Change Your Image
harold-375-836862
Reviews
Greyfriars Bobby: The True Story of a Dog (1961)
This 1961 original version of the Greyfriars Bobby story is the best
I watched both the 2005 British version and re-watched the original 1961 Disney version of "Greyfriars Bobby." There were some differences in characters, but not substantially in plot. In the Disney version, Bobby's master who died was an unemployed shepherd; in the 2005 version he was a policeman. In the original 1912 book, Bobby's master was a farmer, not a policeman.
The main differences between the two movies were the portrayal of the charcters (including the larger population) and the 2005 version adding a much bigger side story about a boy who became orphaned, and was imprisoned in the poor house, which was not part of the original story. I have not read the original book both movies were based upon (yet) but per its GoodReads description it seems to me that the 2005 version was a much darker, scarier version of the story compared to either the original book or the Disney version. The 2005 version made scenes like Bobby's travel from Dunbar to Edinburgh and other scenes much longer than necessary and inaccurately located up in the Scottish Highlands but it did make for nice scenery. The 2005 movie moved rather slowly; the editors could have cut off about 15 to 20 minutes. All in all, I found the unnecessary side story, and the darkness of the 2005 version to be unsettling with its depiction of ghosts, violence, cruelty. The minor attempts at humor made the movie rather internally inconsistent. My conclusion is that the 1961 Disney version is actually a superior movie, more closely based on the original story, and better for families (or people like me who avoid violent movies). I recommend you see the 1961 Disney movie - it holds up very well despite its age!
The Adventures of Greyfriars Bobby (2005)
Not as good as original 1961 Disney movie
I watched both this 2005 British version and re-watched the original 1961 Disney version of "Greyfriars Bobby." There were some differences in characters, but not substantially in plot. In the Disney version, Bobby's master who died was an unemployed shepherd; in the 2005 version he was a policeman. In the original 1912 book, Bobby's master was a farmer, not a policeman.
The main differences between the two movies were the portrayal of the charcters (including the larger population) and the 2005 version adding a much bigger side story about a boy who became orphaned, and was imprisoned in the poor house, which was not part of the original story. I have not read the original book both movies were based upon (yet) but per its GoodReads description (see below) it seems to me that the 2005 version unnecesssarily was a much darker, scarier version of the story compared to either the original book or the Disney version. The 2005 version made scenes like Bobby's travel from Dunbar to Edinburgh and other scenes much longer than necessary and inaccurately located up in the Scottish Highlands but it did make for nice scenery. The 2005 movie moved rather slowly; the editors could have cut off about 15 to 20 minutes. All in all, I found the unnecessary side story, and the darkness of the 2005 version to be unsettling with its depiction of ghosts, violence, and cruelty. The minor attempts at humor made the movie rather internally inconsistent. My conclusion is that the 1961 Disney version is actually a rather superior movie, more closely based on the original story, and better for families (or people like me who avoid violent movies). I recommend you see the 1961 Disney movie - it holds up very well despite its age!
The Fall Guy (2024)
This is what movies should be.
This is good old-fashioned moviemaking that has it all -- action, romance, humor, great special effects, two superb leads, an additional cast who are all unique characters and contribute enormously to the story and charm --- but most importantly and unlike most movies today has a a great storyline. Unlike most action flicks today this actually has a plot and somewhat convoluted one at that even though it is not really a mystery. It is not just an It is not just a bunch of special effects put together like most movies. There is a reason for each event and they are seamlessly integrated with the entire storyline. Absolutely the best movie I've seen in probably five years. A perfect date movie. This is one you do not want to wait for streaming at home. It is fantastic on a big screen!
Dumbo (2019)
Far better than the original!
The original Dumbo was only suitable for children nine and under, this live action remake is great for all ages. I loved the additional elements about a girl being able to do anything, and how animals should be removed from the circus. A remake without any deviation from the original would have been a very poor choice. I cannot believe people want to go back to 1941. This is new era people ! Treat yourself and your children to this wonderful movie.
Christmas Wedding Planner (2017)
The preposterousness is what makes this movie great!
The negative reviews are completely wrong. Is it preposterous? Yes. But that is why it is so funny! It is actually LESS predicable than most of these kinds of movies, for which I should subtract a star because, face it, we want these kinds of movies to be predictable so we can have fun with it. The actor playing the female love interest was adorable. The guy was as hunky and taciturn as usual, so why criticize that? I loved this movie- because I knew it was a COMEDY- it wasn't intended to be realistic in any way. I give it 10 stars. But if you are expecting some kind of dramatic romance, this isn't designed for you.
Passengers (2016)
Excellent movie, but the trailer was misleading - SPOILER ALERT!
WARNING - THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! The movie was excellent, being perhaps the first real combo romance-science fiction movie ever made. It did so with mostly plausible events, as good as most science fiction writing. I never expected Hollywood to do as well as "real" written science fiction. And Jennifer Lawrence was superb, as can only be expected, and so were the special effects and the space-ship itself.
But the trailer was misleading. At the end of the official Trailer, Chris Pratt says, "there was a reason we woke up early" which makes it sound like there was some kind of a conspiracy, or perhaps aliens on board wreaking havoc, or a corporation cutting corners. This led us to think that something "more" was going to happen on the ship. Instead, the cause of them waking up early was simply a prosaic accident of nature. My wife was very disappointed because she expected something a lot more treacherous cause (human or alien life form) than there was, due to this misleading trailer.
There were at least two other major events which were scientifically impossible too, but I am willing to forgive those since it was necessary for the sake of the story.