Reviews written by registered user
|15 reviews in total|
Having seen the British original umpteen times and understanding the affection with which it is held in the UK, I fell into the trap of thinking that "The Ladykillers" would remain reasonably to the mood of the older version or at least tip it's cap to it. It didn't. I really can't understand why they used the original title except but to steal some of the goodwill that would inevitably accompany the name. It never caught my imagination, my sympathy and by the end I was resenting it. Too many films keep the name of the older version and do themselves a disservice in so doing. The remake is just half a stolen idea, the title is misrepresented and half the public, the older half, feel cheated. Pinch half the idea if you must but change the name. I ask you, would the public stand for a remake of "The Godfather"? Most remakes remain a huge disappointment. Please stop it or call it something totally different.
It's occurred to me that the cartoons these days are becoming more human in their reactions and facial responses and the modern-day action films are becoming more cartoon-like in the antics and tricks they can display. There seems to be whole new treatment of films now by the new generation of directors. They are dead keen on the fast editing, cut out the establishing shots and bombard the customers with this endless drumming which for me, is a total pain. Can the Sound Editing of the film really have got an Oscar?? The mind boggles. I enjoyed the film but only because I had a DVD of it and had the subtitles showing. Without them, I would have lost 30 to 40 percent of it. Films these days take no account of the difficulties for the hard of hearing with their multi-sound sources coming through the speakers. Having an unnecessary drumming racket going, virtually uninterrupted throughout the whole film was a bit hard to take. The story, the dialogue, the action, does not necessarily need an endless racket to keep the attention of the viewer. Tell them to watch RIFIFI.
I've seen it twice but am still bemused and wonder whether bothering to watch it again is really worth my while. A film which has lots of people applauding it but for me, an average film-goer, it remains uninvolving and a tad too clever for its own good. I'm not against clever film making but it seemed to go out of its way to make sure that there were no sympathetic characters and a storyline which left me for dead after half an hour. The editing timeframe was unhelpful and left me struggling to equate that with the story of events in the police interview room and where that conversation would place me next. You can't win them all, I guess.
Disappointing largely after a decent beginning. I felt that they fobbed me off with car crashes and collapsing buildings rather than a smarter script and better support cast. The support cast were one dimensional and not funny or sympathetic although Matt Farrell came close. Computer jargon, button clicking and ice cold one-liners get a bit wearing after a while. They worked hard on keeping up the tension rather than try to mix the moods. I felt I endured the film rather than finding myself immersed in the story and the situation, like I was with Die Hard one and two. I really think that if I'm in the mood for a dose of John McClane I'll be getting out One or two or maybe even three but not this one. Sorry, a promising title but they seem to have milked this for all it was worth because of the previous three.
this is NOT one of them. A memorable film I would be quite happy to sit down and watch again if it came on television and yes, I have it on DVD too! Most remakes are a bit of a cheat and lack of imagination but TITANIC sets a new standard for the historical event and builds an involving love story running through it. Kate Winslet is superb in every scene and the whole casting is excellent. I have no hesitation in recommending this film. It captured my imagination and involved me from beginning to end. The CGI was superb and the costumes immaculate. No scenes dragged and the editing always led you into the next scene that you "wanted to see". So many fail on this point. I just now hope that somebody will not try and do a remake in fifteen years time!!
Nope, I have to say that I haven't seen this in the Uk just yet and Channel Four are not to be trusted with anything to do with NYPD BLUE. I know that I miss Miss Abandando. How on earth she could have been considered inferior to the "lovely" simpering John is beyond me. Just what sort of an audience could the producers have been trying to draw by not keeping on Miss Abandando. Can't quite understand that one. The main female detectives have all been pretty good but I hope the main distributors offer it to some channel OTHER than Channel Four. If this program was a documentary it would make interesting viewing at the conclusion of Series 12 which is now up to Episode 12 or 13. If there is any place in the US which can supply this program please email me direct.
Once again I am left wondering - why do they bother with remakes? This was a complete disappointment. Then that ghastly soundtrack of irritating "music?" to forcefeed us with! YUCK! You will have guessed that I've seen the original, they actors back then could make themselves understood without subtitles, there was a coherent character build up and their faces actually showed signs of deterioration after all those days in the sun! The woman in this version hardly showed any signs of wear and tear at all! If all this version had to offer was a clever/clever opening crash sequence then I would have to say that imagination is one area which has NOT shown any advance in forty years. A good remake is a rarity and this one was not. I would be interested in hearing the comments of a younger person who saw this first and THEN saw the 1965 Jimmy Stewart version and hear how they compared the two. I almost feel that if a producer and director get it into their heads to do a "REMAKE" they should change the title of the film. I do feel that they are trading on the good name of the original by blatantly using the name of the first or earlier version. In this modern version I would say that the byline should more accurately be, "never mind the quality, feel the CGI."
Very exhilarating from start to finish. A test of a good film is, if you've seen it half a dozen times, you still want the DVD! I did that and regretted the voice-over "look what we did, aren't we clever" stuff which came in the box. That apart, its worth every cent. As an ex-bus driver I was watching the momentum of the bus in certain situations and suspected that it had to drop below fifty, but hey, it's Hollywood, innit??!! Bound to withstand the test of time as a good action movie, with a helping of amusing small part characters and a good pairing of Keanu and Sandra. A great pace, enabling some slow bits in a tense situation but it never flagged.
A wonderful film I only discovered about ten years ago. A low key beginning, hardly anything to attract the viewer to sympathize with the predicament that befalls young Harvey. With a wonderful cast, fairly average story but told and beautifully understated brings a wonderful balance and heart-tugging restoration for young Harvey, plucked from the sea by Spencer Tracy, a Portuguese fisherman. Having to become a fisherman for two months, young Harvey finds out what he has not known in life. He begins the story as a spoilt young irritating brat but ends it restored to life and his father. A message for us all, begun and ending in eternity. Poignant, sad and enriching. Great cinema.
I'm a little perplexed that so many reviewers sought to point out the shortcomings in this film. It's from Hollywood, guys! They're in the entertainment business! And so Capricorn One proved, a nice idea with a great dollop of mischief thrown into the mixing bowl. After an initial five minutes when you might almost think you were in a documentary, suddenly the plot thickens. I have toyed with the idea of tackling an equally mischievous sequel because that could be fun. A trip to the Moon which wasn't shows up how much officialdom might manipulate us to keep the veneer of "progress" on schedule. A neat idea and a clean break from frequent conspiracy stories which are set before us. I would say nearly an 8.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |