Reviews

Yes, this is a "typical" Disney movie, with singing heroes (and heroines) and villains, saucer-size-eyed characters, cutesy animal companions, and a coming-of-age plot. However, it's also a Pixar movie (genius John Lasseter was Executive Producer) meaning that it is hilarious in most scenes, heart-stoppingly beautiful in the visuals, wittier than 95% of all the other movies out there, and definitely something that can be loved and enjoyed by both little kids and their parents. The plot really has nothing to do with Rapunzel, apart from a woman being imprisoned in a tower, who has (very) long hair. The story Disney has come up with is probably one of the most beautiful they have ever crafted. A princess is abducted by an evil witch while she is still a baby, and grows up completely sheltered by the witch, who needs her magical hair to stay young. Every year on the princess' birthday, the distraught king and queen let beautiful lanterns rise to show her the way home. Of course, the princess, now almost 18, has no idea what they mean but knows that they are important, and wants to see them from up close. A young thief who stumbles upon the tower is just the right companion for her to get out, and from there the plot develops with never-before-seen speed in a Disney movie: just like we are used from Pixar. I don't have kids, but I loved watching this movie in a cinema that was filled with them - as soon as the adorable animal companions (a horse that acts like a dog, and a chameleon very much the same as the cockroach in Wall-E) fell over, the kids were screaming with laughter. And then they would make one of those cleverly animated faces that only adults can understand, and I had to laugh. There are other scenes that will forever stick in my memory: how Rapunzel transforms a tavern full of evil ruffians into a singing mob of people who follow their dreams, how the use of a frying pan in one small scuffle becomes the weapon of choice for a whole kingdom, and more than anything else, when the lanterns are being lit and released into the night sky. I'm a 33-year-old male, but I have to say: that brought tears into my eyes, it was that beautiful and moving.

I don't really understand why this movie hasn't received more attention. I used to be a very strong Disney fan until the company became weird (Pocahontas and later), but having watched Tangled, I can honestly say that this is easily the wittiest, fastest, and possibly even most beautiful Disney film I have ever seen.

Only released at the very end of 2010, I have no hesitation to call this the best movie of this year, and Colin Firth the very best actor in current big-budget cinema.

The movie starts with an opening scene where B-b-b-bertie (Firth) steps up to a microphone to speak to a thousand strong audience at a race- course, and needs several minutes to pronounce the first sentence.

From this moment on, the movie had me in its grasp! I was suffering through Bertie's weak moments, understood his frustrations, laughed with him when he made fun of himself, and cried with him when things went wrong once again. This movie almost left me emotionally burned out, I had to fight tears so much... Helena Bonham Carter as the ever- encouraging wife (Queen Mom) is a fantastic background figure, and Guy Pearce sheds a somewhat new light on Prince Edward's relationship with a commoner. Just as good as Colin Firth is Geoffrey Rush, and I'm not even one of his fans. His role as Bertie's speech therapist has just the right mix of humour, sternness, wisdom, and sheer compassion that makes you just want to hug this guy for his perseverance.

The movie's plot is about the future King George VI overcoming his stuttering speech impediment, but it is also about a man who realises that he needs to step up to a massive challenge in a time where horrible things are about to happen.

Being German by birth, I have to say that the way Bertie faced Hitler in this movie (he sees him as a very powerful orator, compared to his stutter) gave me a new insight into what it must have been like to lead a country's soul in a conflict as terrible as the Second World War.

I am very picky with my movies, but this one will go into my Top 5 all- time favourites: the acting is incredible, the shots are perfect, the script is extremely powerful, and everything else is just about as good as you could ever make it. If you miss this movie, you will miss out on something that will not only get plenty of Oscars, but also a piece that critiques will use as a measure for years to come.

Innocently believing in the hype, and excited by an interesting-looking trailer, I watched "Watchmen" last night at an IMAX theatre. My expectation was that I would be seeing something that is similar to "The Dark Knight" in terms of plot lines, powerful imagery, and acting - boy was I wrong! I will give it to you straight: the movie is almost 3 hours long, and has hardly any plot to speak of! Both my girl-friend and I vented our anger about this fact after the screening, and decided that even if it had been a 90-min movie, the plot would not have been able to sustain it.

It will sound hardly believe, but there is actually nothing happening in the movie. That's what makes it so tricky to review it. It is a constant and never-ending series of meaningless dialogues between superheros (although most of them are only martial arts specialists and nothing else), indulging in extreme amounts of self-pity. After about 30 minutes I was hoping that the action the trailer had promised me would start... after 2 hours, my brain was screaming at me to leave the cinema, and when the end credits rolled over the big screen, I realised that I had just been robbed of the hefty entry fee, and 3 hours of my life I couldn't get back. It amazes me how much emotional baggage these people in their stupid costumes can carry around with them. And the "twist" at the end of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and screams of illogical mistakes.

Acting was very mediocre, with a computer-animated "Doctor Manhattan" probably being the best one among them. The dialogues were about as brain-dead as in "Casino Royale" (only that that movie at least had action to sustain it), and the logical mistakes in all this were mind-boggling.

I know that you will hear a lot of positive things about "Watchmen", mainly from overweight people who wear their hair in unwashed pony-tails, or puberty-stricken skateboard boys who just see it for the sporadic scenes of unnecessary nudity and violence. Do NOT believe them. "Watchmen" is a very bad movie, and I am one of the few people who have the guts to say it! Heed my advice and don't waste 3 hours of your life, there has to be something better you can do with your time.

I am a great fan of Peter Jackson's earlier work, and also a frequent blockbuster viewer, so I actually went to see this movie with a positive expectation: I was utterly disappointed. It proves again that a minimal plot cannot fill a three-hour movie, no matter how many special effects throw at it. The movie is almost split into three parts: some sort of a prologue to explain the characters and find the island, then mindless action on the island, and then King Kong in New York. This wooden layout increases the feeling of complete boredom that I felt about half an hour into the movie, and that sadly never left. Naomi Watts' only part in the last two bits that I just described was to look up to Kong's face and either cry, scream, or look utterly sad. The final two hours of the movie hardly have any conversation at all. Jack Blake certainly is a very poor choice for a guy who is supposed to be completely obsessed by his dream to become famous. And the love story is just too simple and naive to attract any attention. I give this movie 3 stars, because I have to admit that the CGI was very impressive, but this is in my opinion the only good thing that could be said about it.