polargirl Reviews

Catwoman (2004)

Wasted opportunity

[4/10 · 27 July 2004]

First of all I don't think its fair this movie is in the bottom 100 movies of all time: come on people! But having said that Catwoman is a disappointing movie venture.

Basically the movie is solid entertainment for the first 20 minutes or so before Halle turns into catwoman, which is when the problems begin.

Catwoman as a character is pretty ridiculous in this movie and I dont really know why because I really liked Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman in Batman 2. I guess the one-liners catwoman's says dont help and also her over the top strutting is laughable in this movie.

Another issue in Catwoman is the thin story. Furthermore there is no proper evil villain out to destroy the world and Sharon Stone's performance and character are pretty lame!

One good thing about this movie is the romance angle between Berry and Bratt, I felt it worked well and was enjoybale to watch and that is why it is a shame the rest of the movie (action scenes, story, costumes etc.) sucks!

4/10

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Gripping, fascinating and most importantly entertaining

[10/10 · 11 May 2004]

First of all this movie is through and through Kaufmann and as always he has created a surreal world were reality, dreams, fantasies and memories all mesh into a bizarr worldwind.

I loved this movie. The actors are all good in their roles, especially Winslet& Carrey, who oddly enough have a great chemistry, as two diametrically opposed characters. Even the supporting cast with Wood, Dunst and Ruffalo do a noteworthy job.

But the aspects that got to me the most was the way the story was told in a mementoesque style and the stunning visuals achieved by great lighting and camera work.

Definitively a must see movie of 2004!

If you like different and artsy cinema, you won't be disappointed.

10/10

The Great Gatsby (2000 TV Movie)

Awkward adaptation!

[24 February 2004]

Being a huge fan of the original classic novel, I was very disappointed and at times also found myself getting bored during this TV film.

As many other people I was "forced" to study THE GREAT GATSBY in school. After having read it over a dozen times it has now become one of my favourite books. It is such a beautiful and multi-layered work of art. So needless to say it is horrific to watch the way a great novel can become extremely shallow on screen.

The Redford/Farrow version of THE GREAT GATSBY is ten times better then this film which feels at times like a cheap soap opera with cheesy music that does nothing to complement the mood of the film. Everything just looks and feels very tasteless and unreal in this adaptation: the sets, costumes and even the characters.

The major problem I had with this particular version was Toby Stephens portrayel of Gatsby. He looked most of the time like a grinning fool. One good thing about his portrayel compared to Robert Redford's, is that Stephens underlines the darker, more sinister side to Gatsby's personality. However, I thought it was painful to watch him play Gatsby.There was no depth, charm or sparkle in his performance. Whereas Redford truly transformed himself into Gatsby.

Mira Sorvino was okay as Daisy. I thought her voice was perfect: "full of money", but her performance was not one of her best and at times it seemed like she was just reading out lines from a script.

Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway did the best job out of all cast members portraying his character . In my opinion he is very enjoyable to watch and is able to capture some of the mannerisms of Nick.

Martin Donovon as "the polo player" is completely out of character. He is nothing like the novel describes Daisy's husband as. Surely the head of casting could have found someone with a bit more depth!!!

ONE GOOD THING about this adaption is its faithfulness to the novel in terms of storyline. The main plot has not been altered as much as in the the 1970's version with Farrow/Redford. That is why I would recommend this to student's studying the novel. However, the older version has captured fully the atmosphere of the times represented in the book and also the characters are played by a much, much, much, much more talented and suitable cast.

Read the book or see the older version. This is just a waste of your time if you are not a big Fitzgerald fan.

4/10

Bright Young Things (2003)

Razzle, dazzle the roaring era!!

[8/10 · 18 October 2003]

I can warmly recommend Bright Young Things to people who are fascinated by the 20´s and 30´s, the insane nature of our celerity culture and just a darn good time!!!

I love films like this: a great soundtrack, witty ensamble and fabulous art direction.

However, there are some problems in this through and through Stephen Fry movie(watch out for a cameo by the director himself as a cab driver). The movie is a heightened depiction of the lives of the oh so beautiful, idle and rich young socialites in Britain during the inter war era and there is an underlying criticism to the shallowness of their party centred lives. But the movie never dwells too deeply into any issues or themes, which is a shame as Bright Young Things would have been more memorable for it. At the same time the fast pace and shallow nature of this film does adequately reflect the main characters attitudes to their existence.

Sometimes it feels like Fry couldn´t decide whether he wanted to make a light hearted parody or critical drama. But on the whole these two elements are satisfactorily balanced.

The actors are all perfectly cast and there are many entertaining cameos.

8/10

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Good movie, but not a masterpiece

[8/10 · 14 August 2003]

I was inspired to see Shawshank Redemption because of its ranking as second best movie of all time on this site, and a lot of people told me it was a brilliant film.I have to say I was a bit baffled after viewing this movie.It is certainly a good, entertaining, well-cast and acted film, but it is not anything special. I have seen quite a few prison drama movies like it. The brilliant performances and well paced story do set it apart from other similar works but still this does not explain how on earth Shawshank Redemption can be classified as one of the all time best cinematic achievements.

So I just want to caution anyone who thinks they will see something incredibly unique and magnificent. Without a doubt this art piece is very touching, however I found myself having forgotten about it a couple of hours after I had seen it. Not a sign of a masterpiece...

See the godfather, casablanca, american beauty, donnie darko, memento, moulin rouge for a truly breathtaking experience.

See Shawshank Redemption if you want to see a quality film.Definitely not a waste of a couple of hours!

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

"Alright feed on what you want rats, chickens, poodles.."

[8/10 · 8 August 2003]

I saw this movie a couple of years ago when I was pretty young and found it scary and too bloody. So now when I rented it again I was very surprised that I actually thought it was really good.

* SPOILERS* This movie is more a costume drama where the characters happen to be vampires, than a horror movie. There are maybe two scenes that people may find frightening( Lestat returns from the swamp with his new lovely face and when Louis takes his revenge on the Paris vampires) * END OF SPOILERS*

The reason why this movie has a strong drama element is due to the brilliant performances of Dunst, Pitt and especially Cruise. I do agree with many other reviewers here that Dunst should have gotten an oscar nod for her portrayal of Claudia. It took awhile for me to get use to seeing Pitt as a vampire but he did a solid performance as guilt-ridden and confused Louis. Last but not least Cruise's Lestat is the cream of the cake in this movie. Even though Lestat is a pretty "evil" character Cruise manages to actually make him multi-layered and by far the most entertaining of all the vampires in this movie. Lestat is a perfect contrast to the brooding Louis, I think the movie would have been better for it had Lestat's screen time been increased. The things Lestat says are just so funny: "Louis, Louis, Louis, still whining". Cruise has been able to tone down his usual mannerisms that are usually in all of his movies (Magnolia being also an exception)and becomes nearly unrecognisable in his make-up.

The art direction and production design is also great in Interview with a vampire.

A slight problem in this movie is the plot. There is now clear story. The movie merely follows and tells the life of a vampire. This might make some viewers bored and start wondering what's the point with this movie. In my opinion Interview with a vampire is just supposed to be an atmospheric tale of the life of a vampire.If you can appreciate it as that you'll enjoy it.

This movie is by far one of the best vampire movies out there, keeping the gore factor pretty low, but there are some pretty explicit blood sucking orgies in this one as well!

8/10

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

Brainless fun!

[6/10 · 4 August 2003]

If you just want to see a BRAINLESS, MTV-style edited,POPCORN movie with a gorgeous people this is definitively worth seeing. I absolutely hated the first Charlie's Angels movie but this second one seems to have understood that in order for CHEESE to be good fun it has to go COMPLETELY OVERBOARD, and not take itself seriously.

Go see it: laugh and then forget about it! ...and check out Theroux's abs. There's basically no fat on that man whatsoever..I could almost see muscles in his forehead!...scary!

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Not as good as the first Matrix, sorry.

[6/10 · 4 August 2003]

* WARNING SPOILERS*

I absolutely loved the first matrix. It had brilliant action sequences, good casting and most importantly an intelligent plot.

So needless to say I was thoroughly looking forward to Matrix reloaded. But after seeing it I was quite disappointed. I don't mean to say it's a bad movie but it doesn't meet the standard set by the first one.

Problem 1. Zion: the beginning part of the movie taking place in Zion is extremely boring. I get the religious undertone and purpose but the scene were Morpheus preaches to the crowd is just bad acting and awkward. I don't mind the steamy scene between Neo and Trinity that many have criticised. It shows their more human passion, which is not evident in the Matrix.However, on the whole some of the scenes in zion are directed and acted as if they belonged to a soap opera. At this point I started to wonder what has gone wrong in the script writing phase. Problem 2. This brings me to the next big issue in Matrix reloaded.The dialogue.At times its just awful. Reloaded touches on some deep themes but the way they are explored in conversations is below par and far from stimulating. Problem 3. At times you can clearly see that the action sequences aren't real e.g. Neo versus the agent Smiths , some moments in the first car chase scene and when Neo exhibits his new superman impression (did anyone else think that was funny?). Problem 4. The ending!!!!to be continued?!Seems like the directors ran out of ideas!

But there are few memorable scenes that really do save this from being trash. The cause and consequence speech by Merivingi is pure brilliance in an overall too serious movie. Monica Bellucci does a great performance as well. After the weak beginning there is a lot happening and new characters are introduced to keep the audience interested. The general tone of the matrix is also kept pretty much intact in Reloaded.

I was so confused after seeing it once, not knowing whether it was any good or not that I had to go see it again. It has a lot of problems but if you liked the first one you'll probably at least be entertained during this one.Hopefully the third will be a vast improvement!

6/10

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

Nothing new, but still entertaining!

[7/10 · 4 August 2003]

Sinbad:legend of the seven seas is a typical animated movie. It's pretty standard storytelling with the handsome leading man, beautiful but intelligent damsel, funny dog and quirky side kicks. And in my opinion it works really well.

The casting for the voices has been spot on mostly. Even though the most important character Sinbad's (Brad Pitt) voice seems at times quite monotonous. Fiennes, Zeta Jones and Pfeiffer do a very good job though.

Sinbad is worth watching for its villain goddess of chaos (Pfeiffer). She is so so so evil but at the same time stylish you just got to love her.

I'd recommend this movie to young children mostly because everyone else will find it pretty average. It is worth renting.

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

Give Jack Sparrow an own movie!!!

[8/10 · 3 August 2003]

You are probably getting sick and tired of ranting reviews on Depp's performance in pirates of the caribbean...well... here's one more! Without Johnny Depp's HILARIOUS Jack Sparrow this movie would be an average summer blockbuster for the kiddies. Depp's tongue in cheek interpretation of the character gives the movie exactly the sort of light heartedness that it needs. To be honest any serious pirate movie cannot possible be any good, or in this day and age won't be found entertaining. The youth of today, majority who buy movie tickets and download movies, thinks pirate stories are old fashioned and frankly, boring. Its the humour in this film, which Jack Sparrow gives it that makes it worth seeing.

The other actors in the movie are on the whole acceptable. Rush's over-the-top cursed mutinous first mate fits in well in the overall feeling of the movie. Knightley's performance as damsel in distress is just as good as any. Its her chemistry with Bloom which is sparkling and in my opinion justifies the choice of her as the lady of the film.Bloom on the other hand seems at times a bit lost in this big budget movie. He certainly looks dashing enough and there are some genuinely romantic scenes between him and Knightley, and he's good at action sequences, however at times his acting is pretty awkward.If Depp hadn't been cast beside him: this movie would have been a stinker. Bloom doesn't have the on screen presence yet. But hopefully that will develop.He does have talent.

The plot and story of the movie is as expected very thin and there are problems with pacing. The movie is 20 minutes too long. The middle part of the movie being occasionally uninteresting. But the beginning and end make up for the mediocre storytelling in between.

I'm starting to become a fan of Gore Verbinksi. He has certainly created a unique atmosphere in Pirates of the Caribbean.Keep up the good work!!And know i'm not alone on this: GIVE JACK SPARROW AN OWN MOVIE

Possession (2002)

A mixed bag...

[7/10 · 3 August 2003]

I saw this adaptation of A.Byatt's novel without having read the book and I have to say that all throughout the movie there is a prevailing feeling that an lot has been cut out which becomes annoying at times due to bad editing. However, the movie is overall good entertainment for a few hours.

The atmosphere of Possession is very engaging and does use effectively some beautiful scenery.Furthermore the story between Ash and Lamott is what kept my interest during the film. The acting of Ehle and especially Northram is excellent. Northram proves once again to be magnificent at period roles.However, the modern romance portrayed by Palthrow and Eckhart is not well acted. The relationship seems hollow and doesn't make sense. And there is no real chemistry between the two. In my opinion this romance would have been a lot better if two Brit actors had been cast.

All in all Possession is a good way to spend a rainy afternoon or evening. I'd recommend it to people who like romantic dramas and lovely sets, not really caring if the story is a bit thin.

This movie has at least inspired me to go and by the book!Hope it will do the same to you!

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Bravo Baz!

[10/10 · 3 August 2003]

Anyone who loves artistic, emotional and different films has to see this masterpiece by Baz Luhrman. As the third installment of the red curtain trilogy by Luhrman it clearly indicates how the director has developed as an artist.

To begin with it has to be said: Moulin Rouge is not for everyone. Due to the fact that it has a unique and at times absurd take on the musical genre. However, I think its pure genius. The way in which cliché after cliché is uttered by the protagonists and modern songs are given a new treatment to suit the orphean myth in this musical, which set during the belle epoque, is just awe inspiring.

This movie touched me on so many emotional levels due to the clever usage of known songs and overly romantic dialogue.The fact that Moulin Rouge can make an audience laugh and cry, and all the while be utterly entertained is very extraordinary in a time when Hollywood produces so many movies that you feel like you've already seen ten times before and that make you wonder why on earth you even bothered to pay for the ticket.

The casting is superb.I wasn't a big fan of Nicole Kidman before this movie but this movie truly proves she has star power and great screen presence. Ewan Macgregor is equally astonishing in his role.The chemistry between the two is sparkling and its amazing how they can make their love for each other so believable in such an unbelievable story.

The art direction deservedly won an oscar, creating a suiting atmosphere for the movie: heightened reality at its best.

This movie is an art piece. It made me feel and experience something truly unique and memorable. The music, art, casting, directing, photography, editing and mood, make Moulin rouge a roller- coaster ride of emotions you do not want to miss!