News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

USA: Wes Craven, 2000

I underrated this movie last time I watched it. Yes, it has its problems, not least the fact that Neve Campbell, whose character the entire trilogy has been about, appears in what seems to be less than one-third of the movie, and ** SPOILER ** doesn't actually meet the killer until the big climax ** END SPOILER **, but there's a lot of fun to be had. A number of gifted actors, including Campbell, Parker Posey, Emily Mortimer and Lance Henriksen, lend their talents, and even if Wes Craven seems to be operating in a more restrained manner with regard to the gore than on the first three films, he still knows how do do a decent stalk-and-slash sequence. By all accounts, most of the participants didn't actually want to make this movie, but it doesn't suffer unduly and everyone seems to be game to do their absolute best.

By the way, kudos to writer Ehren Kruger for dropping most of the self-referential stuff that was present in the first two films. It was clever at first, but once every horror movie started doing it, it got old fast.

IMDB reference

USA: Martin Scorsese, 2002

IMDB reference

USA: Martin Scorsese, 2002

After reading quite a few negative reviews of this film, I finally got around to experiencing it myself and was pleasantly surprised. It has its share of problems - not least the fact that, even with a running time of nearly three hours, it's obvious that a significant amount of material was left on the cutting room floor - but it's engaging stuff, well-shot and with a genuinely palpable atmosphere of 1800s New York. Daniel Day-Lewis, of course, steals the show, but I found myself enjoying Cameron Diaz's performance as well (in the few movies that I've seen her in, she's always come across as a better actor than most people give her credit for). Leonardo DiCaprio seems a bit lost at times, but he comes round in time for the third act. Some very unusual, but effective, choices for the music too (I was surprised, when reading the end credits, to discover that the Corrs provided much of the instrumentation for the film's title song).

IMDB reference

USA: Mel Stuart, 1971

IMDB reference

USA/UK: Henry Selick, 1996

IMDB reference

UK: Nicolas Roeg, 1990

This film is a mix or really good elements and truly awful ones. The opening prologue explaining the specifics of witches is great, as is Nicolas Roeg's camerawork, which accentuates the creepiness of the ghastly ladies. There are also some pretty impressive prosthetic and animatronic episodes courtesy of Jim Henson and pals. At the other end of the spectrum, the child actors are infuriating, and the way the script mangles with Roald Dahl's original book in a number of respects (not least the skin-crawling ending, which apparently the studio insisted on) succeeds in running all the story's best elements through the meat grinder. This film doesn't know whether it wants to be a genuinely creepy fairytale or a ridiculous pantomime.

IMDB reference

USA: Steven Spielberg, 1989

IMDB reference

USA/Mexico: Julie Taymor, 2002

This ambitious but plodding character portrait suffers from many of the common problems that plague films such as this. Namely, it is overlong and episodic in nature, and by no mean consistently interesting. There are many good moments, but to reach them we have to slog through a lot that is less entertaining. There are also some odd gaps where changes in Frida's situation are not explained, and it is frequently unclear just how much time is meant to have passed between one "episode" and another. Still, props to director Julie Taymor for employing some interesting stylistic touches (such as partially animated variations of many of Frida's paintings, and an interesting collage sequence when she goes to New York), and to Salma Hayek for delivering an assured performance in such a brave role.

IMDB reference

Original title: Kurenai no Buta
Japan: Hayao Miyazaki, 1992

IMDB reference

USA: John Lasseter, 1999

Somewhat overrated in my opinion, this film, which started off as a direct-to-video cheapquel, is a pale shadow of its predecessor. Things do improve around the half-way mark, and the final act is an enjoyable enough rollercoaster, but the first act is just terrible, and surprisingly, the look of this film has dated far more quickly than the original Toy Story. That said, every time I think I don't like this film, it comes out with something I love. I can see why Pixar don't want to do sequels, though.

IMDB reference

More posts