Christmas Carol - The Movie (2001) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Yet another 'Carol' has traditional 2-D animations with great voice cast -- Simon Callow, Kate Winslet, Jane Horrocks, Nicholas Cage, Rhys Ifans, Micheal Gambon, and Juliet Stevenson. You also have a chance to listen to Kate's sister Beth Wislet's voice (who can be seen in a film 'Bodywork') and plus, you hear beautiful songs by Welsh singer Charlotte Church and Kate Winslet herself! And Ms Winslet is very good at that.
So, you ask, why 2 stars? OK, listen up, please. The story is a famous one, so you don't need my summery. And Scrooge is anyway going to be a good guy. But the process is the point, or the life of the story, and the film misses it very wide.
In fact, Scrooge (Simon Callow) in the first act is totally a bad guy here, feeding a mice, giving a chunk of cheese. After showing another side of him, the film is very slow in establishing his character, which should be more simple. To make it worse, Scrooge. out of the window, throws a jug of cold water (and it's winter) upon the chorus group on the street singing, among which you see the face of Tiny Tim, poor boy, drenched to the skin. And ... sorry if I'm wrong, but -- Did Dickens write that way?
There are many, many, unnecessary addtions and changes, which I do not introduce here. The real problem is, however, the animation itself. Jimmy T. Murakami is best known for 'When the Wind Blows' a quiet but very unnerving animated film about two elderly man and wife, who too innocently follows the government guidance to make a handmade shelter for the coming nuclear war. His 2-D animatiton worked at that time, but after about 14 years, it is no longer possible to grab our attention with that technique without good storyteling, character, or original designs. This 'Christmas Carol' has none of them, just making itself look like a Cliff Note of animation.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but as to this eternal classc, there are better choices out there, Alastair Simm or the Muppets (with Michael Caine, and the film is good), so why not them? The only good thing I could find about this version is Kate Winslet's wonderful yuletide song, which deserves more attention.
[VHS VERSION] lacks the opening and ending live-action sections in which Simon Callow plays Charles Dickens himself, touring in Boston, America, in 1867 (Dickens's celebrated reading performance in mind). If you want to see everything of this film, DVD is a better choice.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Christmas Carol - The Movie (2001)

Capture the spirit of Christmas with this delightful animated classic! Based on one of the most beloved holiday tales of all time and featuring the voices of some of today's brightest stars, this enchanting, heartwarming film is a very merry treat the whole family can enjoy! "Bah humbug,"says Ebenezer Scrooge, the grumpy miser who would rather count his money than celebrate Christmas. But as Yuletide cheer spreads through all of London and two friendly mice try to change Scrooge's ill-tempered ways, Scrooge receives three unexpected visitorsthe Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Futurewho take him on a wild and wonderful journey and help him discover the true meaning of Christmas.

Get 66% OFF

Click here for more information about Christmas Carol - The Movie (2001)

William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition) (1996) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Part of the genius of Branagh's interpretation of Hamlet is in the use of the techniques of the cinema to enhance the production. Branagh has not condensed the acts like some mass market soup, as was done in Olivier's 1948 Oscar-winning production, or in, say, Zeffirelli's 1989 Hamlet lite starring Mel Gibson (both excellent, though, within their scope), but has kept every word while directing our understanding so that even those only casually familiar with the play might follow the intent and purpose with discernment. Recall that for Shakespeare--the ultimate actor's playwright who wrote with precious few stage directions--interpretation was left to the direction and the actors, an open invitation that Branagh rightly accepts.
The use of flashback scenes of things implied, such as the amorous union of Ophelia and her Lord Hamlet abed, or of a vast expanse of snow darkened with distant soldiers to represent the threat of Fortinbras' army from without, and especially the vivid remembrance in the mind's eye of the new king's dastardly deed of murder most foul, helps us all to more keenly appreciate just what it is that torments Hamlet's soul. I also liked the intense closeups. How they would have bemused and delighted an Elizabethan audience.
Branagh's ambitious Hamlet is also one of the most accessible and entertaining, yet without the faintest hint of any dumbing down or abbreviation. A play is to divert, to entertain, to allow us to identify with others whose trials and tribulations are so like our own. And so first the playwright seeks to engage his audience, and only then, by happenstance and indirection, to inspire and to inform. Shakespeare did this unconsciously, we might say. He wrote for the popular audience of his time, a broad audience, it should be noted, that included kings and queens as well as knaves and beggars, and he reached them, one and all. We are much removed from those times, and yet, this play, this singular achievement in theatre, still has the power to transcend mere entertainment, to fuse poetry and story, as well as the high and the low, and speak once again to a new audience twenty generations removed.
Branagh himself is a wonderful Hamlet, perhaps a bit of a ham at times (as I think was Shakespeare's intent), a prince who is the friend of itinerant players. He also lacks somewhat in stature (as we conceive our great heroes); nonetheless his interpretation of the great prince's torment and his singular obsession to avenge his father's murder speaks strongly to us all. Branagh, more than any other Hamlet, makes us understand the distracted, anguished and tortured prince, and guides us to not only an appreciation of his actions, wild and crazy as they sometimes are, but to an identification and an understanding of why (the eternal query) Hamlet is so long in assuming the name of action. In Branagh's production, this old quibble with Hamlet's character dissolves itself into a dew, and we realize that he was acting strongly, purposely all the while. He had to know the truth without doubt so that he might act in concert with it.
I was also very much impressed with Derek Jacobi's Claudius. One recalls that Jacobi played Hamlet in the only other full cinematic production of the play that I know of, produced in 1980 by the BBC with Claire Bloom as Gertrude; and he was an excellent Hamlet, although perhaps like Branagh something less than a massive presence. His Claudius combines second son ambition with a Machiavellian heart, whose words go up but whose thoughts remind below, as is the way of villains everywhere.
Kate Winslet is a remarkable Ophelia, lending an unusual strength to the role (strength of character is part of what Kate Winslet brings to any role), but with the poor, sweet girl's vulnerability intact. She does the mad scene with Claudius as well as I have seen it done, and of course her personal charisma and beauty embellishes the production.
Richard Briers as Polonius, proves that that officious fool is indeed that, and yet something more so that we can see why he was a counselor to the king. The famous speech he gives to Laertes as his son departs for France, is really ancient wisdom even though it comes from a fool.
Julie Christie was a delight as the besmirched and wretched queen. In the bedroom scene with Hamlet she becomes transparent to not only her son, but to us all, and we feel that the camera is reaching into her soul. She is outstanding.
The bit players had their time upon the stage and did middling well to very good. I liked Charlton Heston's player king (although I think he and John Gielgud might have switched roles to good effect) and Billy Crystal's gravedigger was finely etched. Only Jack Lemon's Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. Not once was he able to flash the Jack Lemon grin that we have come to know so well.
The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. Perhaps the place and dress are just enough removed from our lives that they are somewhat strange but recognizable in a pleasing way. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare's play. The mirrors in the great hall added to the effect of a vast and indifferent castle environment, and in the scene with Ophelia and Laertes returned tended to magnify the focus.
There is so much more to say about this wonderful cinematic production. It is, all things considered, one of the best Hamlets ever done. Perhaps it is the best. See it, by all means, see it for yourself.

Click Here to see more reviews about: William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition) (1996)

HAMLET - DVD Movie

Get 11% OFF

Click here for more information about William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition) (1996)

Heavenly Creatures (1994) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)For those who wondered how the director of "Bad Taste" and "Brain Dead" got to direct "The Lord of the Rings," this 1994 film from director Peter Jackson supplies the answer. In 1954 two teenage girls brutally murdered one of the their mothers in what must be the most sensational murder in New Zealand history. "Heavenly Creatures" tells the strange story of these two girls and their unique relationship. If you think this is just a reality based splatter flick, then you are going to be much more than surprised and impressed by what Jackson has accomplished.
Pauline Rieper (Melanie Lynskey) is a simple and rather dull young girl who is totally dazzled when Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) enters her life. Juliet is impressed as well, because Pauline has a scar on her leg from an operation. Juliet declares that: "All the best people have had chest and bone disease! It's all frightfully romantic!" Eventually both the romance and the frightfullness of it all reaches a tragic conclusion. In their all consuming friendship Juliet and Pauline create a "Fourth World," better than heaven (because it has no Christians), inhabited by the clay figures they have fashioned to represents their friends and where the music of Mario Lanza, the greatest tenor on earth, is always in the air.
Jackson brings this fantasy world alive, which allows him to explore the pivotal theme of juxtaposition throughout the film. This comes into play most notably at the beginning and ending of "Heavenly Clouds." Jackson begins with a 1950s newsreel about Christchurch, New Zealand, which is interrupted by the appearance of the two screaming and bloodied girls, thereby symbolizing the way this sensational case shocked the nation. Even more effective is the film's conclusion, where the murder is inter-cut with what the girls think will happen if they do not find this way of saving themselves.
With any film based on historical events there are omissions, alterations, substitutions, and the like, and "Heavenly Creatures" is no different. On the plus side of the ledger Jackson attempted an almost morbid verisimilitude. Almost all of the locations used for filming were the real locations where events occurred, including the tea shop where Honora Parker ate her last meal, which was torn down a few days after the shooting ended. However, the cast and crew found the actual murder scene uncomfortable and moved further down the path. All of the journal voice-overs come directly from Pauline's diary, as are the characters in the girls' make-believe world. However, since the two filled up fifteen notebooks and hundreds of letters devoted to their fantasies, the movie actually underplays these elements.
However, having familiarized myself somewhat with the actual "facts" of the case, and the recollections of the woman one of the girls grew up to be, the key point of dispute is the motive. But if Jackson is guilty of becoming fixated on the idea that these two young girl committed a murder because they could not bear to be separated and have their fantasy world unravel, then he can be hardly faulted for finding that a fascinating interpretation of the evidence (the girls never testified or were examined in court, but Pauline's diary was seen as providing all the answers). More importantly, Jackson does not seem guilty of taking liberties, merely with offering a valid interpretation of the evidence. For example, the murder sequence greatly reduces the number of blows, but the effect is still horrific, so it seems trivial to complain about any inaccuracy.
From an artistic standpoint his interpretation is more than justified, especially at the end. In addition to the information we receive between the final scene and the closing credits that tells what happened to Pauline and Juliet, Marzio Lanza sings "You'll Never Walk Alone," which is as perfect a choice of a song to play at the end of a film as you will ever hear, forcefully underscoring the film's thesis. Jackson says this is "a murder story about love, a murder story with no villains," and it is hard to argue with this idea after watching his film.
"Heavenly Creatures" received an Oscar nomination for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen for Jackson and Frances Walsh. The film won every award for which it was nominated in the New Zealand Film and TV Awards, including Best Actress for Lynskey and Best Foreign Performer for Winslet (both of whom were perfectly suited for those roles), and earned film festival awards in Venice and Toronto. This is a striking and unforgettable film, both creative and thoughtful. Those who are drawn to it because it was directed by Peter Jackson might be shocked by the subject matter, but they will not be disappointed with the results.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Get 20% OFF

Click here for more information about Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Revolutionary Road (2008) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Adapted from Richard Yates first novel, Revolutionary Road exposes the adversities of a young couple living in a Connecticut suburban neighborhood during the 1950's who simply realize too late that they were never meant to be.
Frank Wheeler (Dicaprio) and April Wheeler (Winslet) feel as though they must standout from all the other mundane and ordinary suburbanites in their neighborhood. Frank, a marketer who works for Knoxx business (equivalent to IBM in those days) machines, is profoundly miserable at his job as he diligently works in a cubicle and engages in secretarial affairs with the novice typist. April, a struggling actress, who apparently never received her big break in show biz does not like to talk about her failures.
During the beginning of the film, we are introduced to a quick flashback of how they met at a party while they were younger; Frank exhibits his witty, charming charisma as he gives April the impression of eventually leading a spontaneous life in Paris in the future. However, the viewer only begins to find out that this was merely a sales pitch or a common characteristic of a marketer. On the contrary, April falls for it no less. Fast forwarding to the present, April now lives in an ordinary life on Revolutionary Road with Frank and her two children and receives frequent visits from her inquisitive real estate agent (Kathy Bates) accompanied with her "mentally unstable" son. April feels as though she is leading a very unsatisfying and unfulfilled life. To add some excitement in their relationship, April broaches Frank's former idea of actually pursuing a career and settling in Paris as a secretary because it simply pays handsomely; meanwhile, it will beneficially fit Frank because he can finally figure out what he wants to do with his life. Frank refuses at first because according to him it is just "unrealistic" but eventually obliges because he too feels as though they need something new and spontaneous to reinvent their relationship. Despite the neighbors and Frank's fellow co-workers disbelief in this "childish" and radical decision, things seem to go very smoothly in the Wheeler family; the house they just bought is now on sale, their belongings are packed, the children are excited, life could not be any better.
It all seems too swell for this tragic couple, when suddenly Frank is offered a promotion at his redundant job with a higher paying position, heavier responsibilities, and more importantly a chance to be apart of something great, the computer. Frank refuses this handsome offer from his boss at first because it interferes with their big trip to Paris. On the other hand, Frank cannot resist the temptation and is drawn to stay at this job because of the attachment he has regarding his father. We learn that Frank's father has also worked at Knoxx Business Machines for 30 years. It suggests as though Frank has a yearning desire to fulfill this empty legacy. On a different note, it strongly expresses Frank's inability to change and triumph over his trepidation. This couple struggles to achieve any sort of compromise as their lays a serious conflict of interest regarding their futures. April wants a lifestyle change in Paris; meanwhile, Frank is satisfied working in a miserable occupation with a higher salary. This relationship portrays that conflict of interest incessantly; it also shows how it affects their lifestyle and how they grapple with the consequences. It is not pleasant I rest assure you. (You'll see what I mean)
The bigger picture here is the heavy social commentary implemented in this film at almost every other scene. It reflects and exposes the culture of the 1950's, the struggles of an unhappy relationship, and the fine line between insanity and simply pure genius. It also sheds light upon questions such as what is insanity and what is mean to be medically and mentally unstable? The reality is that the real estate agent's son who is "mentally unstable" by society is the only one that possesses a real intellectual and realistic perception on the wheeler's relationship.(Go figure) The Wheeler's relationship and decisions are constantly being influenced by other people and we see this through Frank's work environment, the neighbors, and the real estate agent. April is victimized as a prisoner of culture and her difficulty of coping with the dynamics of the role of a wife during the 1950's. Some might question her role in the film and ask, well, why doesn't she just get a divorce, or leave Frank? It just wasn't that simple during that time period as it was considered taboo or dishonorable to leave or separate from your husband. April wishes she could leave the house but is drawn back to it like a magnet because she has two children, a husband, and could not possibly earn a lucrative living in those days considering the job opportunities available at that time period. In that regard, April is prisoner of the house, living in an inescapable environment. She is a prisoner living in a prison within a prison. Frank is a mere coward that cannot confront the social obstacles of change. Like April, Frank too, is a prisoner as well. Hence, my conclusion, a couple that was never meant to be.
Personally, I enjoyed this film not because of the setting, or from the great performances, but the realism that is portrayed here in this relationship. It is quite unique in the sense that the film does not sugar coat anything. Not to be too clichéd or anything but it echoes the expression "it is what it is". In that regard it may turn some people off. I happen to cherish and embraced this message. If you like this film, check out "A Doll's House" with Anthony Hopkins. Both are excellent but sad films. They express a similar struggle of a couple resisting to conform to society.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Revolutionary Road (2008)

Genre: DramaRating: RRelease Date: 2-JUN-2009Media Type: DVD

Get 50% OFF

Click here for more information about Revolutionary Road (2008)

Little Children (2006) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)There is a bucolic, brief scene of restless suburbanite Sarah (Kate Winslet) sitting peacefully under a tree, reading, in Little Children. Her daughter Lucy plays happily nearby as the leaves rustle and the birds chirp. Everything is bathed in perfect light. All of the elements--the camera, the performers, nature, etc.--conspire to make an invigorating, warm shot.
This single scene sums up the overall tone for director Todd Field's assured sophomore effort. He chooses this image, which moves, languidly, from a tight full-body shot of the serene actress to a longer, more atmospheric shot. As the first image the viewer sees on the menu page of the DVD. It is an evocative, iconic shot that speaks volumes without any words. It is pure, gorgeous ambiance--something Field is shaping up to be very keen on, and very good at.
A leisurely little movie that pits an acerbic script (by Field and Tom Perrota--who wrote the expansive 350 page novel on which the film is based) with a brilliantly mismatched ensemble, Little Children is a rare contemporary film that is nearly perfect in its execution. Stillness in both mood and pace are just as important to the director as lingering close-ups of his actors' attractive reactions. Field is able to present, believably, a vision of bourgeois suburbia as an almost mythical netherworld. Often, dangerously, the atmosphere here can change on a dime: from playful to sexy to deadly and back again within the same scene.
Sarah is sort of a bad mother. She's a little selfish about her time. She doesn't quite connect to her adorable moppet of a daughter in the way she expected to. The film is unafraid to debunk the stereotypes about settling down and being a "mommy". Sarah would say that it isn't all it's cracked up to be. She left a life of academia behind to marry an older man and take over the pristine, first wife-decorated manse located on a prized plot of land in this snobbish suburban enclave.
The other brittle, embittered young women that hang out at the park with their regimented children treat Sarah to an infuriatingly smug and superior manner every day. Perhaps this is just an obvious sign they are jealous of her, or perhaps they are only talking to her out of pity: Sarah is more than a bit disheveled and doesn't give a flip about appearances, and why should she? Her marriage is pretty much dead and the only person she sees during the day is Lucy. While the other gals are in full hair and make-up, heels, and perfect pressed little dresses, Sarah goes the comfortable route in shapeless overalls.
They recoil in horror as Sarah fumbles futilely for her daughter's non-existent snack; trying desperately to save face in front of the group as they judgingly produce nutritious treats for their perfect "little children" from the bowels of their overly-priced designer bags. They viciously gossip about the neighborhood's newest addition, Ronnie: a convicted sex offender freshly released from prison (the amazing former child actor Jackie Earle Haley).
These scenes at the park (the park is apparently the hub of all socio-political action in the land of the bourgeoisie), in which the humiliating suburban hassle gets inflicted on Sarah relentlessly by this group of harpies stand out, mainly because of the highlighting of the gossipy, demeaning behavior of the bored and unfulfilled yuppie set. These patronizing women are cinematic ice queen cousins to women like Annette Bening's Carolyn Burnham from American Beauty or Mary Tyler Moore's Beth Jarret from Ordinary People: spoiled, repressed, and filled with venom. The displaced Sarah can't relate to their malaise. She believes she is much different from them.
When "the Prom King" (stay-at-home dad Brad, played by Patrick Wilson) starts frequenting the girls' territory with his son, the fearless Sarah decides to shock the other women by actually speaking to the handsome father. Turns out Brad's life is not as dreamy as he'd like it to be: even though he is married to the outrageously beautiful documentary filmmaker Kathy (the outrageously beautiful Jennifer Connelly), with whom he has a son, Aaron; Brad has failed the bar exam twice and would rather sit and watch teenage boys skateboarding than study for his third and final attempt at the test.
Fallen cop turned vigilante Larry (the fierce Noah Emmerich) ropes Brad into a secret league of brutish nighttime football players, in addition to forcing him to aid in the neighborhood crusade against Ronnie, who is still a mere specter in the film at this point; he's just whispered hatefully about.
Brad longs to re-capture his macho youth. His fire, it seems, was snuffed out by settling down in the suburbs. Taking over a traditionally female role, as Kathy becomes the family's breadwinner, Brad becomes just another version of a bored suburban housewife himself. Little Children seems to say that only stupid people are content with that sort of existence. Brad and Sarah are both very educated people; so naturally, they begin to gravitate towards one another. Eventually, they embark on a dangerous, erotic affair, complete with some raw, realistic sex scenes between the two brave actors.
Forty-five minutes into the film, as Brad and Sarah begin to flaunt their tawdriness all over town, the character of Ronnie makes his appearance into the film, looking every bit the creepy boogie man pedophile that every parent has nightmares about. He is pale and sickly looking, almost transparent; curiously, he resembles bloodsucker Max Shreck in Nosferatu.
The far-from discrete Brad and Sarah have a standing date to meet every day at the community pool. On a bright, hot day when all of the kids and parents are cooling off in the pool, the ridiculously-attired Ronnie (complete with goggles and flippers), struts foolishly into the swimming pool and the camera dives disturbingly down into the water with him, as he creepily, secretly watches the kids moving in slow motion underwater.
It is only a matter of time before he is spotted by the frantic mob of parents; who resemble the villagers who chase after the monster in Frankenstein with torches and a pack of rabid zombies. They openly display the kind of cruelty that leads to trouble. It's also only a matter of time before Ronnie is the only one left in the pool. The police arrive within what seems like seconds to take the sex offender away from the kids.
What unfolds in the film's second half is a complex, meditative drama that offers some biting insights on the art routine. The film deftly explores the everyday perversions of those who we think are the most normal (Winslet catching her cuckolded, mysterious husband masturbating in his home office is one of the funniest, most awkward scenes in a recent film). Despite the undercurrent of genuinely funny cynicism running through its acid narration, Little Children still remains a true tragedy at heart; and a tightly-wound, emotionally suspenseful one at that.
At its core, the film is about mothers and their deep, formative bonds with their children. Sarah is jealous of the super-mommy gang, but she doesn't really want to put much effort into her relationship with Lucy; she's more interested in escaping her duties into her fantasy world with Brad. Ronnie lives with his fiercely devoted, frail mother May (a scene-stealing Phyllis Somerville); a tough old neighborhood stalwart who believes her son to be innocent as she excitedly sets up a personal ad date for him. Aaron is constantly wearing a jester's cap around Brad, but takes it off as soon as his beloved mom Kathy gets home from work.
Each mother in Little Children is able to put a fresh spin on the theme of things not turning out quite the way one might have pictured, and each finds a way of coping and soldiering on. Tough senior citizen May is forced to physically defend her adult son from bullies in her own home, while Kathy is quietly more enamored of her job and son than she is of her clearly depressed husband. Sarah turns out to be almost as sad as the rest of them: she cruelly ignores her daughter to imagine a life with Brad. As the film builds to a breathtaking climax, she is seen in the dark park, late at night, alone with Lucy; waiting for a romantic getaway that is never going to happen.
Winslet's skillful handling of these almost wordless scenes is masterful in what she is able to convey through her eyes: Sarah is going to be abruptly thrown right back into her boring old routine come early morning, like all that transpired before had never happened. It is a vague ending (complete with one shocking Shakespearean-level catharsis), and Field leaves a lot of hanging plots' resolutions up to his viewers; who should easily be able to put the pieces together thanks to the cast's lived-in, seamless performances and Field & Perrota's lean, eloquent script.
Following the success of 2001's critical darling In the Bedroom, Field proves again that he has a gift for capturing, strikingly, the complexities of small town melancholy. Little Children also demonstrates his clear gift and affinity for the art of guiding his actors to giving gloriously quiet, devastating performances. Sissy Space, Marisa Tomei, and Tom Wilkinson were all rewarded with Oscar nominations for their work in In the Bedroom; while Haley and Winslet were nominated for their work here--Winslet earning her fifth career nomination.
From the smallest supporting role, to the powerhouse leads, Field imbues each character with soul and flavor; as he does with every other technical detail of the film. His eye for the minutiae of the everyday is impeccable.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Little Children (2006)

Kate Winslet, Jennifer Connelly and Patrick Wilson star in the Academy Award nominated film Little Children, the latest work from Oscar-nominated writer/director Todd Field. Based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, Little Children centers on a handful of middle-class suburban parents whose lives unravel in the wake of an adulterous affair.

Get 33% OFF

Click here for more information about Little Children (2006)

Flushed Away (Widescreen Edition) (2006) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Perhaps that's because it's from Aardman Studios, famous for "Wallace And Gromit" and "Chicken Run." Aardman is also well known for their claymation style of animation, which is lovingly preserved, albeit through the use of CGI in "Flushed Away."
The story revolves around Roddy (Hugh Jackman), a family pet who gets flushed into the sewers of London by an unwelcome guest named Sid (Shane Richie). Sid takes over the world "up there" while Roddy is left to fight for his life in the seedy underbelly of London's sewers. In all actuality, though, life in the sewers isn't too terribly bad. When Roddy arrives there, he finds a near replica of London full of busy streets and shops. He decides that he must get home, and seeks out the aid of Rita (Kate Winslet), a female rat who's known for shady dealings. On her tail (pun intended) are the goons of The Toad (Sir Ian McKellan), who says that a ruby he owned which fell from the crown of either Prince Charles or the Queen (I don't remember which) was stolen by her and he wants it back. Of course Roddy thinks that by assisting him in finding the ruby, he'll get help in return to get back home. What he gets instead is more trouble when Rita steals something else from The Toad.
From there, the story becomes a pretty decent action/comic yarn where The Toad's cousin, Le Frog (Jean Reno) and his henchmen try to retrieve the item that Rita has stolen. It's an integral part of a master plan for revenge by The Toad on all of rodent-kind. Along the way, Roddy and Rita become close friends and Roddy decides that he has to help Rita and her family. It's all tied nicely together in the end and is definitely fun to watch.
The voice talents are wonderful. Jackman, Winslet, McKellan and Reno all do wonderful jobs. Andy Serkis, who portrayed Gollum in "Lord of the Rings" and did a lot of the physical movements of Kong in Peter Jackson's "King Kong," plays one of The Toad's henchmen along with Bill Nighy, recent of the latest "Pirate's of the Caribbean" flick.
The humor is, as expected, well grounded in British comedy and uses slapstick at will to enduce laughter from children. There are plenty of crotch injuries, one fart joke, and a few pokes at stereotypical Americans and the French. It's all done with good intentions and there's nothing really offensive here.
It will hold the attention of both young and old, but children will probably enjoy it more than adults. I enjoyed it but I have a tendency to enjoy silly children's flicks like this. I'm also a fan of Aardman's other work, so perhaps I'm a little biased. Rest assured that whenever it leaves the theaters and eventually hits the DVD rack, I'll be one of the first to buy it for myself and my family.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Flushed Away (Widescreen Edition) (2006)

Set on and beneath the streets of London, Flushed Away is the story of Roddy, an upper-crust "society mouse," who is rather rudely evicted from his Kensington flat when he is flushed down into Ratropolis, the bustling sewer world found under London’s streets. There, he meets Rita, an enterprising scavenger who works the sewers in her faithful boat, the Jammy Dodger. Together they must navigate their way through a busy city filled with dangers for any mouse, including terrifying rapids, treacherous whirlpools and, most of all, the villainous Toad and his hench-rats Spike and Whitey. Though completely out of his element at first, the privileged Roddy finds himself an unlikely hero when he learns that Ratropolis is in danger from the world above.

Get 17% OFF

Click here for more information about Flushed Away (Widescreen Edition) (2006)

The Reader (2008) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I am writing this review on Oscar Nomination morning (although due to the fact that I refuse to post a review until the DVD has dropped you will be reading this much later) mostly due to my elation that it has been nominated for not only the marvelous performance by Kate Winslet (in the right category mind you) but also for Best Picture, Best Director and Adapted Screenplay. I've been chomping at the bit to write this review ever since I walked out of the theater a few weeks back, and since then I've seen the film a record three times and I would watch it again right now if I could. I've pondered this film, discussed this film, relived this film and can honestly label it the best film of the year and quite possibly one of the best films I've seen in a long time.
Sure, you can be quick to pinpoint it's supposed faults, and you can try and label it something that it is not, but if you allow your eyes to open and your mind to absorb you may be able to see this for what it really is; a masterpiece.
When sitting down to write this review I asked my friend how I was going to be able to do so without being redundant or irritating. I mean, how many different ways can you say masterpiece before someone says "I get the point, now move on"? I'm going to try and get all that out of the way right now so that my review will be palatable.
`The Reader' is a masterpiece.
Okay, I'm done now.
Having read Bernhard Schlink's beautiful novel I was really anticipating this film. I feel that Kate Winslet is the finest working actress today and this just seemed like such an ideal role for her (Oscar, if you pass her over this year I vow to never watch another telecast). I of course try and shrug off all `high expectations', and thankfully with `The Reader' there was no hype. It hasn't been hailed as the best of anything, and while it has landed on a few top ten lists it rarely breaks close to the top. The reviews have been mixed, some raving it as a masterpiece, some labeling it a faux; an imitation of a more insightful film. The only awards the film has garnered up until the point have been for Winslet so walking into the film, I was not feeding into hype.
I was simply hoping to see a good movie.
The film tells the story of Michael Berg, a young fifteen year old boy living in Post-WWII Germany. One day while making his way home he falls ill and is helped back by an older woman named Hanna. After waiting out his illness he attempts to thank Hanna but he winds up falling into a steamy affair. The two bond over books, using reading as a form of foreplay, and the two become almost inseparable. Then for no apparent reason Hanna leaves town without a word and Michael is left wondering why his only love has left him. Years later while Michael is attending law school he gets the opportunity to sit in on a trial being held over war crimes and is stunned, and ultimately heartbroken, to see Hanna is one of the accused.
First and foremost it should be addressed that this is not your typical Holocaust film, for quite frankly the Holocaust is the least impressionable part of this film. The film, like the novel, deals strongly with the feelings of guilt and redemption. There is a moral play that runs throughout each scene that begs the audience to cast judgment, but not in an absolute way but in a more complex and understanding way. `The Reader' has no easy answers, but it throws at the audience a bit of a conundrum. It reminds me very much of `Dead Man Walking', a film that appears to have such an easy answer yet causes you to rip apart your own ideals.
I am keeping SPOILERS to a minimum here, but be forewarned that there may be a few.
When we meet Michael and Hanna they seem like an odd match. He is obviously better off financially than she is. He is attending school and is doing rather well. Hanna is working a dead end job and living in a small apartment. Her education is limited but her yearning for more is apparent. There is an attraction physically, which cannot be denied. While Hanna is rough due to the nature of her life she is a diamond in the rough, a beautiful woman trapped within the shell of her former life. Michael is young and coming into his own; a handsome boy with a head on his shoulders.
There's innocence within him that Hanna desires.
Their relationship is very fast and very graphic, but there is a sincerity there that one needs to truly look for. Some have complained that the relationship was pure surface; nothing but lust. They are missing something crucial. `The Reader' is a film filled with quiet moments that speak volumes about the characters. There is a deeper connection between these two souls, one that maybe they can't even recognize. There is a moment where Hanna finds herself inside a small church listening to a young choir and the tears are streaming down her face, and as Michael watches her from the doorway we can see it; even if he or even she doesn't truly understand it.
It is there.
As the film progresses and the two are separated we begin to truly see the deeper connection that they are feeling for the first time. As the trial proceeds Michael is caught between his own feelings of right and wrong; between what is ethical and what is not. He is disturbed by the revelations concerning his former love; distraught over what this means for him and whether or not it had anything to do with his personal attachment to this woman.
Can he bring himself to hate her? Can he bring himself to forgive her? Does she deserve that hatred or that forgiveness?
There is a moment when Michael is attempting to visit Hanna in prison when everything makes sense; his eyes swelling with an emotion he has yet to fully realize. He struggles to convince himself that he hates this woman, because hating her would make it easier to forget her.
`The Reader' is a masterfully crafted tale of love and loss; of what we tell ourselves in order to better understand something we haven't the capacity to grasp. There is the shame in Hanna's eyes as she hides her secret (one that you no doubt had guessed long before it was revealed, but the revealing of the secret is not really the point of the story), willing to sacrifice her very life so as not to be downgraded or looked down on. There is the guilt in Michael's eyes as he blames himself for Hanna's fate, unable to step outside his skin long enough to decide the correct course to case. This is a story about mistakes and missteps and regrets and the ultimate loss that comes from not fully understanding how to feel.
Technically, this is a flawless film. I remember reviewing `...Jesse James...' last year (this site still won't let me type in that full name) and going on and on about how technically perfect it was, from the cinematography to the score to the lighting to the mood to just about everything. `The Reader' is the exact opposite in scope yet just as profound. It is a much subtler film, and so the score, the lighting, the cinematography and the set designs are smaller, yet just as pristine. Everything is so crisp and delicate; adding layers to the mood perfectly presented by director Stephen Daldry. I was a little hesitant about Daldry's ability to transfer Schlink's novel to the big screen. I loved `Billy Elliott' and continue to love it more and more every time I watch it, but Daldry's latest effort was that 2002 debacle `The Hours' and so I was truly afraid that he was going to run the same gamut and deliver a similar piece.
`The Reader' is not only much more profound and poignant, but it is also executed much better than `The Hours' (to be fair, I need to watch this movie again, but I was not impressed the first or second go around).
When it all boils down to it though, this movie is all about two things; Kate Winslet and David Kross. Both actors deliver career highs (and to say that about Winslet is saying a lot since she is always top notch). Their performances are truly organic. That has become my new favorite word this year, for I feel as though it truly taps into the depth of these performances. There is a naturalness that fortifies itself within these performances, deepening with each flicker in the eyes or twitch under the skin. Try your hardest to watch Winslet's face (I know it's hard, especially since she is without clothing for practically the whole first hour of the film). There is a scene where she is lying in the bathtub and Kross comes in to hash out their argument. As he speaks you can see for the first time her hard exterior melting away and revealing this woman that she doesn't even know exists. It is so subtle yet so profound.
Winslet is utter perfection.
Kross is just as superb, sinking into his character and delving deep into his emotional responses to his current situation. The scene in the courtroom (all of the courtroom scenes are beyond breathtaking) when he notices Hanna for the first time is utterly immobilized. Watch as Kross exhibits such a natural gut reaction; as controlled as he can be yet giving way to lapses of uncontrollability.
The supporting cast is also superb, from Fiennes' dynamic understanding of Michael's emotional regression to Bruno Ganz's grasp of the real situation at hand. The one standout here is truly Olin, who proves to be one of the most important facets of the film. Her final scene with Fiennes is what makes the movie work, dispelling any easy sympathies for Hanna's atrocities with her cold standing. For anyone who has complained (and there have been many) that this film tries to condone the actions taken by Hanna I urge you to rewatch and study this scene, for in a few short...Read more›

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Reader (2008)

The Reader, set in post-WWII Germany, follows teenager Michael Berg as he engages in a passionate but secretive affair with an older woman named Hanna. Eight years after Hanna s disappearance, Michael is stunned to discover her again as she stands on trial for Nazi war crimes. The Reader is a haunting story about truth and reconciliation and how one generation comes to terms with the crimes of another. Kate Winslet won and Academy Award and a Golden Globe for her performance.

Get 40% OFF

Click here for more information about The Reader (2008)

The Holiday (2006) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Nancy Meyers' "The Holiday" has been seriously dissed by most of America's film critics--including one who suggested that any man who goes to see it should be forced to pay with a crucial part of his anatomy instead of money. "The Holiday" is indeed a prime example of what is condecendingly known as a "chick flick," and it's not a movie you can make great claims for. But "The Holiday" succeeds outstandingly in living up to its title; it provides an audience with a two-hour vacation filled with charming, likable actors playing charming, likable characters. The movie is set during the Christmas holidays in which two women with man problems--Iris (Kate Winslet), an English journalist, and Amanda (Cameron Diaz), an L.A. producer of film trailers--meet over the Internet. On a whim, they decide to switch houses for Christmas; Amanda ends up in Iris's picture-postcard-pretty cottage in Surrey, Iris in Amanda's luxurious, gated mansion in Beverly Hills. There, they discover new romantic complications: Amanda with Iris's brother Graham (Jude Law) and Iris with a film composer named Miles (Jack Black). There's also a subplot about the friendship that develops between Iris and an elderly screenwriter played by the venerable Eli Wallach. Nothing that happens in the movie is at all original or consequential. I could even quibble about an inaccuracy or two in Meyers' screenplay (Cary Grant was from Bristol in Gloucestershire, not Surrey). But seeing "The Holiday" makes you feel happy and light of heart, which is all it sets out to do. While the film's appeal is necessarily greater for women, I also think most men will find this a more-than-serviceable date movie. Sometimes you want a movie that's rich, gooey and sweet, that contains no sharp edges and requires no sharp utensils for its consumption. In an increasingly abrasive world, the need for cinematic confections is greater than ever, and "The Holiday" fills that bill.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Holiday (2006)

HOLIDAY - DVD Movie

Get 30% OFF

Click here for more information about The Holiday (2006)