azuzastreet-1
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
17 years
Reviews
Happy Feet (2006)
Not as Hapy as I thought it would be.
Overall, I was disappointed with "Happy Feet", as were my 6 and 9 year -olds.
They thought it was too intense in parts,particularly at the end. I thought it was boring.It was definitely too long for very little ones, as I witnessed in the theater.
On the plus side, the computer animation was TOP NOTCH. There were sequences that were so breathtaking, you would swear you were looking at the real thing! Ditto for the music. It was clearly the best part of the movie.
Dialogue was hard to hear in parts. The plot was thin, and quite implausible toward the end. It sort of does an "Al Gore" at the end also, which for me was a total turn off.I wanted to be entertained, not spoon-fed more environmentalist propaganda. (This was also what bothered my kids.)
And, the biggest disappointment of all, it just wasn't all that funny, or happy!! I thought the title and the trailers, were very misleading.
Overall, it was good looking, and good sounding, but preachy and joyless.
They thought it was too intense in parts,particularly at the end. I thought it was boring.It was definitely too long for very little ones, as I witnessed in the theater.
On the plus side, the computer animation was TOP NOTCH. There were sequences that were so breathtaking, you would swear you were looking at the real thing! Ditto for the music. It was clearly the best part of the movie.
Dialogue was hard to hear in parts. The plot was thin, and quite implausible toward the end. It sort of does an "Al Gore" at the end also, which for me was a total turn off.I wanted to be entertained, not spoon-fed more environmentalist propaganda. (This was also what bothered my kids.)
And, the biggest disappointment of all, it just wasn't all that funny, or happy!! I thought the title and the trailers, were very misleading.
Overall, it was good looking, and good sounding, but preachy and joyless.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Art Teacher says the Art History in the DaVinci Code was atrocious
So much for the "sacred feminine"!
This movie bore more resemblance to Paris Hilton than Paris, France. It was good looking, but extremely shallow.
Ron Howard did a fine job of directing, but Tom Hanks was completely unconvincing. Visuals were excellent, but the music was overbearing. Ian McKellan was fabulous. The actors who played Fache and the bishop were also excellent, but did not have enough camera time. Too bad.
Most of my criticisms are probably aimed at the material Howard had to work with, meaning the book, "The DaVinci Code", which contained multiple gross art history errors. As a veteran Art Teacher with a Master's degree in Art Education, these errors was extremely distracting to me in both reading the book and watching the movie.
Some of these errors are as follows:
The windows at the pyramid at the Louvre contain 673 panes of glass, not 666.
Leonardo (Whose last name is NOT DaVinci..Da Vinci simply refers to the town he lived in) never referred to the "Mona Lisa" as the "Mona Lisa" in his life time. The moniker was given to the painting by the Art biographer Vasari in the 1800's; thus, Leonardo never could have come up with the outlandish anagrams.
The painting "Madonna on the Rocks" is actually entitled "Virgin on the Rock"; again, this was done so that Brown can create a convenient anagram. In the Louvre, it is NOT located in the same room as the Mona Lisa.
The Last Supper is NOT a fresco. It is a mural. If Mary Magdeline is to the left of Christ in the painting, then where was John? Why would Leonardo make him be missing? It was customary for painters from the Florentine school (where Leonardo hailed from), to make young men appear more feminine than older men, to infuse a bit of innocence in their appearance. Additionally, the Bible contains NO references to the "holy grail", or "chalice". Leonardo was simply making his painting more natural,in keeping with his naturalistic interpretations of his subjects.That's what Leonardo was famous for!! Leonardo, like most of us, simply believed that Jesus didn't have the, uh, " bling" to own a golden chalice!!
There is a sketch by Leonardo of the "mystery hand" holding the knife in the Royal Windsor Art collection, and that hand definitely belongs to Peter. It is not a "disembodied hand wielding a dagger".
If I hadn't read the book first, I would have been confused with the flash backs, which were very poorly rendered.
The film was very "talky", which is bad enough, but the talk itself wasn't accurate. I'm surprised the main female character's (Sophie) head didn't explode with all the condescending lectures she was given.
"Sacred feminine", indeed...I'm a woman, and "The Davinci Code" insulted my intelligence.
This movie bore more resemblance to Paris Hilton than Paris, France. It was good looking, but extremely shallow.
Ron Howard did a fine job of directing, but Tom Hanks was completely unconvincing. Visuals were excellent, but the music was overbearing. Ian McKellan was fabulous. The actors who played Fache and the bishop were also excellent, but did not have enough camera time. Too bad.
Most of my criticisms are probably aimed at the material Howard had to work with, meaning the book, "The DaVinci Code", which contained multiple gross art history errors. As a veteran Art Teacher with a Master's degree in Art Education, these errors was extremely distracting to me in both reading the book and watching the movie.
Some of these errors are as follows:
The windows at the pyramid at the Louvre contain 673 panes of glass, not 666.
Leonardo (Whose last name is NOT DaVinci..Da Vinci simply refers to the town he lived in) never referred to the "Mona Lisa" as the "Mona Lisa" in his life time. The moniker was given to the painting by the Art biographer Vasari in the 1800's; thus, Leonardo never could have come up with the outlandish anagrams.
The painting "Madonna on the Rocks" is actually entitled "Virgin on the Rock"; again, this was done so that Brown can create a convenient anagram. In the Louvre, it is NOT located in the same room as the Mona Lisa.
The Last Supper is NOT a fresco. It is a mural. If Mary Magdeline is to the left of Christ in the painting, then where was John? Why would Leonardo make him be missing? It was customary for painters from the Florentine school (where Leonardo hailed from), to make young men appear more feminine than older men, to infuse a bit of innocence in their appearance. Additionally, the Bible contains NO references to the "holy grail", or "chalice". Leonardo was simply making his painting more natural,in keeping with his naturalistic interpretations of his subjects.That's what Leonardo was famous for!! Leonardo, like most of us, simply believed that Jesus didn't have the, uh, " bling" to own a golden chalice!!
There is a sketch by Leonardo of the "mystery hand" holding the knife in the Royal Windsor Art collection, and that hand definitely belongs to Peter. It is not a "disembodied hand wielding a dagger".
If I hadn't read the book first, I would have been confused with the flash backs, which were very poorly rendered.
The film was very "talky", which is bad enough, but the talk itself wasn't accurate. I'm surprised the main female character's (Sophie) head didn't explode with all the condescending lectures she was given.
"Sacred feminine", indeed...I'm a woman, and "The Davinci Code" insulted my intelligence.