WyllyWylly

I read Desperation (and its twin, the Regulators) years ago when they were released and like most King novels, though "gee, this would be a good movie if done right." I never knew about the miniseries and found it here on IMDb. Upon that discovery, my internal argument went: "Five stars, meh. King wrote the teleplay though, so it can't be all bad."

I took the plunge, watching this with my wife. I've read it, she has not. We are both King fans and enjoy his work. And in the end, we both like this production.

The teleplay closely follows the novel, and there are plenty of details for those who have read it. The casting could have been better, I think - all of the actors involved seemed a little less than convincing but they also weren't phoning it in. Ron Perlman was great as the lead bad guy, and as a reader he was just what I expected. Tom Skerrit was the other big name that people will know, and I didn't think he was enough of an asshole (the character in the book most decidedly is).

The movie itself plays out more like a horror flick of King's in the vein of Carrie or his earlier work, which is not a bad thing, but I felt it detracted from the deeper story underneath at times. I would have preferred more character development but again, King wrote the teleplay and if he felt it told the story, I can live with that. Kudos to King for providing the back story that is necessary to the plot in a concise way that the movie format needed instead of trying to weave it in more subtly.

My wife, having not read the book, had more questions about what was going on at times but agreed that it kept her interest right up through the end. Thus, my recommendation is to watch this if you like King's work, but it would not be an introduction to his world. I also believe that reading the book first will deepen your enjoyment of the movie because it, too, holds your interest and keeps you wondering.

The Da Vinci Code. Talked about a great deal, caught in a firestorm of controversy for fictional theories on one of the world's major religions (Christianity), and a star-packed cast... all the fuel is there for a potentially great fire. But does the Da Vinci Code satisfy? Let me evaluate the movie as a movie, for movies are a different animal than books. If you've read Dan Brown's novel, you will have preconceived notions. I encourage you to take this as a movie and leave out the comparisons until later if that is the case.

Casting is well done. Tom Hanks is a strong name and with that comes the task of making the character its own. For actors with star power the challenge is to make you forget that you are watching the actor and are instead watching the character. Hanks does well as the lead in this regard, but is not perfect. Audrey Tatou is not a household name, yet her Sophie Neveu is also fairly strong. The pairing of Hanks and Tatou does not generate stellar chemistry, but is not objectionable either.At the top of his game is Sir Ian McKellen. His portrayal of Leigh Teabing is excellent and believable. Alfred Molina is a great actor, yet I found his priestly character a bit melodramatic. Granted, the character is a supporting role, yet there are moments where you wonder if a priest could really be "that way." Paul Bettany IS Silas and is suitably creepy as a fanatical if misguided monk. Jean Reno puts forth a strong performance as Bezu Fache.

Cinematography is lush and consistent. The film is visually appealing and makes excellent use of lighting and color. It's easy to believe you are in Paris, which is helped by the sparing and timely use of the native language, which is captioned where it appears. Special effects are sparingly used and to good effect to help advance a complex story. One niggle for me is the fact that the albino monk does not have pink eyes - although it appears Bettany is wearing some kind of contact lens to make his stare burn into you, it's a strange inaccuracy.

The soundtrack is excellent in that it's transparent. Tension is built at the appropriate moments but never overwhelming. Thankfully, the film is not used as a vehicle to promote singles or artists, allowing the score to do its job effectively without jarring the viewer.

Pacing starts off quickly - you are brought into the action almost immediately without confusion. Many "aha!" moments keep the movie from becoming a snoozer. All the same, the length of the film (2.5 hours) is a factor, and the long running time might make the viewer feel a bit tired. If you experience something for long enough, you become fatigued and this film feels a bit languid towards the end. The climax of the film is almost understated and not substantially more dramatic than the events leading towards it.

Finally, the production is excellent overall. The sets are designed well and do not overpower the acting. The locations were well chosen and provide an excellent environment for the heart of the story. Ron Howard develops the characters well as the movie progresses and brings out strong performances from most of his cast. There are also a few cheap scares and plot devices, but they are infrequent and forgivable.

Having viewed this on both the big and small screens, I find the Da Vinci Code to be an entertaining evening. Where the film suffers tends to be in minor things: the length contributing to a somewhat slow feel at the finish, and some perfunctory character development where the leads are not concerned. A 7/10, the Da Vinci Code leaves you satisfied but not wanting more.

Back to the Future was one of a kind. It was written that way; exceptional attention was paid to detail, and it paid off. Zemeckis had a hit on his hands, and movie audiences swooned: Michael J. Fox at the pinnacle of his acting career paired with a high budget, fantastic script, there was no way the original could fail. Sequels, unless planned, are fated to surpass the bar set by the original story. When the secondary and tertiary scripts are not planned at the same time, the result is cotton candy fare that leaves you feeling empty, like this movie does.

Sadly, the sequel(s) reflect the need for Hollywood suits to capitalize on an excellent idea. Instead of inventing truly original second and third scripts where none was originally intended, this and the third film were called for to fill the bank accounts of those involved. Although there are moments when BTTF II shines - such as the splicing of original material with old, bringing back scenes from the beloved original, there is so much kitsch and poor acting, even from the principals, that it's hard to swallow.

Michael is Michael, Marty is Marty. Chrisopher Lloyd is Christopher Lloyd, Doc is Doc, and that's about it. Oh yeah, let's not forget old Einstein. The rest of the cast, while mostly returning, could have been forgotten. Michael J. Fox as his son AND daughter? Please. Lea Thompson struggles with multiple identities... the characters are so far beyond belief that it's painful. Where the original film almost made time travel seem plausible (albeit in a goofy way) the sequels make a parody of the original script and seem more like an insult. The budget covers makeup and some fantastic ideas, but it can't cover up the forced feeling that this film and its successor share. Slick effects and obvious humor can't save sequels, but the need to capitalize on a successful franchise overrides originality. Everything about this movie seems clichéd instead of daring. Some actors define their careers by being involved in quality productions; in this film time the cast shows their need to finance a yacht payment.

If you can suspend all need for believability, this flick might get it done. But it won't work without the third installment, and for once in my life I have to give credit to Crispin Glover: he may be a freak, but he's an honest freak, and he stayed away from the scripts for a reason. I'd recommend that you do too. Watch the first installment as intended: a standalone production, and find better fare if you need to watch a movie instead of the the poor sequels.

A well-shot, very visual film.

And that's where it ended for me. As far as psychological thrillers go, this one was a sleeper. There was a lot of effort put into the cinematography, and certainly the acting by the lead players... but half an hour into it, I couldn't help but wonder where the suspense was going. It just kept slowly building, building, building... and then building some more.

The peripheral characters - the angry ex-husband, the lawyer, the teacher - all basically non-contributors to the actual plot, which was centered around the psychological mess of a mother. Sadly, little detail is given to the viewer to understand why this is happening to her and her daughter. The subplots were more of a distraction to the suspense than aids in building a good story. What was with the black dude in the back of the lawyer's SUV? I don't know and you won't either, because he's there for a few moments and then gone, forever, from the story. When you have two hours or so to tell a story, it's imperative that every character contribute something to the end result - and in this flick, there are just too many things to distract. That's not psychological; it's bad screen writing.

Again, excellent cinematography: excellent attention to colors and detail - but as far as overall direction and making a point, it was hard to swallow. There are far better psychological thrillers around, and this film had a hard time defining its identity: look at the comments on the boards. Was it horror? No, not really. Was it drama? Maybe. There's too much debate amongst those who have seen it and that, frankly, is the kiss of death for this one.

Unless you are prepared to appreciate the subtle details as presented visually, it will be a disappointment. Rating it at a 6 for the visual detail, I could not give it more as it will never appeal to more than a niche audience. Cinematographers and budding artists will appreciate it, yet it's no surprise that this film never reached critical mass. It's not cohesive enough to persuade the average thrill-seeking film goer.

Nanny McPhee: a new movie based on an old formula. Chances of enjoyment are high - don't be put off in advance the negative comments on the boards. I've seen many threads here in the IMDb trashing this, but a great many of the critics are uninformed. I hadn't heard of the movie until I was asked to work at the screening, and I wasn't sure if I was going to stay. I can say now that I have no regrets about staying to watch and would do it again without a second thought. The cinematography and acting are top shelf as is everything else about the production.

Emma Thompson portrays her character very well and is believable as "the ugly nanny." Her unflappable attitude towards the insanity of the children she is charged with keeping is admirable - and every parent will be wishing for one of those magic walking sticks after seeing this. Colin Firth proves his mettle as the father, doing what he thinks is best by his children even if it is somewhat misguided. The kids at the screening were also enthusiastically enjoying the film, because they can relate to it.

There are many subtle things in the film that make it appropriate for all ages. For one, there are actors and actresses of all ages, and there are family friendly and age appropriate jokes and stunts for everyone too. Angela Lansbury is positively hilarious as the near-blind auntie who can't let go of her strict upper-class views. Although I think of this more as a family film than strictly a children's tale, it's easily one of the best options this season for an entertaining evening.

I read the Chronicles of Narnia when I was little and remember distinctly being very moved by the story, in particular when Azlan's story unfolded. So many years later, the movie that I created in my head has come to the screen in all its glory.

Thanks to the visual effects of WETA and excellent acting by the young cast, Narnia lives if only on screen. Little time is wasted getting the audience into the story and once the action starts, it doesn't stop. It's difficult to tell where the effects start and stop which is what contributes to its believability.

This is fantasy of the highest order, suitable for children of all ages - including the older ones like myself. It's not often that the audience breaks into appplause at the end of a movie but that was the case here, and it's well deserved. You are cheating yourself if you wait for the inevitable DVD: this one is truly majestic on the silver screen, and should be seen that way.