Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (318) - TV Shows (17) - DVDs (21) - Books (221) - Music (8)

misjudged and underated - excellent!

Posted : 10 years, 11 months ago on 5 January 2007 04:22 (A review of The Illusionist (Widescreen Edition))

Everyone knows the story of boy meets girl, boy loses girl. However, there is more to this story here. Set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, Norton is Herr Eisenheim, famous magician (rather, illusionist), whose stage performance has captivated the attention of the Crown Prince, who is to wed Duchess von Deschem (J. Biel), childhood friend of Eisenheim. A crime takes place, but who has done it? Chief Inspector Uhl (P. Giamatti) investigates. -- If you're not into period films, you might actually like this. If you're into such films, you'll hopefully be as captivated by “The Illusionist” as much as I was. The decor makes you feel you are actually in Vienna, the music is excellent (what more to expect from Philip Glass!), the colors and lighting are superb. Several underused actors, and not always at their best in other movies, yet I found them excellent here, and their characters' presentation is fascinating and very well set, from the beginning. Rufus Sewell (Crown Prince) might be considered as overacting, but his character demands this, as he is violent and pompous (to say the least). A wonderful directing work from Neil Burger. In my eyes, this is the most interesting script and the most beautiful film photography (and editing) of a movie picture of this decade.... so far.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

good comedy, not good adaptation

Posted : 11 years, 9 months ago on 20 February 2006 10:06 (A review of Just Like Heaven (Full Screen Edition))

I saw this in the theaters when it came out, and I was deceived, since I had been told it was a direct adaptation from Marc Lévy's novel "If Only It Were True." Definitely NOT an adaptation, but rather, the movie is anything but loosely based on the novel in the question, since many characters in the book differed from the movie (the mother is in the book, there is no sister; her dog, not her niece, "sees" Elizabeth; etc.), or they were added (the guy from the psychic/occult bookstore).
However, this is my second viewing of the film. I have put aside the fact that this is a film based on a book. And I actually enjoyed this comedy, a lot. So put the book's notes and story aside; watch the film for what it is: a good comedy, with lots of laughs and cute moments.
(Too bad there won't be a sequel to the movie [not with the ending the film had], as there was a sequel for the book: book#2 was simply the same thing, with the same characters, but the accident happened to David, oh my! how original.)

0 comments, Reply to this entry

great tv movie

Posted : 11 years, 10 months ago on 19 February 2006 06:35 (A review of The Bourne Identity (TV Miniseries))

A tv movie, divided in 2 parts each of 1h30, it is much much much better than the 2002 remake with Matt Damon. Richard Chamberlain is way more believable than Damon, as the character is older, and has the experience necessary to make the character believable. Too bad not many people know of this movie. Great acting, good photography, and a nice script.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

play much better

Posted : 11 years, 10 months ago on 17 February 2006 02:36 (A review of Proof)

This is a cinematic adaptation of Auburn's play, which was 10/10. It required you to follow the story more, and the viewer had to imagine the father; also, the scenes were not all that evident in the play, as they were kept in the background, whereas in the movie, everything had to be shown so that the general public could follow the storyline better (and understand what the entire idea was on the whole). A good adaptation, however not the best I've ever seen.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Tim Burton's Willy Wonka

Posted : 11 years, 10 months ago on 12 February 2006 01:11 (A review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Widescreen Edition))

I preferred Gene Wilder's Wonka, simply because in Tim Burton's film, a relationship with Wonka's father was added - this did not exist in the book at all.
Despite this, Burton's version is indeed much closer to Dahl's book, and for that, it deserves to be seen by everyone, especially those who claim to prefer the film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

« Prev 1... 56 57 58 59Next »

Insert image

drop image here
(or click)
or enter URL:
 link image?  square?

Insert video

Format block