Change Your Image
curlyman217
Reviews
The Crucible (1996)
OK, nothing to write home about
After watching "The Crucible", my feelings are mixed. This movie was an intense motion picture to watch and even more intense for me to interpret. The story itself is not hard to interpret, but trying to convey my feelings on it is difficult.
The story of "The Crucible" is very basic: a community, mad with hysteria, brings itself to its downfall. The story centers on Abigail Williams, played by Winona Ryder. She was the maid of John Proctor and his wife, Elizabeth, played by Daniel Day-Lewis and Joan Allen. Elizabeth suspects John of adultery with Abigail, so she and John agree to fire her. Abigail resorts to witchcraft to try and win John's heart, but when her uncle (the Reverend of their village's church) witnesses her dancing with other young girls of the community, she and her cousin are set into a panic. Their dancing was believed to be sinful and full of witchery. The next morning, Abigail's cousin Ruth is paralyzed in bed and this confuses the town. They think that the devil is the one to blame. This sets into motion the hysteria and suspicion of witchcraft and communication with the devil. No one in the village was safe from being condemned by Abigail and her dancing friends. The witch hysteria calls for immediate attention. Enter Judge Thomas Danforth, played by Paul Scofield. There are many trials and many innocent people getting accused of witchery, and no one is exempt, not even John or Elizabeth. The inevitable comes to pass.
I thought that this movie was poorly acted. There were some standouts in lead roles, but the supporting roles seemed to have been overlooked. There are four leads in this movie: John Procter, Abigail Williams, Elizabeth Proctor, and Judge Thomas Danforth. John Procter is played with lackluster enthusiasm by the great, two-time Academy Award Winning Daniel Day-Lewis. He seems to lack passion or care until the last scene, but by that time, I had lost hope and resigned myself to his weak performance. It is slightly unfair, though, that I say this, seeing as it was a pretty good performance, but I am naturally going to be biased as I have seen him in so many considerably better performances, some of the best of film ("My Left Foot", "There Will Be Blood", etc.). He should have thought before he set the bar so high for his work. The other bad lead role was Abigail, played horrifically by Winona Ryder. I'll admit, her performance was bad, very bad, but it didn't help that throughout the movie, I despised her character. Even so, I am one to appreciate devious and villainous characters if they are played with villainy and passion. She gave an uninspired performance, to say the least. One of the lead roles that was superbly acted was the role of Elizabeth, played by Joan Allen. She plays her with such subtlety that I couldn't help liking her performance. She was the only member in the cast to receive an Academy Award nomination. The other wonderfully played lead role was the role of Judge Danforth, played magnificently by Paul Scofield. He played Thomas Moore in "A Man For All Seasons", which won him an Academy Award. He is such an implausibly underrated actor; I wish to see him in more roles. He is type-casted in this role, playing another law official, but it's for the better.
The writing is nothing to complain about. It follows fairly accurate with the play, although there are some differences, as you would find with any movie based on a previously written material. This movie, though, has an advantage. It was written by Arthur Miller, the same man who wrote the original play. There weren't too many noticeable differences. One scene played out outside, rather than in the courthouse where it was originally set. The dance of the girls was shown in the film, but in the play it was only talked about, but there weren't too many differences. Naturally, the dialogue was drawn out longer, but the duration of the movie is longer then the duration of the play. I liked the satiric aspect of the movie. If one of the girls had a grudge to bear with any member in town, they would recall an instance in the past that would make officials believe that the person was a witch. I thought that it was funny in a way, but the directing made it less comedic and more pitiful and dramatic. The scenery was dreary and tired and worn down. The filming was bland and forgettable. "The Crucible" lends itself better as a play than a movie. This play was based on an event happening at the time that Miller wrote it.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was spitting out accusations everywhere that people were Communists. If they denied that they were Communists, then they were thought guilty and were declared Communists, but if they admitted to being one, then they were let off the hook. This modern day witch-hunt known as "McCarthyism" mirrors Miller's play almost exactly.
The movie had many flaws. It made me feel uncomfortable and eerie, which makes me not like it, but thinking over that, I realize that that is possibly the director's intention, and if so, then well done. I can only recommend it to people that are interested in the witch-hunts. It wasn't that boring, it was actually entertaining (in a strange way), but it was very predictable. It was a strange movie, the acting was OK, the story is good, but the direction was weak. There were some very tense moments on screen, which made for thrilling cinema, but its faults are greater then its perks, but I think it would be worth it to check it out.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Tobey and James are lovers
Spiderman Three was a big disappointment. It was not good, and most certainly not great. It was melodramatic, and there were more miscasts than cats at an evil spinsters' home. James Cromwell's talent (which there isn't much of) is wasted in this. Topher Grace, who is great (well, good) in That Seventies Show is terrible in this. I didn't buy him for one second as the big burly bad guy. Speaking of big and burly, we find ourselves wondering why Thomas Haden Church (Academy Award nominee for Best Supporting Actor for his role in Sideways) is in this poor excuse for a film. And why put a villain as week as the Sandman in the last (hopefully) Spiderman. If you were going to put in a villain, why not put in Kingpin, or some other significant bad guy. I just didn't like it. I don't think that Tobey Maguire is a good actor in the least, and I think he should not 'grace' us in any other movies. Don't go and expect to see a great film, or even a good one. Go just to see action and visual effects, which are quite exceptional, but that's the only thing exceptional about it.
Evening (2007)
Expectations
It just didn't hit it for me. I was expecting so much, what with some of the greatest actresses of our time. It didn't fulfill my expectations. Glenn Close and Meryl Streep were my two favorites, but I wished they had bigger roles. I never really knew what it was about, seeing as the previews just showed little tiny glimpses. Vanessa Redgrave was all right as Ann, but I think that Claire Danes was not good in the least. She just wasn't quite right for me. Young Lila was good enough for me, and she bore a striking (and I mean STRIKING) resemblance to Meryl Streep. I just think that the movie holds itself in too high of esteem. I know, it would be very intimidating to act alongside with Meryl, Vanessa, and Glenn. Eileen Atkins parts where she was wearing the dress just made no sense to me. I just didn't like it. It slightly ruins Michael Cunningham's reputation for me. I think that he should stick to writing novels, seeing as 'The Hours' was so amazing and Pullitzer-Prize winning. Screen writing doesn't suit everyone in the world, he is no exception. The material is overdone. I found myself laughing at inappropriate spots. I was confused as to who Hugh Dancy's character was: was he young Ann's lover, or just friend. (Now, Hugh gave the best and most believable performance. Oscar worthy, in my opinion.) The character of Harris, played terribly by what's-his-name, was tired and done before. For such strong and intense love between Ann and Harris, I felt it was very rushed. They met once, kissed, and then shared the 'greatest love in all of eternity'. Just didn't click. It seemed like someone threw up a love story. Want to see a good love story, then watch 'The Notebook'. The flashbacks in that film work. The loves aren't rushed. In 'Evening', it just seems so pretentious. If you want to see good performances from Meryl, Claire, Eileen Atkins, Toni Collette(who was no good in this movie),and good plots, watch 'The Hours'.
Ratatouille (2007)
Amazing! A feat in animation!
I love good animated movies. I love 'Finding Nemo', 'Monster House', 'Happy Feet', 'Monster's Inc.', 'The Incredibles', and 'A Bugs Life', but 'Ratatouille' blows them out of the water. Ratatouille was amazing. It didn't lack in story. It didn't lack in comedy. It didn't lack in amazing animation, and it was ruthlessly cute. This is one of the movies that you go to for your children, but end up staying at for yourself. It was simply astounding. I think that all the voicing was great, with a little exception for Collette's accent, which wasn't quite up to par for me, but who cares? The rest of the movie is great enough to make you forget about anything like that. The satirizing of the French is simply hilarious. It is just a terrific movie, and I will definitely be seeing it again.
Titanic (1997)
Uggggggg.
I don't really like this movie. I think it's fine and all, but it is very over-hyped. How it beat out 'Good Will Hunting' for best picture, one will never know. It is so very boring. I don't care for Gloria Stuart's character, although I think she plays her very well. I don't care about the old, boring people looking for the jewels, I just want to see the boat sink, just like everyone else. It is directed very badly, and how James Cameron won best director is a mystery to me, and many other people too. Kate Winslet did a lack-luster job, and that is hard for me to say, seeing as I adore her in everything else she is in. I think that it was a bad film and that it shouldn't have won any of the awards it did, because it was not good at all. Big budget doesn't necessarily mean big hit. In this case, it means big dumb movie.
Night at the Museum (2006)
Vomit
I hated this movie. It was very hard to sit through, and I am a frequent movie-goer. The plot about the 'new daddy' taking Stiller's place is old and tired. And guess what happens next, Stiller wants to impress his son, whose opinion of his dad is bad because he can't hold a job. So he gets a job at the museum and falls for the desk clerk, who has an obsession for Sacajawea, who comes to life at night, along with the other museum inhabitants. Robin Williams gives a lack-luster performance as Teddy Roosevelt. Ricky Gervais gives a terrible performance as the museum curator. I guess it's unfair for me to say that he gave a bad performance, seeing as the way the part was written is what annoyed me, not the way it was acted. And what's with that Egyptian weirdo who we are supposed to care about? Hmm? It is just loony. What's with the sudden outbursts of dancing? It's just corny. What's with the part where Stiller and a monkey are slapping each other? I don't know. The only funny part was Mickey Rooney calling Stiller's character a 'weirdy'. That's all I liked.
In America (2002)
Magnificent
This is one of my personal favorite movies. I LOVE 'In America'. It is the quintessential Irish-American story, and everyone should see it because it is so very good. I cannot recommend this more than I am, because I think that this is an instant American movie classic, and it is so very deservedly so.
Seeing that Abagail Breslin received a best supporting actress nomination, I think that Ariel should have. She was better than Abagail, and I personally think she would have out shined some of the current nominations. I also think that this film should have been nominated for best picture. The cinematography is magnificent, and the whole movie is just a treat for every audience. Plus, the performances are great, and just for introducing Dijmon Hounsou to the world, this movie should be given a plaque.
Bewitched (2005)
Save yourself
I went to see this movie just because I like Will Ferrel, and I like what he's done on the screen. He is very funny, but not in this sad excuse for a film. This was a terrible movie. I thought that the plot was terrible, and I didn't think Nicole Kidman (who is great in almost everything she does) did that well in this film. I was late getting into the theater, and then, I regretted being so late, but now, looking back, I was spared by God those first five minutes. I am very happy that I missed those minutes. I wish I would have come in right when the end credits were starting, because then I would be in even better shape. This is supposed to be a comedy, but it is not funny at all. I didn't laugh once. I didn't even smile once. I just thought it was a bad film all around, and spare yourself the whole movie, unlike I did, because if you do spare it all, then you will be much happier in the future than I am now. And I am generally a chipper, happy person.
Dear Frankie (2004)
Great preview, bad movie
I thought that this movie was boring and very melodramatic. The story is very well done, but that is about it. The acting is fine, but no accolades to the actors, seeing as their performances were mild and hard to believe. The end is rushed and the characters are made to be shown sympathy for, but I didn't find that I was showing any sympathy to any one of the characters. Too many things came into play too late into the movie. The 'Stranger' was never even met until about the last thirty minutes of the movie, and all of the sudden, he just leaves. It is a very hurried ending, and a very hurried attempt. Seeing the preview, which made it seem magnificent, was the reason I watched it, but the movie did not live up to the preview, not at all. It was actually sad. I give it two thumbs down.
Ray (2004)
Ray Womps
I really did not enjoy this movie. Yes, the acting from Jamie Foxx is first-rate and yes, he did deserve his Academy Award win, but the movie itself was a big disappointment. It was hard for me to stay in the theater. If you want to rent it just to see Jamie Foxx at his best, then that is smart, but don't rent it if you expect to have the feeling of watching a great movie. The decisions he makes are absolutely ridiculous. Being blind doesn't impair your judgment, but it sure seemed like it did in this film. Too many characters are introduced too late, and all of the sudden we are supposed to care about them, and I found myself not caring in the least for any of them. I don't know how it got its nomination for Best Picture, but somehow it did. I do not think anyone expecting to watch a good movie should rent this, because I thought it was ever so boring, ever so unbelievable, and ever so bad.
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Amazing!
When I first saw this movie, I was expecting it to be good, because Sundance winners always are, but to my surprise, it wasn't good...it was great! I'll admit, at some parts, I was confused whether it was a comedy or drama, because I expected it to be a comedy (how can you blame me? Steve Carell's in it!) but during the movie, I accepted the dramadey aspect of it. At parts, I'd be crying, but I can't tell now if I was crying because of sadness, or if I was crying because my sides hurt so much. Terrific performances are given by everyone in the cast. How could it not be terrifically funny with Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin, Toni Collette, and newcomer adorable- Abagail Breslin. It is not disgusting, like many comedies are, it is just heartwarming and beautiful and hilarious and terrific and winning! I highly recommend that you see this movie (maybe without the little ones).
The Celestine Prophecy (2006)
A prophecy causes a lot of trouble
I actually didn't enjoy this movie.
I saw it at a camp, and we didn't rave about it, we laughed at it. Sure, some parts are touching, but the acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, and the whole overall movie idea is terrible (now, I know it was based on a book which I haven't read, but I hope that the book was better than this, because frankly, I thought that this movie was very bad and boring). Like I said, I went to it with a bunch of people from a camp, and we were excited to be there, plus I got a caffeinated drink, but nonetheless, I struggled to stay awake. The only thing that kept me up (other than my fear of being embarrassed once I woke up) was the gunshots, that were quite pointless as well. I just really didn't like it.
Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
An average man (Ferrell) realizes that his life is being narrated by a British writer (Thompson)
I think it would be a lot harder to count out the things that I didn't like in this movie. It would probably be around...zero! I loved literally everything about this movie. Some things were a little awry, like the little boy and the older woman, who are always parts of Thompson's death scenes, but they all connect at the end. Ferrell gave a terrific performance and did something that (at least to me) was the most suttle performance of his to date. Maggie Gyllenhal did excellent as a rebellious young woman who owns a bakery and refuses to pay taxes on a count of she doesn't want the money to go to funding for wars. At first it seems to me that she is a hippie, and that's kind of what she is, but she if great and she gets great marks in my book. Thompson was also fabulous again and she gave an inspired role as a writer. Dustin Hoffman did great, but the life-guard scene with the naked men in the shower was a little pointless. BUT- I didn't think that it was a mark down for the overall rating of the movie. Queen Latifah did great with what little part she was given. I didn't enjoy how (once again) this movie made Thompson (who was the real main actress) take a back seat to Gyllenhal and Latifah (who were the supporting actresses). The movie had a suttle funniness which was very enjoyable, not to mention a thrilling end that made you even hold your breath. You'd hang on your seat, and sit back to laugh. It was a great movie, and I recommend it to all who like a good laugh.
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
A regular, normal girl (Hathaway) applies for a job at a high fashion magazine run by a tight neck boss (Streep)
i thought that this movie was fabulously amazing and even sort of funny. Meryl streep was excellent once again and Anne Hathaway broke out of her "little girl fairy tale" mode. they both did excellent and not to mention Emily blunt, who i've never heard of till now, and would like to see a lot more of. plus, Stanley tucci was also amazing and it was a completely all around good movie. i didn't expect to like it seeing as i am a boy and i don't really like fashion, but i was taken to it and it was a pleasant surprise. it isn't gross in any way, and like i said, Meryl streep was excellent. she made me have a good mood with her performance in this movie, and i was so happy to hear that she was up for some awards, because to say that she deserved some would be the understatement of the year