skyblueangel-1 Reviews

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Viva Pirates!

[8/10 · 10 July 2006]

Well, first of all, when I read the review for the movie in my hometown paper, I was a little scared that Pirates might be a let down. The trailer and the movie clips, it seemed, didn't really let on that there was much of a story line -- that it just kind of goes on and on and on, like the Matrix 2, with no storyline -- just fighting. Plus, most people do agree: sequels are hardly ever as good as the originals. And in this case, it's true... Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest isn't the original. But, its an awesome movie in its own right! There are a few surprises in this movie. A few characters come back from the first that you wouldn't expect to see in the second. but... um! that's all I'm saying. This movie is definitely a lot more violent and gory than the first one. Don't bring the little kids to it. But, trust me -- this is not a Matrix-type movie... There is an actual storyline. And a good one at that. Capt. Jack Sparrow is back as well as Elizabeth and Will, who are forced to find him and obtain his compass, or else they will face the gallows. Well, actually, Will has to find him. Elizabeth escapes, and yes... as you've seen in the trailers, she does dress up like a man for this movie. Making it all the more comical. (you'll see what I mean).

The comedy was superb in this movie. Of course, it wasn't as good as the first, but you can't expect it to be. Yes, there were a few instances were they could've shortened the fighting scenes, but it was very well shot and scripted.

I wish they would've changed a few things about the movie, but you can't have everything. And don't expect everything to be resolved at the end. No! There's a cliff-hanger ending that leaves you wanting the watch the next one the moment the credits start rolling.

If you like the first movie, you'll like the second... And that's all I'm saying.

Jack Sparrow: "Why is the rum *always* gone?" (he stands up and staggers) "Oh... That's why."

RV (2006)

One Word: Predictable

[6/10 · 29 April 2006]

Oh boy! Where to begin? First off, I would personally like to comment that this wasn't the best movie in the world. I didn't really go into the theater with an open mind, because I was forced into going to the movie. However, it was better than some other movies I've seen; but, I think I would've rather seen Ice Age 2, and I'm not one for kids movies.

Firstly, this is a pretty family-friendly movie. Hence why I had to go see it. If you have kids over twelve, they probably won't get into this very much and would rather go see something else (trust me! but that's my opinion). But, its pretty good for kids between 4-11.

However, for parents and teenagers, its like deja vu. I've seen a ton of movies like this one. It's pretty predictable once you get about thirty minutes. It's like the National Lampoon Vacation and Christmas Vacation (with "old" Chevy Chase). It's like everything that can happen does.

So predictable! I'm serious. But, there were a few good one-liners and other stuff in there. However it was predictable beyond belief. If you've ever seen any movie like this, I promise you it will be just like it.

Wrapping it up. It was pretty bad, but try it for yourself. My comments are kind of one-sided. Whatever!

Inuyasha the Movie 4: Fire on the Mystic Island (2004)

Pretty Good... -ish *shrugs*

[6/10 · 13 November 2005]

Overall, its an Inuyasha movie... what do you expect? It's not like they can make a bad Inuyasha movie... although I'd say that this one comes particularly close. There is a lot of action in it, but the story line is very weak. In the movie, Inuyasha & company are drawn to a mystical island. There they have to parent a bunch of half-demon kids, while fighting four war gods. Sesshomaru and Kikyo get involved and overall its just really weird. Not necessarily confusing, but definitely weird, not to mention weak.

So, in conclusion... If you like Inuyasha, go see it, but don't expect too much from it except lots of action and a weak storyline.

6.5/10

Serenity (2005)

Never seen the series, but it was okay

[6/10 · 2 October 2005]

Personally, I thought the movie was okay. I've never seen the series, but I was forced into going to the movie. My first thought was sleeping through it, but eventually, I was suckered into watching ti. The beginning is very interesting, and it seemed more like it started like an actual TV series though. The reavers were just plan creepy, and other bits and pieces of it just made it utterly repulsive at times. The fight scenes were very interestingly shot and there was a good level of humor for a sci-fi flick: not too much or too little. Because sometimes the future's a little ironic. (lol) I was also confused about how we got from Earth to space. Not like they didn't say it, but they just said everything way too fast. During the movie it was always "the Alliance" or "the Parliment" or "the Outer-Rim planets".

The ending was interesting and I didn't understand some other aspects of it. Perhaps I have to see the series. I also didn't get why everything on the ship was in Japanese or whatever. Why is everything in the future in a weird "alien" language? But, overall, I guess its one to see if you have nothing else to do.

6.5/10

Batman Forever (1995)

It's Batman! Forever!

[8/10 · 12 July 2005]

Finally! Batman done almost right!!! Starting with the action right off. Val Kilmer was a great Batman, and was better at pulling the handsome, billionaire, playboy role off. Although, I didn't like how he fell for another weak woman in this one. What was the whole point of the Dr. Chase thing? It seemed to me that Batman had the whole Two-Face psychology thing covered. That was so obvious right from the start.

Tommy Lee Jones was a perfect Two-Face. He really pulled off the altar-ego thing real well. And, Jim Carey as the Riddler!!! Don't even get me started.... He was great!!! Jim Carey was born to play the Riddler! Hello! He brings in the quirky lines (ie- "Tell the Fat Lady... She's on in five.") and the hilarious attitude (ie- the baseball thing in the bat cave) that makes him perfect as the Riddler.

In fact, everyone cashed in on the funny puns. Batman's smile as he leaves the doctor's balcony is awesome and his "Try firemen, less to take off" kind of quick one-liners were good.

The only thing wrong with this Batman, aside from the Dr. Chase stuff, was the Robin stuff. I dying to know, "Why the heck does Batman need a 'partner'?" A butler, yes. A sidekick, maybe when he gets older. But, a partner!!! Why the frump is Batman, one of the greatest heroes of all time, the Dark Kinght, the Winged Avenger, the Protector of Gotham, reduced to needing a 'partner'??? I just can't comprehend it...

Otherwise, it's an all around good movie.

Batman, Forever! And Robin, Never!

Batman Returns (1992)

It's Batman! Again!

[7/10 · 12 July 2005]

First of all, Michelle Pfeiffer was an excellent choice for Catwoman. She did a better job in the leather than in the "executive assistant" outfit, and she fit the role perfectly. Danny Davito did a good job as Penguin, but I think the character was a bit too disgusting for me. Okay, let's think about this: He lives in the sewers, he eats raw fish, and bits off people's noses! Ew! But, I digress.

Again, I totally think that Michael Keaton still does a good job as Batman, and he does a better job at being Bruce Wayne this time. At least he's falling for a decent woman! Gosh! Thank God there is no more "Vicki Vale" *gag*! I hated Vicki Vale!!! She was so stupid and pathetic. At least Catwoman does something.

I really didn't care much for the whole "Schrek helps Penguin become Mayor" storyline, but at least Batman was falling for a decent woman.

So, what happened to Catwoman, anyways??? I think she should come back when they make a sequel to Batman & Robin (which they definitely will, or otherwise I will do it for them), along with the Riddler and Mr. Freeze. But, again, I digress.

Overall: It was a good sequel. And thank goodness there is no more Vicki Vale!!!

Batman (1989)

It's Batman!

[7/10 · 11 July 2005]

First of all, it's Batman. It is far truer to the comics than Batman Begins, but it doesn't have that realistic feeling like B.B. Anyways. After seeing the newest Batman, I thought it would be a good idea to watch the originals. It was a good idea. It gave me a very good perspective at how bad some old people can make good films.

Burton does a good job with the "Batman" storyline, but the "Bruce Wayne" stuff was very weird. What was the whole point of Vicky Vail, again? I think that Vicky was the most pathetic of all of Bruce's love interests. When the Joker was dancing with her at the end, she wasn't even fighting back! How pathetic is that??? Michael Keaton does a good job as playing the first Batman, but his performance as the billionaire playboy, Bruce Wayne, was not very convincing. He was falling too madly in love with someone too pathetic! He didn't look too handsome as Bruce either with his freaky hair. However, the supporting actors gave a very awesome performance. Gough as Alfred was the best casting choice they made in this movie! Jack Nicholson was very good joker and set the standard for all of Batman's future villains. Funny and yet depressed as well. He was born to play the joker.

The storyline was okay. I didn't understand what the big whoop-de-doo about Vicky Vail was. Why does Batman/Bruce have to have a different love interest in every movie? Can't he just stick with one girl??? Another thing, the only bad thing about Keaton's Batman, was that Batman WALKS!!! The least he could do is run, like Val Kilmer. Couldn't he use one of his little toys and fly around the rooftops instead of walking down the street?! Come on! He's Batman, not a street-side vendor.

On the plus side, it didn't have any dumb sidekicks like the last two do. And, Michael Keaton is WAY better than Clooney any day of the week.

Overall, it's Batman. It's a classic. Just see it already.

Ladyhawke (1985)

A Great Flick for Guys and Gals!

[9/10 · 1 July 2005]

I think this film is a classic. Based on an old, European legend, this movie is one of the best films ever made. The music was a bit distracting and annoying, but the actors were superb. John Wood once again delivers another wonderful villainous performance, while Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeifer play the 'seperated lovers'. Matthew Broderick gives a convincing performance as the Mouse.

It's a great flick that has both romance and action. It's a wonderful movie that both men and women will enjoy. Easy to follow and good special effects (for the '80's).

This movie is one to own!

Bishop: "I believe in miracles, Marquet. It's part of my job."

The Mask of Zorro (1998)

Zorro Lives!

[9/10 · 1 July 2005]

Being a fan of the old black-and-white series that was on the Disney channel at midnight on weekdays, I enjoyed this movie. It was everything I could've hoped for.

From the whole ensemble to the reason behind it, this film kind of reminded me of an old-fashioned, low-budget, Mexican Batman. Well, think about it. A justice-seeking vigilante who wears a black mask with a black suit and a black steed goes about taking care of villains trying to do in innocent people. Okay, well, maybe not...

And, for those who speak Spanish, did you notice the irony between "Montero" and "Zorro"? If you don't speak Spanish, look up those two words in a Spanish-English dictionary. You'll get it, eventually.

Okay, well enough of that. Here's the review...

First thoughts: One to buy! Can't wait till the sequel!

Pro's: Too many, just watch it! By far, Banderas' best performance. Zeta-Jones does a convincing performance at being Spanish. Action-packed with some humor to it, too.

Con's: Not too many. Not the best film I've ever seen, but an excellent one, nonetheless. Some long fight sequences, but otherwise, nothing.

Overall: Just see it! You'll love it!

Capt. Love: "It's just one man..."

Don Rafael Montero: "It isn't just one man, d*** it! It's Zorro!"

Jane Eyre (1996)

Not the book -- but very good movie.

[7/10 · 1 July 2005]

Having read the book for my Literature class, I felt I needed something to give me a good picture as to what in the heck the author was talking about! Some of the stuff in the book was so hard to follow, I knew I was going to have to watch the movie.

Trust me, it is not the book. Although the beginning does follow very close to the storyline, going to Lowood and all. But, once we get to Thornfield Hall, things start to change. Instead of delivering a letter to town on (I believe) a close to winter evening, Jane is instead taking a walk on a foggy, autumn (It looked like autumn) day when she meets Mr. Rochester. And, we never got to see Mr. Rochester dress up as a gypsy, which was a really cool part in the book. Then, Jane leaves Mr. Rochester in the middle of the day, and he chases after her. But in the book, she leaves at night, while Mr. Rochester is "asleep".

Mr. St. John Rivers' character was downplayed into the parson of her aunt's old place. They downplayed a lot of that storyline in the movie. Then, at the end, Mr. Rochester is at the burnt-down Thornfield Hall instead of at his other place.

Overall, I thought that the acting was very good. Everything else was okay. I already knew what was going to happen at the end, so it's not like I cried or anything. Though, if you haven't seen it, I guess it could be a tear-jerker, but whatever. Just see it, and you'll know what I mean.

King Arthur (2004)

Not Pyle's King Arthur, but worth watching!

[8/10 · 1 July 2005]

Be forewarned, King Arthur fans, this is not Pyle's King Arthur. It's not Disney's Sword in the Stone, and it certainly isn't Merlin. But, it is a good movie in its own right. Lots of battle and bloodshed. A good storyline and good actors to boot.

The one thing I did not enjoy was the fact that the character of Merlin was down-played into King Arthur's rival instead of his wizardly counselor. The other thing was, although I do want women to get on the battlefield and kick-butt, I felt the character of Guinivere was too dramatized and somewhat over-rated. If you're wondering what I mean, let me point out that her picture is in the middle and not Arthur's. Anyways.

It's overall a good movie. Rent it and see if you think it's worth owning.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Pretty Good Movie!

[7/10 · 30 June 2005]

First Thoughts: .... *speechless* ....

Pro's: Overall, I thought this was one of Spielberg's better films. I preferred this one to E.T. *gag* Tom Cruise, who I'm not a huge fan of, does a pretty convincing performance. It seriously is a Doom's Day kind of movie. I mean you see people getting blown up and killed. Don't take the kids to see it. No kids under the age of 11, I would say. But, for teenagers, it's a pretty okay movie. Adults, you'll enjoy this. This version is more true to the book and not so much to the 1950's version. My dad, who is a huge fan of the old version, thought it was a pretty good movie, and he wanted to see it again. Previously, I had neither read the book, nor seen the original film, but I kind of enjoyed this movie. If you're wondering what it's about, the title gives it all away.

Con's: The action sequences are very long, and just keep going on and on. It's bloody and gory, so it's definitely not a kiddie movie. In the movie, the people keep looking back, watching what's chasing them instead of running away. I was saying, "Run! Stupid people, run!" at the screen.

Overall: Go see it if your a fan of the book, movie, or if you're just interested and/or curious. The ending is surprisingly simple.

Solaris (2002)

*gag*

[1/10 · 28 June 2005]

Okay, so about three years ago, my mom and I were all by ourselves. We didn't have my annoying little sisters with us, so we decided to go see a kiddie-free movie at the new theater out east. I begged my mom that we should go see "Die Another Day", but she HAD to see this "Solaris". I should let you know, I am a die-hard Sci-Fi fan, but I was not in the least bit interested to see "Solaris".

About five minutes into the movie, I thought that it was "okay". Ten minutes, it was getting bad. Fifteen I was lost, and at twenty, I about left the theater. I wish I would've so I could've snuck into "Die Another Day" but I thought "Maybe it'll get better". I was WRONG! I have pretty good taste when it comes to movies, so I was not used to seeing such plum-bad movies. I figured that it would get better, but I should've known once a movie goes bad, it stays bad! I was totally lost. There were so many flashbacks, and a lot of the shots were taken so you could only see half of the stuff that was going on.

Overall: Never see this movie! I never did get to see "Die Another Day" and I wish I had now, and so does my mom. This was by far, the worst film ever made. I have one question too: "What was George Clooney thinking?" I would rather watch some dumb kiddie movie than sit through that two-hour monstrosity again!

Independence Day (1996)

Good Film -- Go See It!

[8/10 · 28 June 2005]

First Thoughts: Oh! I'm watching that again!

Pro's: The actors had good chemistry with each other. Everyone fitted their part perfectly! It had some funny, memorable lines. The "hard-to-follow" scientific stuff was put into analogy so everyone, even though you're not a computer genius, could understand it. The special effects looked very believable. And lots of good sci-fi action. And, for those people who are all like "Oh! Americans have to save the world, again!" That's because, we're like the world's greatest superpower and the people watching this are mostly Americans, anyways. If the Chinese made an "Independence Day" the Chinese would be saving the world. That's just like -- common sense!

Con's: Some of the action scenes were a little long, and dragged on until you're like: "Okay, Thanks. We get the picture."

Overall: Good movie. Worth renting if not owning! See it for the 4th of July!

Bruce Almighty (2003)

Very Funny Jim Carey Movie!

[7/10 · 28 June 2005]

First Thoughts: (lol)!

Pro's: Good movie. Jim Carey is great in this movie! It's absolutely hilarious. Morgan Freeman does a good job at playing the Big Man Upstairs! It has a hilarious script! Even Christians will get a kick out of this!

Con's: Some of the material is a bit unnecessary, like Bruce and Grace's romance scene. And some other things are just kind of disgusting, especially the monkey thing.

Overall: It's a hilarious movie with a good message. Check out the DVD and watch the deleted scenes and the bloopers. They're hilarious!!!

Batman Begins (2005)

A Good Beginning for a Legendary Hero!

[9/10 · 27 June 2005]

First Thoughts: Wow! This film was excellent! I have not seen the other Batman movies, but I hope they're as good as this! If you have not seen this movie, I suggest seeing it. I hadn't seen any of the other Batmans, but I superbly enjoyed this movie! It's well worth the money!

Pro's: All the actors were perfectly cast. The background music was good, and the storyline was very easy to follow once you got into it. It's my kind of beginning of a story: starts with a flashback that has you asking questions, and then begins, slowly, to answer all of your questions. And -- it's my kind of movie: action-packed, with a good background and storyline. Now, unlike the Matrix 2&3, you have to have an ACTUAL storyline in order for it to work. Now the question that every director of an action film asks himself while putting the film together is: "Will it seem completely strange when people start fighting?" In this case it's an absolute "NO!" Batman begins shows you how everything -- from the bat symbol to the gadgets to the Wayne fortune -- starts. It's a perfect beginning for a legendary hero like Batman!

Con's: Some of the action sequences were a bit long, and it does move very fast once the story line gets to Gotham, and you have to be prepared for it, or otherwise, you're going to get totally lost!

Overall: Very good movie by itself! It's very safe to say that this film rivals its superhero counterpart: Spiderman! Without a doubt, the summer's best film!

The Phantom of the Opera (1991 TV Movie)

Clueless as to what to think!

[3/10 · 27 June 2005]

This is not ALW's version of the Phantom! How can I tell: It's much worse! Although, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, (that would been Solaris), it was very bad. When I rented this, I didn't know what to expect. I hoped it would be ALW's version, but from the first opening scene, I knew I had made a mistake.

I was surprised that it was a filmed play instead of a movie. The acting was okay, and it seemed to be a bit more comical than the ALW version, but it could never compare. This Phantom seemed to be more villainous than Gerard Butler's Phantom. I will admit, it has a somewhat similar story line, and you do get to see more about the characters' backgrounds than in ALW's, but the music is NOT the same! The music did not sound very good, but the passion was there. It's closer to the book, but I still didn't like it very much.

If you're really interested in the Phantom, and want to see all the versions, see this one, so you know how bad it is. If your into romance, the ending will have you wondering what exactly was the Phantom thinking?!

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

A Spectale to See!!! (if not own)

[10/10 · 27 June 2005]

First Thoughts: Before seeing this movie, I had heard of the Phantom of the Opera, but I had never seen any of the plays or musicals, I had never read the book, or seen any of the movies about it. My only clue to this mysterious film was my mom's film soundtrack, which she bought immediately after seeing the movie. I listened to it with her, and was very surprised with the music -- it was actually really good!

Of course, I don't care much for musicals, either, but Phantom seemed to just tug at me. Now, I have seen three different versions and read the book. Of all the versions I have seen, this one was by far the best! I have not seen the stage musical and cannot compare it to its theater origins, but I can say that this version was WAY closer to the book than Yeston & Kopit's stage version.

Pro's: The acting was very good, especially Minnie Driver who plays Carlotta. The music was even better than the acting. Gerard Butler did a really good job capturing the Phantom's pain and loneliness better than any other Phantoms I've seen. And the screenplay did a good job in capturing the Phantom's human side! Sometimes we forget that the Phantom is human, even though he does some devilish things. He seems more like a misunderstood hero than a villain to me. And for those of you who say that "Gerard Butler can't sing", in the French audio version, I will bet my life that they had to use at least two different guys to pull off the Phantom's vocal ability. And, Gerry could do it by himself. I mean, come on! He's not that bad...

Con's: The only things I wish they would've changed about this movie is the characters' backgrounds. I wished we could've seen the 'Angel of Music' giving Christine Daae lessons and seen more about the childhood relations of Raoul and Christine. The Swordfight in the Cemetery was I think one of the worst scenes that they shot. Joel could've done a better job than that! It seems like all during this bloody, action-packed fight between the Phantom and Raoul, the shots went from hands, swords, feet, Raoul's face, Phantom's cape, feet, swords, hands, Raoul's arm, etc. I had to rewind to see how Raoul got the Phantom's sword away because the camera angles were so bad!

The film did slow down in some spots, like for instance Magical Lasso, and Madame Giry's Tale, but they give you important info that you need to connect all the pieces of the puzzle. At the end, it might leave you with a few questions remaining. It did for me, and I looked to the book for answers.

Overall: But, overall it is a very good movie. It will have you crying at the end, for some people. It's a heartwarming tale about a monster who wanted to be loved as a human -- somewhat like Beauty and the Beast, but the beast is more human. So, listen, listen to the Music of the Night!