sheepie87 Reviews

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Honestly, I wasn't a fan

[5/10 · 18 June 2008]

Okay, so let me start off by saying that I am not a film studies major, neither am I a doofus who only finds cinematic satisfaction in shoot-em-ups (although they are quite fun!). One of my favorite movies is Lang's Metropolis, so I expected something similar here.

Alas, not really. I can't analyse the montage, the shots, the cuts, etc. because I don't have that background. But to my (perhaps jaded and most definitely cynical) eyes most of the movie seemed quite ridiculous. I know I have to think of the context and of film-making at the time, but I honestly think that Potemkin could have done without a lot of film we see.

So, anyway, we start out on a ship where the soldiers are maltreated by pompous officers who order them to eat maggot infested meat. This is shaping up well. They refuse to eat the soup made with the meat (so good so far), which ticks off the officers, most of whom have pointy waxed mustaches that they twirl with malice. The portly captain orders all hands on deck and proceeds to inform those who did not eat the soup that he will kill them all.

This gave me pause. Logically, what would a captain have to gain if he executed the majority of his crew? A whole lot more work for himself, that's what! Okay. So the captain is a dolt. Anyway, he orders the ship's guard to fire upon a group of "we want something else"-ers who have been draped in a tarpaulin for easy jettisoning and assuaged consciences. In an agonizingly long and unrealistic sequence, everyone looks at each other for a while; finally the ship's resident revolutionary persuades everyone to turn on the officers, most of whom are thrown overboard to drown (since swimming is not a prerequisite to become a naval officer in tsarist Russia, evidently). The ship's priest, a man who desperately needs some Frizz-Ease or maybe just a hint of hair gel, and who is very much the crazy-man Rasputin type, gets pushed down a ladder (into Hell?). However, one of them pursues the ship's Lenin and shoots him in the back of the head. Said shot man then is obviously a hardy fellow, since he manages to reach his hand up and touch his head wound, fall into a net of ropes and writhe for a while before he falls into the sea. His comrades sail into Odessa harbor and dump him on the shore in a tent.

The whole town turns out to see him, and they get all whipped up and vow to destroy the oppressors. Then we have the famous Odessa stairs sequence, which I admit was quite moving, but also too long. I felt like an awful person for smirking when the bereaved mother with her obviously dead son in her arms says to the troops "My son is very ill." Well, if that isn't an understatement I don't know what is. Does anyone know if this is an exact translation?

Anyway, at the end of the film all the other ships join Potemkin. Revolution is fun, yay!

Pride and Prejudice (1980)

Wait-Did Anyone Read the Book--Screenwriter, I'm talking' to you!

[1/10 · 7 August 2007]

Pride and Prejudice has been my favorite book since I was eleven years old, and I've seen every other adaptation of it--even taken a class on Romantic Comedy, in which P&P was included. However, I was determined to take this version on its own merits and try not to compare it to the other versions. Those don't matter as much as its trueness to the book in spirit and content.

This is what I told myself when I put the DVD in. During the first scene, my hopes were dashed--Mary brings the news of Bingley? They just cut out the great opening banter between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet! Really, it's all downhill from here.

The greatest complaint is that the people behind this movie completely sucked the life out of the story. This is a comedy of manners, people, not solely a love story. It's about human character, and here, the characters have no life at all. Look at Mr. Darcy: Aie! He looks like a walking corpse with a burr up his you know what. It seemed as if every line was painful to utter and that he was bored to death. Elizabeth has altogether no wit and shows a strange contradiction regarding her family: She whines and pleads with Jane to get better faster so she can go home! What!?!? Whining, selfish creature! She then comments with a sign of satisfaction how good it is to be home, and coddles her mother too! Agony. Because of these flaws in writing/acting, the ending is improbable, even laughably ridiculous.

Sorry, did the casting director think that chap playing Wickham was a hottie? Youch.

Did anyone notice how awful all of the grand houses looked? I mean, since Darcy has ten thousand pounds a year (that's a LOT of money) he could at least have the stone on Pemberley cleaned up a bit. It was all stained and icky. *shudder*

If I detailed everything that was wrong with this, I'd be here for hours. I know many of you love it dearly, but I'm sorry, I see nothing to love. I see a dried-out husk of an adaptation of the most brilliant book ever.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

I really have to say it: Extraordinary!

[10/10 · 23 June 2007]

I believe that the box office failure of this film is due to the American Public's utter lack of literacy--I mean real literacy, where one reads all the classics, not just being forced to wallow through Wuthering Heights in high school (don't get me wrong--I love Wuthering Heights. Just what they read around here.). Most people seem very confused, as in "Who are these people?" I noticed one person confusedly remarked "Dorian Grey is immortal?" Yes, my dear. Painting, hello? Let's all blame Roger Ebert, too--can you imagine if he had a portrait? Ew.

Anyway, enough bashing on American tastes: this was an excellent film. I really liked all of the characters--skillfully rethought and redrawn, but still retaining the essentials. Sean Connery-fabulous, as always, but the real standout here is Stuart Townsend and his Dorian Grey. He's made up to look almost exactly like Oscar Wilde (except a bit too short, Wilde was quite tall) and dandily double-crosses with aplomb, style, and (of course!) wit. My favorite line from the whole movie: Phantom's trooper: Who are you? DG: I'm complicated.

Love! Anyway, the alt. reality is great (although I'm sure that's much more Alan Moore than the scriptwriter) and this alternate possible beginning of WWI quite interesting.

Bottom Line: If you don't know who any of these characters are: go and read the books listed in TRIVIA. Then watch the movie. If you know and love them, go for it. It's magic. P.S. I really have no problem with Mina being a vampire. Don't you feel that dear old Bram rather condemned her to a wimpo husband in Harker?

Bleak House (2005)

Extraordinary

[9/10 · 9 June 2007]

When I saw Andrew Davies was the screenwriter, I knew it would be good; after all, he did write the script for Pride & Prejudice, my favorite movie and perhaps the BBC's most well- known production.

I really can't say more than the summary title: extraordinary! I loved the camera work (the quick cuts I liked, unlike others). The dark filtering was quite good as well. Anna Maxwell Martin--well, now I cannot imagine another Esther. Gillian Anderson too was just amazing as Lady Deadlock. Absolutely stunning, each word drawn out coldly behind her mask of rank, but her meeting with Esther was magical in a completely different way. I suppose I could praise each character, but that would be dreadfully boring; you'd be much better off delving into the book. Of course, I would suggest reading Bleak House first.

However, I did give this adaptation 9 stars because of two reasons: 1) the lack of humor that was so delightful in the book. Dickens is mercilessly funny and caustic and none of that really translated through to the screen, although I can see the point in keeping it all quite dramatic. 2) The way they portrayed John Jarndyce's relationship with Esther. He seemed much more self-serving in this version, and much more attracted to Esther than I made him out to be in the book. More human, I suppose, than the sweet and perfectly good Guardian of the book. This does not in any way degrade Denis Lawson's performance, which was, I think, actually the standout of the piece. The fact that he also played Wedge Antilles in the best movie trilogy ever also helps in my estimation!

All in all, beautiful, marvelous, a bit too dark, but altogether an extremely good production. But don't forget to read the book first ;)

Lancelot of the Lake (1974)

I didn't like it--but that doesn't mean you shouldn't see it for yourself

[1/10 · 12 December 2006]

It seems to me that people either love or hate this film. I'm not going to yammer on and on talking about the sociological blah blah blah blah blahs of this film like some reviewers do (wow, can you read any farther into this???). Let's just talk about it (mon Dieu!) as a film. The main problem I had with this film is the incompatibility of Bresson's style with the subject matter. This is not to say I don't like his style. I'm just saying that Arthurian legend, which I consider to be rather conservative, simply doesn't mesh well with the nouvelle vague style of Bresson. Neither am I implying that one should never take chances with film-making--of course you should! But somethings just aren't meant to go together, like marshmallows and pickles or ... or whatever. It's also painful to watch the acting. Robots could have delivered the lines better. Finally, the *special effects*. Yes, this is supposed to show the brutality of living in 4th century crazy warrior society Brittany/Britain. But come on, if you've seen Monty Python, the opening is hysterical. Hys-ter-i-cal. I showed my Mom this part, and she laughed really hard too--and she doesn't even like MP!

However, those are just my impressions. If you read that and think to yourself Heck, I'm gonna go prove her WRONG, by all means, check out this film. It may gain the razzied spot of Worst Film I've Ever Seen on your list as well.

Van Helsing (2004)

Fifty-fifty

[5/10 · 22 July 2006]

Hum. I don't know what exactly I think of this film. I have two opposing opinions, exactly, but they coexist well enough for me to give Van Helsing five out of ten. So here's my split- personality opinion: The Pros: Well, number one is Hugh Jackman. He's very into the character--you can tell he believes in it, and that makes Van Helsing believable, even if he seems a little out-of-period. Whatever. I don't care. Also number one for ... aesthetic reasons. In addition, the actual "monsters" are very close to their originals. Finally! A Dracula who has all the seductive power of Bram Stoker's original; a Monster who converses intelligently (instead of pained Irnghs) and seems very soulful-also close to Mary Shelley's original. Hyde, well, whatever. I didn't like the book anyway. The Cons: Believability for the HUMANS. I stress humans. Supernatural monsters can do whatever they want, because they don't adhere to our rules. So if Frankenstein's monster wants to wrestle a flying bat-bride of Drakula, fine by me. But, please. Anna falls down, hits every branch in a huge tree, lands on her back, and isn't hurt? Must be the corset and those dominatrix boots ... Actually, I realize most of the problems in this film stem from Anna. If she weren't there, and they swapped her with her brother ... that would have been much better. Also: the ending. Lord. Can you think of anything sappier than dead people's faces floating around in the sky, smiling down on Van Helsing??? I think this is what they should have done: Obviously, the Creature has the ability to give life. Moved by his experience with these people who see beyond his inherent ugliness, he decides to submit to the pain one more time to give life to the one who died. This would thus cut the horrid sun-smiling scene. Urgh. But of course, that's my opinion--and I'm not paid millions of dollars to write and direct movies. But whatever.

Mousehunt (1997)

This movie is ... funny? Yes, funny!

[6/10 · 22 April 2006]

I cannot comment on the film in its entirety, since the two and a half year old I was watching it with kept getting into stuff, but what I saw was actually really funny! First of all, what impressed me was the atmosphere ... yeah, gloomy house, but it's very Burton-esquire. Everyone's dressed from the thirties, driving big ol' whitewall tired cars. The one scene I saw completely involved hair on fire, funny accents, a gavel, an undaunted auctioneer, and TWO Heimlich manoeuvers! I couldn't stop laughing. So yeah, it seems a little childish. But listen to the dialogue-that's got some adult stuff in it. As for the slapstick, well, we can't be grown up all the time. It's pretty darn tiring!

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Wow ... Twisted my stomach in knots

[10/10 · 7 March 2006]

I can see why this was Hitch's personal favorite. Everything about it is really wonderful- wonderfully twisted! Most everyone has commented on the plot twists, etc, but what I really noticed about this movie was the strange ... dare I say it? ... sexual tension between Charlie and Charlie! Her description of her relationship with her uncle is more like that of a soulmate than a "twin." She reacts to his homecoming more as a girlfriend than as a niece. Just the physical interactions between the two of them are strangely ... romantic? Uncle Charlie grabs his niece and, instead of giving her a ring, he slips it on her finger, like an engagement ring. Young Charlie enjoys being seen with her uncle (notice the jealous looks on her friends' faces-they don't know he's her uncle!). Even as her suspicions grow and *spoilers* he becomes more violent with her, he always grabs her so that her face is very near his. He's upset about her relationship with Jack, not just because he's a detective, but because Jack is taking away HIS Charlie. Uncle HAS to dominate. He dominates his sister by manipulating her emotions through memory, but his domination of Charlie seems more sexual. Just another twist in Uncle Charlies malformed character. Deliciously juicy noir!

Paparazzi (2004)

Not that bad, but definitely not an award-winner!

[6/10 · 9 January 2006]

I saw the trailer for this movie, boy, must've been summer 2004 (that long ago???) and I thought that it was an interesting concept. However, the movie was only at our theater for about a week. Finally I got it on DVD, and I guess I'm glad I waited. Paparazzi is a pretty short film (about 80 minutes) and it wasn't as thrilling as I thought it would be. I'm assuming you basically know the story from the plot summary. Cole Hauser is good as Bo, and manages to convey that he really loves his family in the short time allotted for actual acting in this film. This is why I gave the film 6 stars: The Good: I was completely, totally freaked out by the portrayal of the paparazzi. Truly soulless. Seeing things from the photographee's point of view definitely changes how I look at the "Cellulite Shockers" et cetera at the newsstands. I swear, I never believed them before, but now it's just repulsive. The Bad: I'm kind of a CSI addict, so I was constantly wondering why they never found Bo's fingerprints on anything. I didn't see him wearing gloves, only a cool leather jacket. Plus, the ending basically condones Bo's actions.

Stealth (2005)

People are overly harsh on this movie ...

[7/10 · 12 August 2005]

Yeah, Stealth isn't really a great movie. But it's a fun movie. The dialogue won't win a Screenplay Oscar, but if you paid to go see a movie about big, bad fighter jets, is that what you're looking for? Lucas, Biel, and Foxx are all solid in the leads as the U.S. Navy's top fighter pilots. Biel delivers her lines with a little acid, but she's girly at the same time. Lucas plays a hot-shot, but not an obnoxious one like Tom Cruise in Top Gun. Foxx has a nice scene in Thailand when he talks about his feelings on being a pilot. The trailer for this movie focuses a lot on EDI, the computer plane. The director pulled an I, Robot with EDI, if you know what I mean. Looking at the movie as a whole, it isn't just about jets and EDI and the "threat" of AI. It's about the morality of war, "acceptable risk," and the infallibility of the best. Unlike other action movies, these heroes don't come out unscathed or make miraculous comebacks. It's fun and loud with brief moments of illumination.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)

Marvelous!

[9/10 · 11 August 2005]

I must admit, right away, that I haven't read the Shakespeare play (horrors!). But, going on what I have read of his work, I think that this version was really delightful! I disagree with anyone who says that the casting was poor! And the chemistry some say is nonexistent? Are you blind, man? I was actually most pleased with Calista Flockhart! I really didn't like her style (nouveau-skeleton) and never watched Ally McBeal, so I was prepared to laugh at ineptitude. Instead, she threw everything into this performance. Although Hermia was perhaps prettier, especially according to standards of the time (turn of the century, you know, the 20th, not the 17th), Flockhart's Helena had PERSONALITY! Wow! Rupert Everett was quite gorgeous as well as wonderfully mischievous. Although I couldn't abide wearing as much glitter around as all the fairies did. They were slathered in the stuff. After the happy reuniting of true lovers, with a little help from fairie-power, comes Bottom's best part. The play. I seriously could not stop laughing. This was the funniest bit. Poor Thisbe! If you're looking for fun, romance, and a seriously comedic take on men playing women on stage, check this movie out!

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003)

Am I the only person who truly enjoyed this film?

[10/10 · 26 December 2003]

I loved this movie. I'll admit it. It seems that everyone is totally

ripping it apart because a) It's different from the book (HORRORS!)

b)Hilary Duff is involved or c)It's different from the 50's version.

First of all, I never read the book, and even if I had, I'm sure I would

have enjoyed this film just because it's funny. Steve Martin's facial

expressions and quips are killer. I happen to like prat falls and

gags (GASP!) in this world amused by sex-related jokes. This film

had scads of physical comedy. Admit it, seeing Ashton Kutcher

the "model-slash-actor" (who has some great lines mocking his

real-life career) being attacked by dogs because his underwear

have been soaked in ground beef is appealing. Don't you wish

you'd thought up that one for your hated childhood enemy? I, too,

dislike Hilary Duff, especially when she's attempting to act, but

she's only in a few scenes, so why let it ruin the movie? Finally,

this movie isn't even a true remake of the original, it's more of a

same-concept-different-plot thing. Bottom line: Hysterical

situations, Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt's acting chops, being set

in Chicago, and meat-soaked boxers make for a great movie.

John Q (2002)

It's about the people ...

[12 September 2003]

I think John Q is a great film. Denzel Washington is a fantastic

actor and the fine young actor who played his son was really

touching. I don't feel the need to recap the ENTIRE storyline as some

reviewers do, I just want to give everyone my OPINION. So... As a teenage girl, I admit that I may have been slightly more

sentimental about some of the issues presented in this film. But

the issues are important nonetheless. John Q shows the viewer

institutions(i.e. hospitals, schools) that are supposed to provide

help to whomever needs it, but don't. This may be for a number of

reasons: bureaucratic hang-ups, money, lack of resources,

money, and money. John Q attempts to tell the average American

movie-goer (who typically spends from $8 to $10 dollars on a

ticket, btw) that something terrible COULD happen to them. So

what are you going to do about it if you don't have the money?

Because, in America, that's what it's all about, right?

It makes us think. So what if the plotline isn't "realistic" enough?

So what if the dialogue doesn't have the perception and wit of

Dickens or Austen? Normal people don't talk like that. So what if

the movie didn't portray medical procedures perfectly? (If I want to

know exactly how a transplant is done, I'll visit a cardiologist at the

hospital. That's not the movie's goal.) This movie is about the

people: their feelings, their struggles against the money-guzzling

HMO's, etc(Think I'm biased?) Just watch John Q, cry a little, and think.

Spy Kids 3: Game Over (2003)

Oh! My eyes!

[10 August 2003]

Maybe it was me. Maybe it was the glasses. Maybe it was the

movie. Whatever IT was, I could barely see the film. There were

red and blue lines all over the place! This had better be a game

over for 3-D. Now, about the movie. Wait ... what movie? No plot, no

characterization, etc. So many other viewers have pointed out its

flaws, I'll just shut up. The only redeeming quality about this movie is: Elijah Wood. I

took off my glasses so that I could actually see his glowing, VR

cuteness. Great subtle references to LOTR. Too bad he was only

on screen for about two minutes.

Bottom Line: This game better be over, my eyes are killing me.

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

Great Movie! (With Brad Pitt involved, how couldn't it be?)

[16 July 2003]

Today I took my brother and two friends to see Sinbad (etc.),

expecting it to be ... too Disney. This film was very appealing

because it had an actual storyline, instead of being interrupted

every ten minutes by a song-and-dance number. It also didn't

moralize. It's up to the viewers to do that. The one thing that I disliked about Sinbad was the choppy switch

between the different types of animation. In the close-up shots of

the character interaction, they look nice and flat. But as the shot

pulls away, suddenly their figures begin to resemble crude 3-D

video game players. Come on Dreamworks, you can do better

than that. P.S. In the movie, they were not discussing ARIES. It was ERIS,

goddess of discord who threw the golden apple ... leading to the

Trojan war etc. But that doesn't matter! Who cares which goddess

she is? She was a pretty cool villain. (Particularly with all the

smoky swooshing around the screen. Loved it!)

Emma (1996 TV Movie)

This is not what Jane Austen intended....

[12 April 2001]

This movie was, well, not very good. At all. I thought Kate

Beckensale was a little dark and moody to play Emma. Frank

Churchill was okay, but Harriet was a waif. She looked anorexic!

Sorry, Samantha. But Mr. Knightly? Okay, okay, I know he's

supposed to be about 17 or 18 years older than Emma, making

him approximately 37 or 38 when the story takes place. This actor

looks like he's about fifty, had no chemistry, and was too stiff to

play the humorous, stern, yet compassionate Mr. Knightly.

Getting away from the characters, the movie is usually portrayed

as being closer to the book than the 1996 Hollywood version, but

when you think about it, many liberties are taken. Example: the

whole dream-sequence-with-a-church-thing was really out of

character. I don't think Miss Austen would have even dreamt of that

figuring into her wonderful novel. Plus, this version wasn't treated

with the same sprightlyness as was found in the novel. There was

NO humor whatsoever.

My recommendation? Don't waste your time. It's just....too

off-beat. BBC did a much better job with Pride and Prejudice.

Maybe this would have turned out better in a longer format. Then

again, maybe it wouldn't.

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars.

My Mother's Castle (1990)

Try it without subtitles-it's even better

[5 April 2001]

We watched this film in French class, and our teacher covered up the subtitles. Try it sometime. Not being able to understand all, or any, of the words makes you concentrate more on the characters. Their subtext, actions, and vocal inflections really add to the film if you just concentrate on them. The French countryside is beautiful-I wish I could be there. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be content with this movie. The only problem I have with this film is the lack of real plot. It's basically just a chronology of events in Marcel's life. Mais, c'est la vie! Rating: Four out of Five stars

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

The BEST movie I have ever seen!!!

[10/10 · 18 December 2000]

When I read Pride and Prejudice, I really wanted to see a good production of the novel. My friend recommended this version to me. After the great book, I was a little apprehensive about watching the movie Most other adaptations of books that I had seen were-in a word-terrible. I couldn't have been more wrong about P&P. I have probably watched Pride and Prejudice more than any other movie. The acting is terrific-Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle play their parts to perfection. All of the supporting actors are wonderful, too. Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins (Alison Steadman and David Bamber, respectively) provided the comic relief for the film-not that it needed any, but it was great. They were hilarious. The scenery and costumes were also breathtaking. Everyone I know who has seen this movie (men and children included) has loved it. I rated it 10 out of 10.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Not up to my expectations....

[16 November 2000]

I know a lot of people actually liked this movie but to me it was just two hours of boring, sloppy entertainment (no offense!). I'm not an action buff, and I'm just saying that it should have been more faithful to the first movie so the plot would actually be interesting. Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt seemed more human, more concerned in MI. In MI2 he was just another kung-fu guy who used guns and hand grenades to save the world. All the stunts were totally unbelievable-not to say that in MI there weren't some far-fetched scenes-but still.... I rented this movie in hopes of a spy thriller to get me thinking. What I got was a cheap James Bond.

I give this movie a 2 out of 10.