scenes. I don't want to give anything away here, but most of them occur near the end of the film.
This is not the best movie ever by any means, but it comes as close as a mainstream Hollywood movie dealing with the end of the world is going to get. Also, James Horner's score was terrific.
Definitely worth a watch.
I've seen this musical once on Broadway, twice on tour, and once in London. I have to say this movie does the musical justice. Everything is very very good if not great.
I had/heard qualms about some of the singing and the busyness of the production. I was worried because Joel Scheumacher really ruined the Batman franchise with its in your face gaudiness. Andrew Lloyd Webber must have kept him on a short leash for this one, though, because he was really calmed down.
And the singing? Great. If you're hooked on Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman and that's all you listen to, you may not like this because no two actors are the same. But the people cast have great voices. Butler brings the passion behind the Phantom to the songs. Rossum has a very sweet and pleasant voice.
The sets and costumes are, of course, fantastic. Additinally, everything looks JUST like the stage show, down to set details and even looks. The production staff rightly knew not to mess with a good thing. I've seen a fair amount of stage musicals to movie conversions, and I believe this movie stuck the closest to the stage show.
In short, there are two groups who will not like this film. One, those who dislike the stage show. Two, those who have grown unusually attached to the voices on their particular recordings. If you're a fan of the show and look forward to talented newcomers taking over the roles, you're gonna love this.
I had/heard qualms about some of the singing and the busyness of the production. I was worried because Joel Scheumacher really ruined the Batman franchise with its in your face gaudiness. Andrew Lloyd Webber must have kept him on a short leash for this one, though, because he was really calmed down.
And the singing? Great. If you're hooked on Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman and that's all you listen to, you may not like this because no two actors are the same. But the people cast have great voices. Butler brings the passion behind the Phantom to the songs. Rossum has a very sweet and pleasant voice.
The sets and costumes are, of course, fantastic. Additinally, everything looks JUST like the stage show, down to set details and even looks. The production staff rightly knew not to mess with a good thing. I've seen a fair amount of stage musicals to movie conversions, and I believe this movie stuck the closest to the stage show.
In short, there are two groups who will not like this film. One, those who dislike the stage show. Two, those who have grown unusually attached to the voices on their particular recordings. If you're a fan of the show and look forward to talented newcomers taking over the roles, you're gonna love this.
First off, let's make one thing clear. You don't have to be religious to enjoy "The Prince of Egypt." You don't even need to be familiar with Exodus. The writers wisely give the story a human element, focusing on the concepts of family, community, purpose, and pride.
The animation in this film is fantastic; the emotion of the characters is extremely detailed in their faces and in their bodies. The camera angles are brilliant and add dramatic effect.
Several difficult scenes from the Bible stand out here for their awe and their delicacy, including the "burning bush" and the passover sequence. The other plagues are shown through montage, as they are not the main point of this adaptation.
There are only two main characters: Moses and Ramises. As they grow up, we watch their brotherly bond grow. Clearly, they are closer to each other than to their father, the Pharaoh. But when Moses finds out he was "adopted" and is really a Hebrew, he starts to question all that surrounds him. Ultimately, of course, this winds up in Moses demanding Ramises (the new Pharaoh) to let his people (the Hebrew slaves) go. The result is the conflict of brotherhood and duty/purpose. Thus, giving Ramises a human element. He hardens his own heart, rather than God doing it for him.
The actors voice the film extremely well. Overall, the music is decent, but I found the only two standout songs were "Deliver Us" (the opening number) and "When You Believe." All the stuff is the middle is passable but unmemorable. Particularly disappointing is a song about the Egyptian gods, which could have been an eerie spectacle. Instead, it (and the talents of Martin Short and Steve Martin) are wasted.
Finally, I'll just point out that there's a terrific dream sequence including hieroglyphics that is completely original, entrancing, and powerful. Overall, this movie works well because it takes itself seriously, and it truly ends up delivering the goods.
The animation in this film is fantastic; the emotion of the characters is extremely detailed in their faces and in their bodies. The camera angles are brilliant and add dramatic effect.
Several difficult scenes from the Bible stand out here for their awe and their delicacy, including the "burning bush" and the passover sequence. The other plagues are shown through montage, as they are not the main point of this adaptation.
There are only two main characters: Moses and Ramises. As they grow up, we watch their brotherly bond grow. Clearly, they are closer to each other than to their father, the Pharaoh. But when Moses finds out he was "adopted" and is really a Hebrew, he starts to question all that surrounds him. Ultimately, of course, this winds up in Moses demanding Ramises (the new Pharaoh) to let his people (the Hebrew slaves) go. The result is the conflict of brotherhood and duty/purpose. Thus, giving Ramises a human element. He hardens his own heart, rather than God doing it for him.
The actors voice the film extremely well. Overall, the music is decent, but I found the only two standout songs were "Deliver Us" (the opening number) and "When You Believe." All the stuff is the middle is passable but unmemorable. Particularly disappointing is a song about the Egyptian gods, which could have been an eerie spectacle. Instead, it (and the talents of Martin Short and Steve Martin) are wasted.
Finally, I'll just point out that there's a terrific dream sequence including hieroglyphics that is completely original, entrancing, and powerful. Overall, this movie works well because it takes itself seriously, and it truly ends up delivering the goods.
First off, let me say that I have read the original novel and seen the 1979 miniseries. Both are great in their own right. The novel is scary and foreboding. The '79 movie captures that feeling even though it changed a good amount of the story.
This 2004 adaptation doesn't attempt to mimic the feelings the '79 movie conveyed. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Although many posters seem to indicate they want to see the same scenes that were in the '79 version, what would this accomplish? The '79 version is on tape, so if you want to be scared in the same way, watch that.
The critics I've read so far have criticized this film for not being close to the novel. I guess I had a different expectation. I have long since given up on the expectation that novels translate perfectly to film. This does not happen (the rare exception being Lord of the Rings, yet even that had changes). Nevertheless, here are their main arguments. I'll respond to each one:
1) The ending of Father Callahan. - This is a 3 hour movie, and as such, plot points and characters need to be wrapped up. While Father Callahan may survive in the novel (only to reappear in The Dark Tower), this would leave more questions than answers to those who are watching the miniseries and getting the story for the first time. Remember how ridiculous the truncated version of the '79 movie ended--without knowing what happened to Susan? Films need to wrap up their loose ends.
2) The modernization of the story. - Salem's Lot was set in the mid-seventies not for any particular reason but only because that was when King wrote it. Obviously the original film took place in the seventies (as it was shown in 1979). Why must the new miniseries take place in the 70s? There's nothing in the book that requires the 70s to be the setting, and more people will be able to adapt to the current time. They don't sacrifice any of the story elements to do this. But since we are modernizing it, we do need to add some modern touches (i.e. email, cell phone, etc.) None of these take away from the story.
3) It's not scary / doesn't scare me as much as the '79 version. - Again, the '04 version isn't attempting to imitate the earlier film, and rightfully so. We don't need a shot by shot of what made the '79 classic horror (and it is) - this is how the remake of "Psycho" got panned. The original is a classic, and you can't remake a classic. So instead the director here (Saloman) decided to focus not so much on the fear but on another aspect of King's novel that was not focused on in the '79 version, and that is the entity of the town itself. The '79 version eliminated, combined, and truncated many characters, so that in the end, the only really main ones were Ben, Mark, Susan, and Straker. It worked, but this was a far cry from King's novel. The 2004 version gives us much more, including Dr. Cody, Dud, Ruthie, Father Callahan (in a larger role), Barlow (in the real role), and many other minor characters (i.e. the bus driver).
To sum up - No, it's not scary, but it isn't trying to be. There's a '79 version that did that very, very well. We didn't need them to remake that; it's good on its own. What we needed was an interesting story. Salem's Lot '04 gives us that. Don't expect it to win any Emmys, but hearing people say they wasted 4 hours of their lives makes me laugh. This is one of the best adaptations of a King work, and there are far, far worse.
This 2004 adaptation doesn't attempt to mimic the feelings the '79 movie conveyed. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Although many posters seem to indicate they want to see the same scenes that were in the '79 version, what would this accomplish? The '79 version is on tape, so if you want to be scared in the same way, watch that.
The critics I've read so far have criticized this film for not being close to the novel. I guess I had a different expectation. I have long since given up on the expectation that novels translate perfectly to film. This does not happen (the rare exception being Lord of the Rings, yet even that had changes). Nevertheless, here are their main arguments. I'll respond to each one:
1) The ending of Father Callahan. - This is a 3 hour movie, and as such, plot points and characters need to be wrapped up. While Father Callahan may survive in the novel (only to reappear in The Dark Tower), this would leave more questions than answers to those who are watching the miniseries and getting the story for the first time. Remember how ridiculous the truncated version of the '79 movie ended--without knowing what happened to Susan? Films need to wrap up their loose ends.
2) The modernization of the story. - Salem's Lot was set in the mid-seventies not for any particular reason but only because that was when King wrote it. Obviously the original film took place in the seventies (as it was shown in 1979). Why must the new miniseries take place in the 70s? There's nothing in the book that requires the 70s to be the setting, and more people will be able to adapt to the current time. They don't sacrifice any of the story elements to do this. But since we are modernizing it, we do need to add some modern touches (i.e. email, cell phone, etc.) None of these take away from the story.
3) It's not scary / doesn't scare me as much as the '79 version. - Again, the '04 version isn't attempting to imitate the earlier film, and rightfully so. We don't need a shot by shot of what made the '79 classic horror (and it is) - this is how the remake of "Psycho" got panned. The original is a classic, and you can't remake a classic. So instead the director here (Saloman) decided to focus not so much on the fear but on another aspect of King's novel that was not focused on in the '79 version, and that is the entity of the town itself. The '79 version eliminated, combined, and truncated many characters, so that in the end, the only really main ones were Ben, Mark, Susan, and Straker. It worked, but this was a far cry from King's novel. The 2004 version gives us much more, including Dr. Cody, Dud, Ruthie, Father Callahan (in a larger role), Barlow (in the real role), and many other minor characters (i.e. the bus driver).
To sum up - No, it's not scary, but it isn't trying to be. There's a '79 version that did that very, very well. We didn't need them to remake that; it's good on its own. What we needed was an interesting story. Salem's Lot '04 gives us that. Don't expect it to win any Emmys, but hearing people say they wasted 4 hours of their lives makes me laugh. This is one of the best adaptations of a King work, and there are far, far worse.
*some information on the film but no spoilers*
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of TV movies. Namely, because often the story lines are ridiculous and the characters (and dialogue) are clichéd. I gave up on watching TV movies from start to finish years ago simply because it wasn't worth the time spent. Occasionally, though, I would sneak a peek at a segment (i.e. I saw a piece from "10.5") which would cause me to shudder and change the station.
That being said, it was an unusual occurrence when I sat down specifically to watch "Meltdown." I had seen the previews and it looked like an interesting topic (but that can be deceptive). The primary reason for me watching it was that it was on FX. ("The Shield" has reborn my interest in TV series.)
In any event, I still was not anticipating too much from "Meltdown." I expected the requisite lame plot-points, acting, and effects common on most TV movies. Needless to say, I am happy to report that "Meltdown" was a pleasant surprise.
Probably the strongest factor in the movie's favor is its smart directing and editing. The editing is quick enough to keep the pace moving. The movie never lags. Once a scene is established, it fades to black and the next scene begins. Sometimes these scenes are very short, giving us the gist of what's going on, and then moving on. In this effective way, the director alerts the audience to the main events in the plot without laboring over the needless details. (For example, in an early scene, an officer drags an injured person from one area to another. Instead of wasting time showing the entire length of the drag, we see her begin the drag, then the scene fades and reappears with them in a new area.) This technique is consistently used to good effect.
In short, the plot concerns a group of terrorists who take over the San Juan nuclear power plant. The FBI, national guard, and police arrive and fear a potential meltdown, which would devastate the area and kill hundreds of thousands.
The characters are written well, and there's no cheesy romance or sideplots.
Bruce Greenwood plays the main character, a senior agent in the FBI. Thankfully, he doesn't spout off any lame one-liners or pull any Bruce Willis action stunts.
The entire scenario of a potential nuclear meltdown is played realistically and in today's climate. The setting is the modern world: 9/11 has happened, there's a Department of Homeland Security, etc. There are no insane heroics. It's almost as if watching a documentary. There are even constant national news broadcasts.
I'm happy to report that while some may be able to predict the general outcome of the movie, many plot-points leading up to the end throw twists into the system. For instance, about 3/4 of the way through the movie an unexpected event occurs which actually made me spurt "OH ****." aloud; I don't think I've ever done that before to something on TV.
This film does not follow any established formula for action movies. Indeed, it's not even an action film. If you're expecting special effects, look elsewhere. "Meltdown" is a case study as to how the government could realistically respond in a moment of crisis. It has some flaws that go along with a modest budget, but thankfully this is minimal (since it doesn't blow its money on effects). "Meltdown" keeps you interested and thinking throughout, which is as much as you can ask from a TV movie.
8/10
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of TV movies. Namely, because often the story lines are ridiculous and the characters (and dialogue) are clichéd. I gave up on watching TV movies from start to finish years ago simply because it wasn't worth the time spent. Occasionally, though, I would sneak a peek at a segment (i.e. I saw a piece from "10.5") which would cause me to shudder and change the station.
That being said, it was an unusual occurrence when I sat down specifically to watch "Meltdown." I had seen the previews and it looked like an interesting topic (but that can be deceptive). The primary reason for me watching it was that it was on FX. ("The Shield" has reborn my interest in TV series.)
In any event, I still was not anticipating too much from "Meltdown." I expected the requisite lame plot-points, acting, and effects common on most TV movies. Needless to say, I am happy to report that "Meltdown" was a pleasant surprise.
Probably the strongest factor in the movie's favor is its smart directing and editing. The editing is quick enough to keep the pace moving. The movie never lags. Once a scene is established, it fades to black and the next scene begins. Sometimes these scenes are very short, giving us the gist of what's going on, and then moving on. In this effective way, the director alerts the audience to the main events in the plot without laboring over the needless details. (For example, in an early scene, an officer drags an injured person from one area to another. Instead of wasting time showing the entire length of the drag, we see her begin the drag, then the scene fades and reappears with them in a new area.) This technique is consistently used to good effect.
In short, the plot concerns a group of terrorists who take over the San Juan nuclear power plant. The FBI, national guard, and police arrive and fear a potential meltdown, which would devastate the area and kill hundreds of thousands.
The characters are written well, and there's no cheesy romance or sideplots.
Bruce Greenwood plays the main character, a senior agent in the FBI. Thankfully, he doesn't spout off any lame one-liners or pull any Bruce Willis action stunts.
The entire scenario of a potential nuclear meltdown is played realistically and in today's climate. The setting is the modern world: 9/11 has happened, there's a Department of Homeland Security, etc. There are no insane heroics. It's almost as if watching a documentary. There are even constant national news broadcasts.
I'm happy to report that while some may be able to predict the general outcome of the movie, many plot-points leading up to the end throw twists into the system. For instance, about 3/4 of the way through the movie an unexpected event occurs which actually made me spurt "OH ****." aloud; I don't think I've ever done that before to something on TV.
This film does not follow any established formula for action movies. Indeed, it's not even an action film. If you're expecting special effects, look elsewhere. "Meltdown" is a case study as to how the government could realistically respond in a moment of crisis. It has some flaws that go along with a modest budget, but thankfully this is minimal (since it doesn't blow its money on effects). "Meltdown" keeps you interested and thinking throughout, which is as much as you can ask from a TV movie.
8/10
Not sure what the previous user was talking about concerning the DVD has no director's commentary. Not only DOES the DVD have a director's commentary, it actually has 3. One by the director and the producer, one by the special FX team, and one by Jodie Foster. I should know...I've listened to them all.
As far as the movie itself goes, it's an excellent journey with a minimal amount of Hollywood tripe. It's a combination of a bunch of quests. Ellie's quest for her father, the quest for science, the question of AI, etc.
The acting is very well done. Jodie Foster pulls off a very convincing performance. Also notable is James Woods, who pulls off the skeptical gov't personality perfectly; Tom Skerrit as Ellie's boss who consistently overshadows her makes you want to hate him; and in a small but memorable role, John Hurt acts like he's halfway in outer space already.
I especially enjoyed the ending, which I won't give away here, but it's a bit emotional and does bring everything full circle.
A great movie and a great DVD.
As far as the movie itself goes, it's an excellent journey with a minimal amount of Hollywood tripe. It's a combination of a bunch of quests. Ellie's quest for her father, the quest for science, the question of AI, etc.
The acting is very well done. Jodie Foster pulls off a very convincing performance. Also notable is James Woods, who pulls off the skeptical gov't personality perfectly; Tom Skerrit as Ellie's boss who consistently overshadows her makes you want to hate him; and in a small but memorable role, John Hurt acts like he's halfway in outer space already.
I especially enjoyed the ending, which I won't give away here, but it's a bit emotional and does bring everything full circle.
A great movie and a great DVD.