frogger612 Reviews

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Niiiiice....

[8/10 · 22 November 2005]

Probably the best installment so far.

The film seems more professional than the last three--very well done in all technical aspects. The actors are progressing nicely and I believe all gave their best performances to date.

The action sequences (dragon, maze) are well done--nice CGI work and camera work--really keeps you on the edge of your seat. However, this is why the movie earned a PG-13 rating. If your child has read the books, they know what to expect and I shouldn't worry about the rating. The images can be graphic (they show Harry's arm being cut open, a character being killed at the end, and Voldemort returning) but if the kids have read the books, it shouldn't bother them too much. However, if your child hasn't read the books, I would recommend caution. The last half-hour is rather tense and scary and deals with 'Dark Magic.' Make sure he/she is ready for all that.

Although, the last half-hour of the film is what really makes it great, I think. Wonderful emotions and intense action and horror make for a compelling climax.

I've got only a few nitpicks--the film seems slightly rushed, particularly at the beginning. Also, some of the information necessary to understanding the whole story is thrown in once and if you don't catch it, you'll be lost. Pay attention well to catch all the information that's thrown at you--it's essential.

If you've not seen the other movies/read the books, please don't jump in on this one--you'll be confused, I assure you. Watch the others first.

Overall, if you're a Potter fan, you'll love the action and excitement in this one, as well as a healthy dose of humor and romance. Watch for all the movie's subtleties to really enjoy it. Have fun!

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

10/10 [with explanation]

[10/10 · 28 November 2004]

(Caution: May contain spoilers) My Rating: 10/10

And most deservedly.

I shall take this opportunity to comment mainly on Return of the King, though also on the LotR trilogy as a whole.

Return of the King is a stunning close to the Lord of the Rings trilogy [directed by Peter Jackson]. Having to continue a plot is difficult, but, as with Star Wars Episodes V and VI, it was pulled off brilliantly. The plot exploded with action, adventure, battles, and romance, with touching and poignant moments along the way. Return of the King involves the watcher, and speaks to everyone with a theme that shows the ups and downs of people and life, good and evil. It highlights friendship and love, loyalty and honor, courage and perseverance. It is a message of hope which is well-received.

The actors and actresses are well-chosen and play their parts splendidly; in fact, I do not have anything bad to say about any of them! Those that especially pop out to me are John Noble (Denethor), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Sean Astin (Sam), Miranda Otto (Eowyn), John Rhys-Davies (Gimli), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), Sir Ian McKellan (Gandalf), and David Wenham (Faramir).

You notice that I named most of the cast right there...

The special effects, unlike in Attack of the Clones and other such movies, do not overwhelm the film; they provide just enough magic to make it believable. Taking a world of miniatures and turning it into Middle Earth complete with cultures, battles, creatures, awesome stunts, and fantastic explosions and the like is a enormous task, but PJ and crew pulled through better than I could have ever imagined, from walking trees to the destruction of Mordor to large fighting beasts.

As aforementioned, the movie not only displays epic battle sequences but also emotional moments as well--scenes that make you clap, chuckle, cry, or make you smile because of the simple message and depth of character. I'm not adequately able to describe these moments, but I'll try. The movie grabs you in the beginning, so that you are already involved with the characters and story. Thus, one heart-wrenching death feels like you yourself have lost a loved one. A deed done as a loyal friend warms you, and cold acts of greed and selfishness tend to anger or hurt the viewer. Poignant lines or desperate courage go right to the heart in a way not many movies can. [For example: '...but I can carry you!'; the entire 'end of all things' scene; Faramir's suicide ride.]

The score for Return of the King [and for the entire trilogy] adds to the already compelling scenes with mellow tunes for softer moments and uplifting 'charge' music for battles and victories. Into the West [the credits song and last tune in the movie] really closes the trilogy and the theme and is perfect for those last scenes at the Havens. The entire score is classic, fitting so perfectly into Tolkien's world.

I have only a few complaints, and those are minor. One--the ending. It was 20 minutes long and almost dragged after the coronation, though, upon further review, it was absolutely necessary. Just maybe a little condensing or something might have helped. Also, well...heh, I can't think of an also...guess that's it!

All in all, Return of the King is a wonderful finish to a wonderful trilogy and, in my opinion, will remain recognized as one of the best movies of all time for many years to come. Enjoy.

--

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

8¾/10 [with explanation]

[9/10 · 28 November 2004]

[Caution: May contain spoilers]

My rating: 8¾/10

Why?

Best installment of the series so far, in my opinion. The new director added more punch and character to the film, whereas the first two seemed a bit wooden. Some complain that the grounds of Hogwarts changed; I say it's about time. The new, more interesting terrain seems more realistic and beautiful, so that you can see why the students like it. The flat, treeless plains of the first two movies were unattractive and dull; I'd rather stay indoors.

The acting improved greatly on this film. Emma Watson, who already proved herself competent in the first two, really shines in PoA [and is getting rather pretty as well: perfect timing with the Yule Ball coming up...]. Rupert Grint is good, as well, and Daniel Radcliffe, though he needs more improvement, is getting better as the series progresses. The new actors...well, they're good for the most part; I just don't agree with some of the choices. Emma Thompson is brilliant in the part of Trelawny, bringing that frenzied, bug-eyed woman to screen excellently. Gary Oldman and David Thewlis also played well, but I don't agree with casting them in the first place. Also, as it was a rather large burden, Michael Gambon did okay in the part of Dumbledore, though he didn't bring us the twinkle-eyed old wizard Richard Harris gave us.

The movie was darker than the previous two, and rightly so. Now we have dementors, a supposed murderer [and the real one], more mysteries and secrets, all leading up to the dark climax of Goblet of Fire. The pace is quicker [though some more details might have been nice], but the movie flows a whole lot better than the first two.

--

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

4/10 [with explanation]

[4/10 · 28 November 2004]

(Caution: May contain spoilers)

My rating: 4/10

Why?

Well...after being excited about Ep II for a while, it disappointed me. I saw it three times in about three weeks for one reason: I thought I liked it. But by the third viewing, I got sick of it.

The plot is complicated; in fact I didn't even understand it fully until the third viewing. With too many off-scene characters, it became unclear who was good and bad, and even who was who. Okay, Palpatine is obviously the Emporer, and Dooku is obviously a bad guy...but Dooku did have the right idea about the corruption of the Senate...but he's turning against it...and who ordered the clones, anyway? All that just got twisted and tangled within the plot.

Another thing, which stems from my dislike of gushy romantic mush--waaay too many Padme/Anakin scenes with rather cheesy lines only found in soaps. Maybe a little condensation of the romance line would have made the plot less dragging.

The special effects were good to a point but were overdone in many places and took over the movie. With all that jazz, the setting seemed like a completely different time and galaxy than the one we see in Eps IV, V, and VI. Ep II appears too 'high-tech,' even on Tatooine, as if Ep II happens after the original trilogy instead of before. Also, give me puppet creatures any day. The character of Yoda, who I usually enjoy, was ruined for me because of the obvious animation.

The actors: Well...the only ones I agree with are Samuel Jackson (Mace Windu), Christopher Lee (Count Dooku), Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine), and Natalie Portman (Padme). At least Portman was a main character, whereas my other choices weren't even main characters. Obi-wan just doesn't have that Jedi look, and Anakin...too kiddish. The attitude is way overdone.

Finally, one quality that all movies need to be successful in my opinion but that AotC lacks is, put simply, someone to pull for. In the original trilogy we had Han, Leia, Luke, Chewie, and the droids. In The Phantom Menace, Qui-gon and Obi-wan were likable. But in AotC, there's really no character that you can pull for, feel the ups and downs and emotions. Anakin is a bratty jerk, Obi-wan is not much better with a bit of conceit and no understanding (definitely not the Obi-wan we see in A New Hope), and Padme is a love-struck girl that doesn't have much. That leaves...the droids. Not much, is it?

However, I will say that AotC had some good effects and interesting scenes and even a few good lines. But the negative attitude, bratty star, and confusing and dragging plot bring the rest of it down. I sincerely hope that with the introduction of Darth Vader into the next film, Ep III will be better.

--

Kissin' Cousins (1964)

6/10 [with explanation]

[6/10 · 28 November 2004]

My rating: 6/10

This movie is all about fun and laughs. Very humorous, with a several good lines [What're you doin' with my face?]. The songs were toe-tapping, up-beat songs with that Elvis flair. Although it did have a very understated plot, Kissin' Cousins was a very enjoyable ride [if you like that kind of thing].

Now, the way I rate movies...This one was great for fun and little thinking, but it obviously was not a masterpiece of filming or anything like that...

Fun for oldies music lovers!

--

Finding Nemo (2003)

9/10 [with explanation]

[9/10 · 28 November 2004]

My rating: 9/10

Why?

A simple plot line complicated by setbacks, various and sundry meetings, and other assorted stops that make for a thrilling adventure. Blatant and subtle humor and sarcasm abound, creating many memorable scenes and one-liners. The characters are fun and diverse, with many personalities, accenting one another. The fish and other aquatic life have human personalities and intelligence, making them even more lovable.

Being an ocean-lover, I was immediately captivated by the astounding animation. The fish [excepting those done purposely charicaturish] were wonderfully real and colorful, and the entire ocean environment pulled you under, with swaying anemones and beautiful coral. It makes the entire film seem more believable, if that can be achieved at all in a film with talking fish...

'Fish are friends, NOT FOOD'--a memorable quote from the sharks, but a small running theme that seems to be present in many 'talking animal' movies. Kinda like 'Hey, animals have feelings, too.' A parody of human life is portrayed through the fish, with traffic, bullying, school, and even attitudes common among kids. It brings the movie that much closer to home.

Wonderful film for the whole family to enjoy...so grab shell, dude!

--

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

9/10 [with explanation]

[9/10 · 28 November 2004]

My rating: 9/10

Before the featured presentation of LotR: The Two Towers came on the screen, a preview for Pirates of the Caribbean aired. My first thought was 'Uggh.' I forgot about it for a few months, then read a few critics' reviews, which praised a movie so different from what the preview hinted at. I got interested, and decided to see what people were raving about. Then the next day, I went and saw it again...

Fun and adventurous, 'Pirates' was not at all what I expected from a pirate movie, yet it was exactly what a pirate movie should be: swashbuckling fun and adventure, a bit of violence, treasure, etc. Twisting humor, romance, violence, adventure, and fantasy into a fast and involving plot, the film keeps the audience's interest the entire film.

Johnny Depp [CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow] carries the movie, complete with brilliantly ridiculous attire and movements reminiscent of Keith Richards. Depp adds most of the humor to 'Pirates' with memorable one-liners and speeches. Keira Knightley [Elizabeth Swann] played her part quite well, too. This was the first film of hers I'd seen and judged her performance as excellent, fitting into all the facets of her character. Orlando Bloom [Will Turner] was watched even closer by me, since I had recently seen his debut in the LotR trilogy. He acted up to par and accented Depp's character. Geoffrey Rush [Captain Barbossa] played the evil and clever 'bad guy' and brought the cunning ship captain to life.

One last aspect of this film captivated me-- the score. I can nearly hum the entire musical score from listening to the soundtrack too many times. The music is exciting and enthralling, pulling you into the action scenes and softening the deep tones for the romantic ones. In fact, that's one of the only times I've waited through the credits, just to here that final rendition of 'He's a Pirate'. Be sure to pay attention to the music--it will make your viewing that much more exciting.

All in all, 'Pirates' is a well-wrapped package of entertainment and adventure that will keep you spell-bound 'til the end. Drink up me hearties, yo ho!

--

National Treasure (2004)

8/10 [with explanation]

[8/10 · 28 November 2004]

First off, I'll give you my rating: 8/10

Why?

National Treasure, in brief, is about Ben Gates' [Nicholas Cage] quest to find a legendary treasure that has been protected for generations by the Freemasons. He, along with his comical techy sidekick Riley [Justin Bartha] and government worker Abigail Chase [Diane Kruger], follows clues [often found in historic locations] hoping to find the treasure. Gates' rival is Ian Howe [Sean Bean], who is also attempting to locate the treasure.

Well, for what National Treasure, it seems, desired to be, it did very well.

National Treasure is a pure entertaining film. It's got action, humor, history [actually made enjoyable!], and about a ¼ teaspoon of romance. Several one-liners, mostly from Riley, made me laugh out loud. There's action in car chase scenes, running scenes, and some Indiana Jones-reminiscent sequences towards the end.

All in all, this is not a high-intellectual film, nor is it compelling drama or mystery. It's fun and enjoyable and takes you along for the ride. If you like Pirates of the Caribbean, well, the experience reminded me somewhat of that.

Enjoy!

--