box offices

Showing posts with label worlwide box offices. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2009

Titanic (1997)

Rated: PG-13 for disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language.
Runtime: 3 hrs 14 mins
Genre: Dramas
Theatrical Release:Dec 19, 1997 Wide
Worldwide Box offices : $1,835,300,000
Reviews:
Titanic is the longest Canadian Heritage Minute in the history of the medium. It's cute, it's semi-educational, it's not terribly convincing, and it's something you could only take in small doses, which, as you are probably aware, are not the amounts recommended by the film's three-hours-and-then-some running length. It's not an especially disgraceful film, but it's very dull, and I'm safe in saying that I won't be seeing it again any time soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By now, you must be familiar with the plot: Upper-class girl (Kate Winslet) starts romance with plucky lower-class boy (Leonardo DeCaprio). Girl's fiancee (Billy Zane, pleasingly hammy) feels slighted, and problems arise. Meanwhile, there's this iceberg... but if you're half the movie person I think you are, you can fill in the blanks here. Cliches, of course, fly fast and furious; most entertaining is the scene where Winslet and Zane fight over her cubist and post-impressionist art finds ("What's his name- Picasso? He'll never amount to anything!"), but this is nearly matched by the "D.H. Lawrence" scene, where a lower-class hoedown is intercut with an aristocratic dinner to show that the lower classes are just so much fun. Never mind that they're largely invisible for the bulk of the film- they've got the scene, man!

Even if you don't know much about the period, it's obvious at an early interval that Cameron doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. There's a bizarre coarseness to the dialogue, unlikely to be adopted by snooty upperclassers, (even Winslet) and scenes that you instinctively know wouldn't happen (the loogie-hocking tournament leaps to mind). Cameron is insane to suggest that his junior-high comic-book scribblings would be mistaken for art by the Picasso-and-Monet loving Winslet; it's as if Winslet had been instructed to buy the paintings from somewhere else while secretly digging the latest X-Men. Worse still, Cameron tries to score points with feminists by making Winslet a gusty modern girl; never mind that there's only one sexist male in the whole film, and that the rest of her tormenters are women like her mother. The film disturbs your viewing, because its thesis shifts gears so frequently and it challenges your sense of the time so drastically that it shatters its own illusion.
Things, I will admit, pick up considerably in the final quarter of the film, when Cameron finally gets the wherewithal to cause some serious property damage; It's only here that the movie feels like a movie. Cameron's completely out of his element when he deals with posh dinners and high society- there's nothing for him to film, because he doesn't understand the beauty of gestures and people. He's a man with a God complex, which means that he is less interested in his tinny little Stanley Kramer plot than he is with dishing out the nasties to the passengers and smashing big machines.
Now, before you all start to come at me with knives and pick-axes, I should pause to admit that Titanic has an important archetypal image in its favor. Subconsciously, it's the first epic of the recession, a film in which the rich bail out first and the poor are left with the mess they made. The Titanic becomes a symbol of technology specifically designed to stratify the classes (Microsoft, anyone?) while the scrambling of the crowds at the end of the film can be boiled down to the hapless masses who are shut out of the new global economy and have to survive, or not survive, any way they can. Like no other movie, Titanic taps into our collective anxiety about the new, bleak economy (and technology), and this, I think, is a crucial factor in the film's runaway success.
Pity, then, that there's no real follow-through on this provocative premise. For all the mucky-muck about the bad old rich people, there's not a hell of a lot of attention paid to the lower orders. It's mostly a long pan through the deeply posh interior of the aristos' quarters; crucially, the film is seen through the eyes of its rich (if virtuous) survivor, and Cameron can't bring himself to create a raft of working-class characters as significant as Billy Zane's enjoyably campy louse. (Even the nouveau-riche Molly Brown is there for show and not for plot.)
Aside from being a dullard, Cameron is also a pretty bad liar; there's no way that anyone can break the record for biggest-budgeted American film three times in a row can say this kind of dollar-store Marxism without being seriously deluded. Furthermore, despite the ostensibly anti-tech message of many of his films, particularly the Terminator films, there is a suspicious amount of pricey hardware floating around these pictures. Could it be that the Big Ideas in Titanic are a tad inflated? Could they possibly be a cover for the less pretty aspects of big-budget film production- like taking the anxiety of the masses and selling it back to them for a hefty profit?
I'm very sorry, but I have great difficulty in accepting the notion of a benevolent special-effects extravaganza, at least as far as Titanic's argument goes. The logical conclusion of this story is a repudiation of the society of the spectacle; the Titanic seen as an example of distraction from the social divisions that seethe within its hull. But the film is all too eager to give good hardware, and there's a distinct emptiness to its indictment of the technocracy; there was never a film that bought into the we-shall-move-mountains school of design than this one. When the chips are down, Titanic is a bad musical without numbers (The Drowned of Music!), the work of a man with a God complex who wants to build and destroy a boat while getting leftist points on the side.

Synopsis:
Featuring spectacular special effects set amidst the backdrop of one of the most tragic events of the 20th century, James Cameron's award-winning TITANIC stands as one of the greatest Hollywood... Featuring spectacular special effects set amidst the backdrop of one of the most tragic events of the 20th century, James Cameron's award-winning TITANIC stands as one of the greatest Hollywood spectaculars of all time. Beginning with an undersea expedition in the 1990s, in which scuba divers are searching the sunken ship for lost relics, a painting of young Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) is found. This triggers a flashback to the young woman's story as it happened on the doomed Titanic. Rose is a daughter of privilege on her way to be married to an arrogant but wealthy young man (Billy Zane). Despairing, Rose finds herself falling in love with Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), a carefree and poor young artist who is also aboard. When the great ship strikes an iceberg and begins to sink, Rose and Jack have only each other as their world falls apart around them. Director James Cameron spared no expense in bringing his simple yet powerful love story to life, building a 90% scale model of the ship, fussing over the tiniest details, and ultimately spending some $200 million dollars. A worldwide smash, TITANIC received fourteen Academy Award nominations and 11 wins, including Best Picture. Despite all the lavish sets and special effects, the film would be nothing without the emotional core provided by stars Winslet and DiCaprio, who give star making performances as the tragic young lovers.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher, Bernard Hill, Jonathan Hyde, Danny Nucci, David Warner, Bill Paxton, Gloria Stuart, Victor Garber, Suzy Amis, Lewis Abernathy, Nicholas Cascone, Anatoly M. Sagalevitch, Jason Barry, Ewan Stewart, Ioan Gruffudd, Jonathan Phillips, Mark Lindsay Chapman, Richard Graham, Paul Brightwell, Ron Donachie, Eric Braeden, Charlotte Chatton, Bernard Fox, Michael Ensign, Fannie Brett, Jenette Goldstein, Camilla Overbye Roos, Linda Kerns, Amy Gaipa, Martin Jarvis, Rosalind Ayres, Rochelle Rose, Jonathan Evans-Jones, Brian Walsh, Rocky Taylor, Alexandria Owens, Simon Crane, Edward Fletcher, Scott G. Anderson, Martin East, Craig Kelly, Gregory Cooke, Liam Tuohy, James Lancaster, Elsa Raven, Lew Palter, Reece P. Thompson, Laramie Landis, Alison Waddell, Amber Waddell, Mark Rafael Truitt, John Walcutt, Terry Forrestal, Derek Lea, Richard Ashton, Sean Nepita, Brendan Connolly, David Cronnelly, Garth Wilton, Martin Laing, Richard Fox, Nick Meaney, Kevin Owers, Mark Capri, Marc Cass, Paul Herbert, Emmett James, Christopher Byrne, Oliver Page, James Garrett, Erik Holland, Jari Kinnunen, Anders Falk, Martin Hub, Seth Adkins, Barry Dennen, Vern Urich, Rebecca Jane Klingler, Tricia O'Neil, Kathleen S. Dunn, Romeo Francis, Mandana Marino, Van Ling, Bjorn, Dan Pettersson, Shay Duffin, Greg Ellis, Diana Morgan
Director: James Cameron
Producer: James Cameron
Screenwriter: James Cameron
Composer: James Horner
Studio: Paramount Pictures

Read More Movies

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Rated: PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and frightening images
Runtime: 4 hrs 10 mins
Genre: Science-Fiction/Fantasy
Theatrical Release:Dec 17, 200
Worldwide box office : $1,129,219,252
Reviews :
After watching 'The Return of the King', I was left squabbling with myself - a bit like Gollum, actually. Half of me is already excited about seeing what director Peter Jackson will bring us next (it's 'King Kong', by the way). But the other half of me knows that it's going to be virtually impossible for him to top what he has done in bringing 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy so spectacularly to the big screen.Again we join hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) as they attempt to reach the lava-flooded land of Mordor and destroy Middle Earth's nastiest piece of jewellery. Meanwhile, the big battle scenes rage on more convincingly than ever as Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the rest of the gang do their best to keep the pig-ugly orcs at bay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practically perfect in its execution, right now I find it hard to imagine a greater feat of film-making being accomplished not only in the next few years, but in my lifetime. The complete trilogy blows all previous fantasy projects, including the original 'Star Wars' flicks, out of the water. And don't even mention 'The Matrix' movies, because I'll more than likely scoff in your general direction.
The big screen experience places you right in the middle of the action, with giant boulders flying past and beasties bellowing all around. There's less comic relief this time round, but in its place is a darker tone that makes parts of this movie considerably more frightening than many outright horror flicks. In fact, the spider scene alone would be seen my many Hollywood honchos as having the makings of a film in its own right. Here, though, it's just a part of something much, much bigger.
For a movie of such mammoth length to provide such non-stop enthrallment is, as far as I'm concerned, a near-miracle. There are so many films that can't rivet me for five minutes, let alone have me on the edge of my seat for over three hours. This is the movie that makes sitting through Hollywood's never-ending stream of dross seem worthwhile.

As a stand-alone experience, this final 200 minute chapter is the trilogy's crowning glory, with an overall quality that surpasses both of its excellent predecessors. Jackson - and perhaps also that Tolkien bloke - has saved the best for last, bringing us the biggest, boldest, and most captivating film I can ever recall seeing.

Synopsis:
THE RETURN OF THE KING, the third and final film in Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, finds Middle-earth on the cusp of great change. Weary hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean... THE RETURN OF THE KING, the third and final film in Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, finds Middle-earth on the cusp of great change. Weary hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) venture further into the dark realm of Mordor, guided by the increasingly desperate Gollum (Andy Serkis), the two-faced former owner of the Ring that Frodo must destroy in the fires of Mount Doom. Meanwhile Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) contend with the deranged ruler Denethor (John Noble) at the once-mighty city of Minas Tirith, as Merry (Dominic Monaghan) joins Éowyn (Miranda Otto) and the Riders of Rohan to hold back the forces of Sauron. Amidst the chaos, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) must rise to his destiny, aided by Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) in assembling allies for a massive battle that will decide the fate of Middle-earth. With RETURN, Jackson brings J.R.R. Tolkien's world-renowned tale to a stunning conclusion. As with THE TWO TOWERS, the director deftly weaves various storylines together in one remarkable scene after another. Spectacular visuals complement Jackson's sharp focus on the characters and their emotional battles. While the special effects help to create huge battles and frightening creatures on a previously unseen scale, they never outshine the excellent ensemble of actors who bring the heart of the story home. A truly astounding work of filmmaking, THE RETURN OF THE KING skillfully concludes one of the greatest trilogies in cinema history.

Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Miranda Otto, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Andy Serkis, Bernard Hill, John Noble, David Wenham, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Karl Urban, Cate Blanchett, Marton Csokas, Ian Holm
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriter: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Producer: Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson
Composer: Howard Shore
Studio: New Line Cinema

Read More Movies

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

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of adventure violence, including frightening images.
Runtime: 2 hrs 30 mins
Genre: Action/Adventure
Theatrical Release:Jul 7, 2006 Wide
Box Office: $1,060,332,628
Review :
AT first glance, it seems like a pretty good deal. You put down your money — still less than $10 in most cities — and in return you get two and a half hours of spirited swashbuckling, with an all-star three-way battle of the cheekbones (Orlando Bloom vs. Keira Knightley vs. Johnny Depp) and some extra-slimy computer-generated imagery thrown in at no additional cost.Orlando Bloom in pursuit of the pirate captain in "Dead Man's Chest."
But there's a catch, as there usually is. "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" is not just a movie. It's a glistening, sushi-grade chunk of franchise entertainment, which means that maximal enjoyment of it comes with certain obligations. It is the second episode in what will be at least a trilogy — the third installment is scheduled for release next summer — and full appreciation of its whirligig plot will depend on thorough acquaintance with the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" picture, conveniently available for purchase on DVD. And since "Dead Man's Chest" brazenly dispenses with the convention of an ending — it's pretty much all middle — you will, by virtue of buying that ticket, have committed yourself to buying another one a year from now if you're the least bit curious about how the whole thing turns out. By then, chances are good that you will have forgotten most of what happened in "Dead Man's Chest," so you'll have another disc to add to the shopping cart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you probably will, even if it's hard to shake the feeling that you've been bullied into it. Gore Verbinski, the director, has an appropriate sense of mischief, as a well as a gift, nearly equaling those of Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg, for integrating CGI seamlessly into his cinematic compositions. What is curious about the recent crop of high-tech blockbusters is how seriously they take themselves, and unlike, say, "Superman Returns," "Dead Man's Chest" cannot be called pretentious. It makes no claims to being about good and evil, the difficulty of saving the world in the modern era, or the inner lives of any of its characters.
Instead, it sends Elizabeth Swann (Ms. Knightley) and Will Turner (Mr. Bloom), their wedding day ruined in an opening sequence that seems to pay tribute to the old Guns N' Roses "November Rain" video, on a search for the pirate captain Jack Sparrow (Mr. Depp). Jack, as usual, finds himself in all kinds of trouble, pursued not only by agents of the British crown, but also by an undead, squid-faced mariner, the famous Davy Jones, who commands a ghoulish crew of half-human, half-aquatic creatures. These sailors are like the cast of "SpongeBob SquarePants" — or the menu at a seafood restaurant —come to life: Night of the Living Bouillabaisse.
One of them, played by Stellan Skarsgard with a starfish embedded in his face, is Will's long-lost father, a development that adds a gelatinous morsel of father-son pathos to the stew of plots and subplots cooked up by the screenwriters, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio. Davy Jones himself, meanwhile, speaks in the sinister whisper of Bill Nighy, though it is his swaying mass of facial tentacles that most viewers will remember.
And there are other memorable bits and pieces, visual highlights of a movie with no particular interest in coherence, economy or feeling. Ms. Knightley is, once again, a vision of imperial British pluckiness, with an intriguing dash of romantic recklessness that surfaces toward the end. Mr. Bloom, as is his custom, leaps about, trying to overcome his incurable blandness, and is upstaged by special effects, musical cues, octopus tentacles and pieces of wood. Naomie Harris turns up for a few scenes of hammy voodoo, and Mackenzie Crook and David Bailie contribute some proletarian slapstick. Most of the other members of the first movie's cast show up again, sometimes in surprising circumstances.
The franchise, of course, belongs to Jack Sparrow, and to Mr. Depp. Because this is a sequel, the role is no longer the splendid surprise it was in 2003, when "The Curse of the Black Pearl" charmed audiences and disarmed critics on its way to the third-best domestic box-office gross of the year. But the best parts of "Dead Man's Chest" confirm Jack Sparrow as the most viable Disney cartoon character in quite some time, though his anarchic insouciance has more in common with the work of Chuck Jones or Tex Avery. Mr. Verbinski, for his part, grasps the kinship between today's computer-assisted filmmaking and the hand-drawn animation of old, which lies in the freedom to revise the laws of physics at will. Two sequences in particular stand out, and would stand alone nicely as shorts: I will always think of them as "Fruit Kebab" and "Runaway Hamster Wheel."
But the easy delight that such flights of visual fancy inspires is crowded and blocked by all the other stuff going on in this long, ungainly movie, which for all its busy, buzzing parts, is incapable of standing on its own. It batters you with novelty and works so hard to top itself that exhaustion sets in long before the second hour is over. By next summer, I suppose, we'll all be rested and ready for more.
"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has some violent action scenes, and a few moments of gruesome creepy-crawly movie horror.

Synopsis:
The second part of a trilogy, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST is a fantastic tale of pirates, love, and the supernatural. Blacksmith Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his upper-class love... The second part of a trilogy, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST is a fantastic tale of pirates, love, and the supernatural. Blacksmith Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his upper-class love Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) are preparing to wed when they are confronted with a warrant for their arrests because they helped the notorious pirate Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) escape the authorities. Their only choice for a pardon is to find Jack and return to Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) with the flamboyant captain's compass. Will's attempt to track Jack down, however, becomes an adventure unto itself: Jack is being held captive on an island where the natives think he is a god. To make matters worse, the infamous Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and his Flying Dutchman crew are after Jack, seeking his soul to repay a debt. With his beard of tentacles and a lobster claw for a hand, heartless Jones is no mere mortal. He and his men are slowly evolving, taking on the attributes of various sea creatures, and with the help of a giant sea monster, the Kraken, they rule the waters. Seeking respite from his fate with Davy Jones, Jack enlists the aid of Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), a practitioner of the supernatural, in an effort to locate the Dead Man's Chest that supposedly contains Jones's still-beating heart. Whoever possesses the heart controls Jones, and thereby controls the seas. And so the adventure continues as Jack, Will, and the Black Pearl crew track down the Flying Dutchman in search of redemption. This rollicking summer adventure, directed by Gore Verbinski (THE WEATHER MAN, THE RING), features multiple intersecting storylines, unique stunts, and a pithy script that lets each main character shine, while the costumes and makeup for Jones and his sea creature crew are nothing short of spectacular.

Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Bill Nighy, Stellan Skarsgaard, Jack Davenport, Kevin R. McNally, Jonathan Pryce, Naomie Harris, Tom Hollander, Lee Arenberg, Mackenzie Crook, David Bailie, David Schofield, Martin Klebba, Peter Badalamenti
Director: Gore Verbinski
Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
Screenwriter: Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio
Producer: Mike Stenson, Chad Oman, Bruce Hendricks, Eric McLeod
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Studio: Buena Vista Pictures

Read More Movies

The Dark Knight (2008)

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Runtime: 2 hrs 33 mins
Genre: Action/Adventure
Theatrical Release:Jul 18, 2008 Wide
Box Office: $1,001,921,825
Review :
Dark as night and nearly as long, Christopher Nolan’s new Batman movie feels like a beginning and something of an end. Pitched at the divide between art and industry, poetry and entertainment, it goes darker and deeper than any Hollywood movie of its comic-book kind — including “Batman Begins,” Mr. Nolan’s 2005 pleasurably moody resurrection of the series — largely by embracing an ambivalence that at first glance might be mistaken for pessimism. But no work filled with such thrilling moments of pure cinema can be rightly branded pessimistic, even a postheroic superhero movie like “The Dark Knight.”
Apparently, truth, justice and the American way don’t cut it anymore. That may not fully explain why the last Superman took a nose dive (“Superman Returns,” if not for long), but I think it helps get at why, like other recent ambiguous American heroes, both supermen and super-spies, the new Batman soared. Talent played a considerable part in Mr. Nolan’s Bat restoration, naturally, as did his seriousness of purpose. He brought a gravitas to the superhero that wiped away the camp and kitsch that had shrouded Batman in cobwebs. It helped that Christian Bale, a reluctant smiler whose sharply planed face looks as if it had been carved with a chisel, slid into Bruce Wayne’s insouciance as easily as he did Batman’s suit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new Batman movie isn’t a radical overhaul like its predecessor, which is to be expected of a film with a large price tag (well north of $100 million) and major studio expectations (worldwide domination or bust). Instead, like other filmmakers who’ve successfully reworked genre staples, Mr. Nolan has found a way to make Batman relevant to his time — meaning, to ours — investing him with shadows that remind you of the character’s troubled beginning but without lingering mustiness. That’s nothing new, but what is surprising, actually startling, is that in “The Dark Knight,” which picks up the story after the first film ends, Mr. Nolan has turned Batman (again played by the sturdy, stoic Mr. Bale) into a villain’s sidekick.

That would be the Joker, of course, a demonic creation and three-ring circus of one wholly inhabited by Heath Ledger. Mr. Ledger died in January at age 28 from an accidental overdose, after principal photography ended, and his death might have cast a paralyzing pall over the film if the performance were not so alive. But his Joker is a creature of such ghastly life, and the performance is so visceral, creepy and insistently present that the characterization pulls you in almost at once. When the Joker enters one fray with a murderous flourish and that sawed-off smile, his morbid grin a mirror of the Black Dahlia’s ear-to-ear grimace, your nervous laughter will die in your throat.
A self-described agent of chaos, the Joker arrives in Gotham abruptly, as if he’d been hiding up someone’s sleeve. He quickly seizes control of the city’s crime syndicate and Batman’s attention with no rhyme and less reason. Mr. Ledger, his body tightly wound but limbs jangling, all but disappears under the character’s white mask and red leer. Licking and chewing his sloppy, smeared lips, his tongue darting in and out of his mouth like a jittery animal, he turns the Joker into a tease who taunts criminals (Eric Roberts’s bad guy, among them) and the police (Gary Oldman’s good cop), giggling while he-he-he (ha-ha-ha) tries to burn the world down. He isn’t fighting for anything or anyone. He isn’t a terrorist, just terrifying.
Mr. Nolan is playing with fire here, but partly because he’s a showman. Even before the Joker goes wild, the director lets loose with some comic horror that owes something to Michael Mann’s “Heat,” something to Cirque de Soleil, and quickly sets a tense, coiled mood that he sustains for two fast-moving hours of freakish mischief, vigilante justice, philosophical asides and the usual trinkets and toys, before a final half-hour pileup of gunfire and explosions. This big-bang finish — which includes a topsy-turvy image that poignantly suggests the world has been turned on its axis for good — is sloppy, at times visually incoherent, yet touching. Mr. Nolan, you learn, likes to linger in the dark, but he doesn’t want to live there.
Though entranced by the Joker, Mr. Nolan, working from a script he wrote with his brother Jonathan Nolan, does make room for romance and tears and even an occasional (nonlethal) joke. There are several new characters, notably Harvey Dent (a charismatic Aaron Eckhart), a crusading district attorney and Bruce Wayne’s rival for the affection of his longtime friend, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, a happy improvement over Katie Holmes). Like almost every other character in the film, Batman and Bruce included, Harvey and Rachel live and work in (literal) glass houses. The Gotham they inhabit is shinier and brighter than the antiqued dystopia of “Batman Begins”: theirs is the emblematic modern megalopolis (in truth, a cleverly disguised Chicago), soulless, anonymous, a city of distorting and shattering mirrors.
From certain angles, the city the Joker threatens looks like New York, but it would be reductive to read the film too directly through the prism of 9/11 and its aftermath. You may flash on that day when a building collapses here in a cloud of dust, or when firemen douse some flames, but those resemblances belong more rightly to our memories than to what we see unfolding on screen. Like any number of small- and big-screen thrillers, the film’s engagement with 9/11 is diffuse, more a matter of inference and ideas (chaos, fear, death) than of direct assertion. Still, that a spectacle like this even glances in that direction confirms that American movies have entered a new era of ambivalence when it comes to their heroes — or maybe just superness.
In and out of his black carapace and on the restless move, Batman remains, perhaps not surprisingly then, a recessive, almost elusive figure. Part of this has to do with the costume, which has created complications for every actor who wears it. With his eyes dimmed and voice technologically obscured, Mr. Bale, who’s suited up from the start, doesn’t have access to an actor’s most expressive tools. (There are only so many ways to eyeball an enemy.) Mr. Nolan, having already told Batman’s origin story in the first film, initially doesn’t appear motivated to advance the character. Yet by giving him rivals in love and war, he has also shifted Batman’s demons from inside his head to the outside world.
That change in emphasis leaches the melodrama from Mr. Nolan’s original conception, but it gives the story tension and interest beyond one man’s personal struggle. This is a darker Batman, less obviously human, more strangely other. When he perches over Gotham on the edge of a skyscraper roof, he looks more like a gargoyle than a savior. There’s a touch of demon in his stealthy menace. During a crucial scene, one of the film’s saner characters asserts that this isn’t a time for heroes, the implication being that the moment belongs to villains and madmen. Which is why, when Batman takes flight in this film, his wings stretching across the sky like webbed hands, it’s as if he were trying to possess the world as much as save it.
In its grim intensity, “The Dark Knight” can feel closer to David Fincher’s “Zodiac” than Tim Burton’s playfully gothic “Batman,” which means it’s also closer to Bob Kane’s original comic and Frank Miller’s 1986 reinterpretation. That makes it heavy, at times almost pop-Wagnerian, but Mr. Ledger’s performance and the film’s visual beauty are transporting. (In Imax, it’s even more operatic.) No matter how cynical you feel about Hollywood, it is hard not to fall for a film that makes room for a shot of the Joker leaning out the window of a stolen police car and laughing into the wind, the city’s colored lights gleaming behind him like jewels. He’s just a clown in black velvet, but he’s also some kind of masterpiece.
“The Dark Knight” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Consistently violent but not bloody.

Synopsis:
To say that Christopher Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT is the best comic book adaptation does the film a bit of a disservice. It may be a Batman film, but this isn't a kid-friendly action movie full of... To say that Christopher Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT is the best comic book adaptation does the film a bit of a disservice. It may be a Batman film, but this isn't a kid-friendly action movie full of the bams and pows of the original series. This is a pitch-black thriller with enough drama and tragedy to please even William Shakespeare, but it will certainly keep both comics fans and uninitiated audiences equally happy. THE DARK KNIGHT starts in the wake of BATMAN BEGINS: with the appearance of Batman (Christian Bale), Gotham City's criminal underworld is unnerved. They're also plagued by the new D.A., Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who, in his quest for justice, remains above the city's corruption. Enter a new villain, the Joker (Heath Ledger), who wants to unite the criminals for a common purpose: to kill Batman. THE DARK KNIGHT is one of the most hyped movies to date, and a lesser film would be crushed under the weight of all that expectation. Some of the publicity stems from the early death of Ledger, who turns in an excellent performance. He provides moments of humor, but this Joker is terrifying, sharing more with classic villains such as Hannibal Lechter than with his comic book predecessors. Eckhart is equally good as Dent, and Maggie Gyllenhaal deserves praise for taking over the role of Rachel Dawes from Katie Holmes. Though there's more emphasis on plot and character development than in most comic book adaptations, that doesn't mean Nolan has skimped on any of the action sequences. Each set piece is done perfectly, leaving the audience breathless. THE DARK KNIGHT is filmmaking at its best; its subject matter may be dark and depressing, but it's tough not to feel exhilarated by its artistry when the credits begin to roll

Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Eric Roberts, Anthony Michael Hall, Nestor Carbonell, Michael Jai White, William Fichtner
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenwriter: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan
Story: Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer
Producer: Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan
Composer: Hans Zimmer, James Newton Howard
Studio: Warner Bros.

Read More Movies

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Rated: PG for some scary moments and mild language
Runtime: 2 hrs 37 mins
Genre: Science-Fiction/Fantasy
Theatrical Release:Nov 16, 2001 Wide
Worldwide Box Office: $968,657,891
Reviews :
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has, at long last, finally arrived. Few other films in recent memory have been as eagerly anticipated, both by the millions of Potter fans desperate to see how the filmmakers' vision matches (or fails to) their own imaginings of Harry's fantasy world, as well as for those of us interested in whether the film could ever live up to its international hype. Harry Potter's most recent kin, in terms of widespread buzz (and storyline), was Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and the film is both as good and as bad as that Star Wars prequel. This is to say that even if the film may not be all that "great," for reasons I will get into below, its success is guaranteed and its cinematic shortcomings won't matter a whit to the die-hard Potter fans who have been chewing their nails off since the project was announced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who might have been living under a rock for the past few years, a bit of Potter history is in order. And for those of you all too familiar with Pottermania, a few of the craze's factoids might bear recalling. The film is based on Book One of J.K. Rowling's runaway young-adult fiction series. The Harry Potter books have outsold any other book or series in publishing history. Book Four, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, had the single largest initial printing in history. The books have been translated into 46 languages and published in over 200 countries worldwide. And, as reported on Katie Couric's special, "Harry Potter: Behind the Magic," an estimated two-thirds of the children in America have read at least one Potter book. Moreover, the film, which cost roughly $150 million, has already taken in more than that amount in franchising rights: Coca-Cola alone shelled out $100 million for the right to use Harry Potter images to shill its soda pop, Hi-C, and Minute Maid fruit drinks.

The fact that millions of children worldwide (and, admittedly, adults -- I for one have read all four books) are so taken in and fascinated by the travails of Harry at the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry has cultural commentators, politicians, and celebrities of all sorts across the United States (and presumably elsewhere in the world) officiously applauding the fact that the books have "gotten children interested in reading again."
Two things have annoyed me about this celebration of Pottermania's returning kids to reading. First, it privileges only one certain type of reading and one type of reading material. Apparently, "reading" only counts (and for what is never explained) when one is reading "literary" texts. Never mind that visual texts demand complex interpretations, analyses, and reading abilities. Nor that kids read all sorts of texts that make sense of the world around them and their place in it, like comic books, magazines, and cartoons. We only ever look to these largely visual media and declare that they are limiting children's imaginations and stultifying their minds.
The second problem is that this return to reading presumes that before reading the Potter books, children were stupid. Or rather, "we" have presumed children were stupid because they wouldn't or couldn't read "properly." Still, we fear that our children's newfound interest is imminently fragile. Katie Couric expressed collective adult misgivings about the film when she asked director Chris Columbus, in effect, "Why did you make this movie? We just got kids reading again and you come along to ruin it all."
This slavish dedication to literature as the only "true" site of reading, and to the text and only the text as the locus of creativity and imagination has been largely detrimental for the film version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Rowling has retained an amazing amount of control over the franchise and exerted great influence over the film's production. She rejected several directors, including Steven Spielberg, for fear that they would take too many liberties with the story. She refused to allow American child actors (like Haley Joel Osment) to be cast, favoring instead "real" British kids.
Neither of these is necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is surely better without either Spielberg or Osment. What is unfortunate is that this attempt to stay so close to the original book leaves the film feeling as if it is desperately trying to get in all the requisite moments, characters, and scenes, even if some could have been easily, and beneficially, left out.
One of the nice things about Rowling's books is that they are rather sprawling affairs. Not a one is under 300 pages, Book Four stretching beyond 700. This gives Rowling plenty of time to craft relatively complex stories, to develop characters who will help Harry and his pals solve their various mysteries, and to take little sidetracks into things like the history of her magical school, interracial relations (in this case, the racial politics of Wizard-House Elf relations), and the strategies of Quidditch. This doesn't translate well to the temporal limits of major release films, especially those made for children. To do the justice to the text that Rowling seems to have demanded would take far longer than a mere two and half hours.
And so, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone moves along rather herkily-jerkily, bouncing from one special effect to another, from one character or scene to another, with seemingly little connection between them. This is most obvious with the character Nearly Headless Nick (John Cleese), a ghost who haunts the Hogwarts school. In the books, he is a returning character, and over the course of the series, we come to know a great deal about his life and death, and his place in ghostly hierarchies. In the film, we see him for about twenty seconds: Nick has nothing to do here, other than occasion Cleese's cameo. The film is filled with such clutter, and unless you have read the book, it probably won't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to you. Then again, the filmmakers are banking on the fact that so very many people have read the books, so that the confusion of those Luddites who haven't read them matters very little.
The other problem with trying to shove so many details from the book into the film is that some aspects are left woefully underdeveloped. This is most disappointing in the character of Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), one of Harry's classmates. In the books, Hermione suffers because she is smarter than everyone else is. She's unpopular and just a little bit physically awkward, not the most positive characteristics for a pre-pubescent girl. Granted, she sometimes flaunts her knowledge, but it is her resourcefulness and intellect that invariably save the day, and Harry and Ron's butts, to boot. In the film, however, she is reduced to an insufferable know-it-all. It's unfortunate, because for me, Hermione is by far the most enjoyable part of the books, and even more so as the series progresses and Hermione, Ron and Harry start to do things like go to school dances and develop crushes. She's brainy, independent, and she saves the day. Go on girls, don't be afraid to outsmart the boys! That's one of the best "lessons" in Rowling's books. And I have to wonder how jettisoning this is in any way "staying true" to the original story?

Synopsis:
As Harry Potter’s (DANIEL RADCLIFFE) 11th birthday draws near, he anticipates little in the way of excitement or presents from the Dursleys, Harry’s unpleasant relatives who took him in following... As Harry Potter’s (DANIEL RADCLIFFE) 11th birthday draws near, he anticipates little in the way of excitement or presents from the Dursleys, Harry’s unpleasant relatives who took him in following his parents’ deaths and forced him to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs.

But this year, Harry’s birthday will be different.

A mysterious letter addressed to Harry arrives, written in peculiar green ink and accompanied by an owl. Harry is surprised and excited by the curious dispatch, but his horrified Uncle Vernon (RICHARD GRIFFITHS) destroys the letter before Harry has a chance to read it.

The next day, another letter and owl arrive, only to be squelched by the Dursleys. As each day follows the next, letters and owls continue turning up on Harry’s doorstep until the Dursleys, fearing they can no longer suppress the contents of the peculiar correspondence, flee with Harry in tow to a remote hut where they’re confident they cannot be found.

Their plan appears to be working when suddenly a LOUD CRASH carries the hut door off its hinges, revealing the awesome bulk of an enormous giant called Hagrid (ROBBIE COLTRANE). Furious with the Dursleys for destroying the letters and trying to conceal their nephew’s real identity, Hagrid reveals the secret that will change Harry’s life: he, Harry Potter, is a wizard!

Much to Harry’s disbelief, it transpires that the puzzlingly persistent letters are invitations for him, on the occasion of his 11th birthday, to leave the regular world and join his similarly-talented peers at the legendary Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Hagrid goes on to explain that Harry’s parents did not die in a car crash as his insecure relatives have repeatedly told him – they were in fact murdered by an evil wizard who in turn etched the distinctive lightning scar on Harry’s forehead!

Harry is completely overwhelmed by the revelations about his parents and the invitation to Hogwarts. However, faced with another night in the cupboard under the stairs and a life of hand-me-downs, he doesn’t hesitate in accompanying Hagrid to London’s Kings Cross Station, where he discovers the secret Platform 9 3/4 and catches the Hogwarts Express.

Aboard the train packed with wide-eyed first year students, Harry befriends fellow wizards-in-training Hermione Granger (EMMA WATSON) and Ron Weasley (RUPERT GRINT). Together with his new friends, Harry embarks on the adventure of a lifetime at Hogwarts, a wondrous place beyond Harry’s wildest imagination where he discovers his extraordinary talents and finds the home and the family he never had. -- © 2001 Warner Bros.

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, John Cleese, Julie Walters, Maggie Smith, John Hurt, Tom Felton, Warwick Davis, Zoë Wanamaker
Director: Chris Columbus
Screenwriter: Steve Kloves
Producer: David Heyman
Composer: John Williams
Studio: Warner Bros.

Read More Movies

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of action/adventure violence and some frightening images
Runtime: 2 hrs 49 mins
Genre: Action/Adventure
Theatrical Release:May 25, 2007 Wide
Worldwide Box Office: $958,404,152
Reviews :
This final installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise left me more disappointed than a beer vendor at a Baptist convention. Even if you liked the first two Pirates of the Caribbean movies, this one will still probably let you down.
Johnny Depp reprises his role as Captain Jack Sparrow and fills the screen once again with his performance. The problem is that even a wildly popular character cannot mask a thin script. Numerous loose ends from their previous film Dead Man’s Chest proves too much to for screenwriters Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot to overcome. To force a resolution to their sprawling narrative, the writers introduce new characters, conflicts and rules that are simply inorganic when held against the previous films. By the end of this outing it is clear that it is a good thing the franchise is going away.
This film is proof that it is possible to have too many spokes in your narrative wheel. It’s a bad thing when your audience needs a scorecard to keep track of all of the competing plots and characters.
Go back and watch the original Pirates of the Caribbean and ignore this fumbling mess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the world of this film there is also no God. There are plenty of curses and odd afterlife notions but God is not present. Instead of being rescued from the price of their sins by the blood of Christ, this film shows that their pals can save people – if their pals really try hard. I always find it interesting that filmmakers are likely to casually mention sin, curses and the devil but can’t quite muster the logic to speak of Christ standing against these things.
Production Notes: The main reason this film is so scattered is that doesn’t have much to do with the first film. As mentioned in my review of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, the three films form a three-act structure. The first film is the opening act and this film is the final act. Literally, this film not being deeply connected to the first (by narrative) is no different than telling the story of Snow White and ending the tale with the resolution from Cinderella. It’s confusing and unrelated.
The characters are the same throughout the films but the story is too transitory to maintain any sense.
Cautions: This film contains cartoon violence, but it is dark. The violence isn’t gory but the nonchalant attitude towards killing may be disturbing. There is a brief moment of sensuality between two characters involving the male lead passionately kissing at the leg of the female lead.
As with the previous films, the biggest concern with this work is the godless worldview which allows for the casual violence and whatnot. The afterlife is considered to be a pliable plane of existence that can be manipulated and molded by human endeavor. Since this is the case one’s morality in this world isn’t of concern. You can always have your punishment absolved if you’re well connected and people will come to your aid.

Synopsis:
After the action of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST, anti-hero Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is trapped in the netherworld of Davy Jones's locker. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has returned from... After the action of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST, anti-hero Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is trapped in the netherworld of Davy Jones's locker. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has returned from the dead to aid Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) in their quest to rescue the beloved captain. They journey to Singapore to ask for help from notorious pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), and with this new alliance, they travel to the edge of the earth to find Jack. Then they will join forces with the world's most powerful pirates to unite against Lord Brackett (Tom Hollander) and the East India Company. AT WORLD'S END is an exercise in excess, boasting a running time of nearly three hours and a labyrinthine map of double- and triple-crosses. Characters return from the dead and change allegiances with ease, thanks to the magic of Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and the pirate code of ethics--or lack thereof. Though the third film in the series is filled with action and special effects befitting any blockbuster, it's the performances that make the movie memorable. Depp has earned an Oscar nod for his role as Jack, but he's not the only one who shines. With Jack locked away, the film sits on the strong shoulders of Rush, as well as Stellan Skarsgard as Bootstrap Bill and the brilliant British actor Bill Nighy as Davy Jones. Despite having to act behind a mess of CGI tentacles, Nighy nearly steals the show, as in the previous films UNDERWORLD and LOVE ACTUALLY. This is literally and figuratively the darkest entry in director Gore Verbinski's trilogy, as the film trades the sunny skies of the Caribbean for the world's most treacherous seas. There's plenty of rum-soaked humor, but it's balanced by betrayal and sacrifice.

Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Geoffrey Rush, Bill Nighy, Chow Yun-Fat, Tom Hollander, Stellan Skarsgaard, Kevin McNally, Jack Davenport, Naomie Harris, Mackenzie Crook, Peter Badalamenti
Director: Gore Verbinski
Screenwriter: Terry Rossio, Ted Elliott
Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Studio: Buena Vista Pictures

Read More Movies

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.
Runtime: 2 hrs 19 mins
Genre: Science-Fiction/Fantasy
Theatrical Release:Jul 11, 2007 Wide
Box Office: $937,000,866
Reviews :
“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” the fifth movie in the series, begins, as most of the others have, with a spot of unpleasantness at the Dursleys, and ends with Harry facing down Lord Voldemort. The climactic battle between the young wizard (Daniel Radcliffe) and the Dark Lord (Ralph Fiennes) foreshadows the final, potentially fatal showdown we all suspect is coming in Book Seven, which will be published later this month.
Anticipation of that event may be stealing some thunder from this movie — a rare instance of the book business beating Hollywood at its own hype-producing game — but between now and publication day on July 21, Potter fans can take some satisfaction in a sleek, swift and exciting adaptation of J. K. Rowling’s longest novel to date. Devotees of fine British acting, meanwhile, can savor the addition of Imelda Staunton (an Oscar nominee for “Vera Drake”) to the roster of first-rate thespians moonlighting as Hogwarts faculty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiously enough, “Order of the Phoenix,” clocking in at a little over two and a quarter hours, is the shortest of the “Harry Potter” films. The nearly 900-page source has been elegantly streamlined by Michael Goldenberg, the screenwriter (who replaces Steve Kloves), and David Yates, the director (who follows Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuarón and Mike Newell in the job). There is no Quidditch, and not many boarding-school diversions. Instead, “Order of the Phoenix,” which begins like a horror movie with a Dementor attack in a suburban underpass, proceeds as a tense and twisty political thriller, with clandestine meetings, bureaucratic skullduggery and intimations of conspiracy hanging in the air.

Mr. Yates, whose previous work has mainly been in television, is best known in Britain for “State of Play,” a brilliant mini- series about power, corruption and deceit. Those are among the themes he explores in this film, which depicts a wizard world riven by factionalism and threatened by chaos and inflexible authoritarianism. While Cornelius Fudge, the minister of magic (Robert Hardy), maintains his highly suspect denial of Voldemort’s return, a coup at Hogwarts threatens the benevolent administration of Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Harry, meanwhile, has gone from prince to pariah, smeared in the magical press (where his name is rendered “Harry Plotter”) and subject to cold stares and whispers at school. Back in Harry’s early days at Hogwarts, Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), Harry’s foil and reluctant ally, sneered at the boy’s “celebrity.” But in this episode, the boy — if you can still call him that — encounters the darker side of fame.

Some of his schoolmates doubt his account of the death of Cedric Diggory, who was killed by Voldemort at the end of the previous film, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.” Dumbledore, Harry’s chief patron and protector over the years, seems to be keeping his distance, which leaves Harry feeling abandoned and betrayed. And more acutely, the pressures of being a designated hero — and possibly martyr — have begun to weigh on Harry, to isolate him from friends and to come between him and the possibility of a normal teenage life.

He does, at least, experience a first kiss with Cho Chang (Katie Leung), but that turns out to be a brief and equivocal moment of bliss. Whereas “Goblet of Fire” plunged Harry and his pals into the murky waters of awakening adolescent sexuality (or at least got their toes wet), “Order of the Phoenix” tackles the emotional storms that can buffet young people on their way to adulthood. Mr. Radcliffe, maturing as an actor in perfect time with his character, emphasizes Harry’s anger and self-pity. Mr. Yates frequently places him alone on one side of the frame, with Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson), his loyal but increasingly estranged friends, together on the other.

But this is not an Ingmar Bergman film, though perhaps Mr. Bergman can be coaxed into service for the film version of “Deathly Hallows,” the final book of the series. “Order of the Phoenix” has its grim, bleak elements, but it is also, after all, an installment in a mighty multimedia entertainment franchise. And like its predecessors, it manages to succeed as a piece of entertainment without quite fulfilling its potential as a movie. Perhaps by design, the films never quite live up to the books. This one proves to be absorbing but not transporting, a collection of interesting moments rather than a fully integrated dramatic experience. This may just be a consequence of the necessary open-endedness of the narrative, or of an understandable desire not to alienate “Potter” readers by taking too many cinematic chances.

Although “Order of the Phoenix” is not a great movie, it is a pretty good one, in part because it does not strain to overwhelm the audience with noise and sensation. There are some wonderful special-effects-aided set pieces — notably an early broomstick flight over London — and some that are less so. People waving wands at one another, even accompanied by bright lights and scary sounds, does not quite sate this moviegoer’s appetite for action. But the production design (by Stuart Craig) and the cinematography (by Slawomir Idziak) are frequently astonishing in their aptness and sophistication. The interiors of the Ministry of Magic offer a witty, nightmarish vision of wizardly bureaucracy, while Harry’s angst and loneliness register in Mr. Idziak’s cold, washed-out shades of blue.

The scariest color in his palette, however, turns out to be pink. That is the color favored by Dolores Umbridge (Ms. Staunton), whose cheery English-auntie demeanor masks a ruthlessly autocratic temperament. She posts proclamations on the Hogwarts walls, subjects violators to painful punishments and substitutes book learning for practical magic. Her purpose is to institute Minister Fudge’s head-in-the-sand policy with respect to the Voldemort threat, and she does a heck of a job.

Ms. Staunton joins an astonishing ensemble of serious actors who, in the best British tradition, refuse to condescend to the material, earning their paychecks and the gratitude of the grown-ups in the audience. Mr. Rickman has turned Snape (whose animus against Harry is partly explained here) into one of the most intriguingly ambiguous characters in modern movies, and it is always a treat to see the likes of Emma Thompson, David Thewlis and Gary Oldman, however briefly.

Even better, the Potter enterprise has become a breeding ground for the next generation of British acting talent. Mr. Radcliffe has already spread his wings (and dropped his pants) on the London stage, and cultural pessimists of my generation can take comfort in knowing that while our parents may have witnessed Malcolm McDowell and Julie Christie in their prime, our children will see Mr. Grint and Ms. Watson in theirs. “Order of the Phoenix” also introduces Evanna Lynch, a pale, wide-eyed 15-year-old nonprofessional from Ireland who, having read the book, decided that no one else could play Luna Lovegood, the weirdest witch at Hogwarts. It seems Ms. Lynch was right. She’s spellbinding.

“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Its violence is intense, though not graphic, and some of its images are quite scary.

Synopsis:
In the silver-screen adaptation of J.K. Rowling's HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, the fifth chapter in the beloved book series, everyone's favorite wizard-in-training (Daniel Radcliffe)... In the silver-screen adaptation of J.K. Rowling's HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, the fifth chapter in the beloved book series, everyone's favorite wizard-in-training (Daniel Radcliffe) finds himself in increasingly perilous situations. Not only is Harry in trouble with the Ministry of Magic for using his abilities outside of school, his trusted mentor, Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), has grown distant, and an icy new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), has arrived to bring a frightening level of discipline to Hogwarts. And waiting in the shadows is the demonic Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), an ominous figure whose very existence is questioned by the powerful Ministry, leaving Harry and his friends--most notably Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson)--to form a rebel group, Dumbledore's Army. Helmed by little-known British director David Yates and written by Michael Goldenberg (the first scribe to fill the boots of Steve Kloves), THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX continues the darker tone of the two preceding POTTER installments and deftly follows Harry, Ron, and Hermione as they face new foes and impending adulthood. While Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson all continue to imbue their characters with vitality and complexity, Staunton steals the show as the strict, merciless Umbridge, though the story, which lacks some of the special-effects-heavy set pieces of past chapters, happily leaves room for other actors to shine, most notably Alan Rickman (as the ever-enigmatic Severus Snape), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), and Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange). Another fine offering of POTTER movie magic, PHOENIX may not astound quite the way that THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN did, but it easily stands as one of the best films in the series. [Less]

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Richard Griffiths, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Imelda Staunton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Robert Pattinson
Director: David Yates
Screenwriter: Michael Goldenberg
Producer: David Barron, David Heyman
Composer: Nicholas Hooper
Studio: Warner Bros.

Read More Movies

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Rated: PG for sci-fi action/violence.
Runtime: 2 hrs 16 mins
Genre: Science-Fiction/Fantasy
Theatrical Release:May 19, 1999
Worldwide Box office : $922,379,000
Review :
"Star Wars" fans across the nation have been waiting sixteen years for the promised prequels to the most popular series in motion picture history. The original trilogy somehow captured viewers' imaginations like no other movie possibly could, taking them on a wild ride through never-before-seen places and meeting unforgettable characters and creatures. The most die-hard fanatics have been sitting outside the Mann's Chinese Theater in L.A. for over a month, simply to be the first in line to see director-creator George Lucas' latest opus. On Wednesday, May 12, advance tickets went on sale at 3:00 p.m., and I was instantly in amazement, arriving at the theater almost two hours before the tickets were to be sold, to see a line going all the way around the building. Many people were said to have camped out overnight (and this is in the small town of Frederick, MD!), and the two guys next to me in line both said that they had called off work on that day. Ultimately, I waited three hours to get tickets to the 7:30 nighttime showing on "May 19," a date that will probably be forever ingrained in some peoples' minds. Expectations were so high for the film, with many nearly treating the impending release as "The Second Coming." On the other hand, I have never been that big of a fan of "Star Wars." I like them, and in the case of 1980's "The Empire Strikes Back," I nearly loved it, but I am far from a crazed devotee. I couldn't, however, pass up going to see this "Event" on the day it opened.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The film in question is, obviously, "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace," set many years before the goings-on in the original trilogy, Episodes IV, V, and VI. Going in, I chose to not have any sort of expectations (although they admittedly were kind of low), but to simply hope the film would do its job in amazing and exciting me. Early critical reviews have not been very kind, but there have been a slew of overwhelmingly positive ones, including Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin (of "The New York Times"). And so, without any certain presumptions, the final word on "The Phantom Menace" is that it is perhaps the most visually astounding motion picture I have ever seen, far more stimulating than the previous "Star Wars" movies, due to such extravagant technological visual effects advancements since the late-'70s/early-'80s. Unfortunately, those movies by-and-large had one vital element that this movie is sorely lacking, and that is any sort of character involvement. While Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia were likable characters with distinct personalities, "The Phantom Menace" holds no such close scrutiny. But then again, that leads to another predicament, which is that this film is only the first in a planned prequel trilogy, meaning that many of the characters will, no doubt, be further explored and development in the later installments, currently due out in theaters in 2002 and 2005. Problems abound in "The Phantom Menace," many more than there needed to be, but George Lucas truthfully had an overwhelming amount of elements to handle here, as he had to do the most difficult thing so far in the series, and that is to start it with the first vital chapter in the "Star Wars" legacy. You would be out of your league to say Lucas succeeded on every level, but he did do a respectable job, and treated me to extraordinary images that are worth the price of admission alone.

"Episode I" begins as The Trade Federation are preparing an attack on the planet of Naboo, headed by the 14-year-old Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), whose life is in jeopardy. After a narrow escape from the Federation, who turn out to be more twisted and corrupt than expected, two Jedi Knights, the no-nonsense, scruffy Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), and his apprentice, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), set off for Naboo to rescue the Queen and take her to Tatooine, a planet of safety. When their spacecraft breaks down, they venture out into a small desert town where they come into contact with two slaves, Shmi Skywalker (Pernilla August) and her 9-year-old son, Anakin (Jack Lloyd). Sensing the Force is with Anakin, and that he is destined to become a powerful Jedi, he hesitantly leaves behind his mother to join Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, promising to return and set her free one day from a slave life.

Since "The Phantom Menace" has the tiresome task of setting up everything to come later on, the villains come off more as an afterthought. The main one, I suppose, is Darth Maul (Ray Park), a fiendish sith with red-and-black face makeup, but he is literally given about four scenes and three lines of dialogue. How are we supposed to feel negatively towards Maul when we don't really even know who he is, and we never actually see him do any bad things, save for the inevitable climactic lightsaber battle between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and himself? Villains probably aren't the point in this installment, though, and since they are so uninvolving and slight, it doesn't come off as a major problem.

Sure, this movie is basically an arrangement for everything to come, but that still isn't an excuse for what does come off as a problem, and that is the performances, which are as lifeless as a piece of chopped-up wood. Neeson and McGregor are the centerpiece of the film, but we learn almost nothing about them, and they recite their lines without any feeling, as if their hearts weren't really into it. Maybe it is not the actors' faults, since they are so thinly written. At any rate, I'm sure McGregor felt especially out of place since he is a real actor, and probably not used to being what is essentially a background prop who stands there like a good boy and rarely says anything. Jake Lloyd, as young Anakin Skywalker, later to become Darth Vader, is an unctuous child actor if I ever saw one, with almost nary a line of dialogue that he is able to pull off. Surely, Lucas could have found a stronger, more assured actor to fit the bill of what is the most vital character in the film, as Lloyd is annoying and seemingly always aware that he is "in" a movie. Out of the four central roles, Natalie Portman easily fares best, but did you expect anything less of her? At 17-years-old, she is already a near-veteran, popping onto the scene in 1994 with her heartbreaking performance in "The Professional," and carrying it over to what was a performance snubbed of an Oscar nomination, in 1996's "Beautiful Girls." Portman knows how to make a scene work, even when the material isn't up to her level, and it will be intriguing to follow her character's development in Episodes II and III. Pernilla August, a Swedish actress in her first American film, is touching as Anakin's solemn, caring mother, and in each of her scenes she gives Neeson and Lloyd a run for their acting money. Also making brief appearances are Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz) and Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), who sense an underlying uneasiness within Anakin, as well as friendly androids, R2-D2 (voiced by Kenny Baker) and an unfinished C-3P0 (voiced by Anthony Daniels). Brought to life as "Star Wars"'s first-ever major character that is completely computer-generated is the amphibious Jar Jar Binks (voiced by Ahmed Best) who, judging from his thick accent, must have been born and raised in the outskirts of Jamaica. Much talk has been raised about how Jar Jar is an annoying, kid-friendly addition to the film, and although he is probably more targeted for the children in the audience, I actually did like him, and his goofy, lovable nature. He is integrated seamlessly into each frame, never really looking like a special effect, and gives a better performance overall than any of the humans do.

If the characters are lacking depth and three dimensions, no one can accuse "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" of not being original and often awe-inspiring. The landscapes and marvelous city vistas are never anything less than powerful, majestic, and sumptuous, picture-perfect images that I could stare at for hours on end. Words really can't describe the visual experience of "The Phantom Menace," but every frame in the 131-minute movie is gorgeous to look at. Some images I will never forget include: the atmospheric, dreamy overhead views of the city skyscrapers in the planet, Coruscant; the endless green fields in Naboo where a climactic war is held; the Queen's kingdom, which is surrounded by curved, bubble-like buildings, as well as a crystal-clear waterfall leading into a river; and an underwater city in Naboo, populated by fish, giant water creatures, and Jar Jar Binks' own race of giant, floopy-eared pseudo-hares. "The Phantom Menace" is such an optical triumph that, like "Terminator 2"'s liquid-metal and "Jurassic Park"'s dinosaurs, stands as a new turning point in visual effects artistry, this time proving that every frame can look completely believable, as if no effects were even actually used. If I didn't know better, I'd say that Naboo, Tatooine, and the underwater city were actual places that exist.

"The Phantom Menace," although more dialogue-oriented than action-inclined, as in 1977's "Star Wars," nonetheless includes some startling setpieces, including an exciting, superbly-crafted pod race that Anakin enters in with a pod he has made himself. Soaring through rock passageways and down cliffs, this sequence is the first true sign that we are back in "Star Wars" territory, and it is further carried out in the climax, which intercuts between three separate action storylines, including a war in the fields of Naboo between an army of robots from the Confederation and the amphibious Naboo residents; a fight to the death between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Obi-Wan Kenobi; and the weak link, due to the corny, throwaway one-liners and weak acting by Lloyd, a space battle between Anakin and enemy troops.

Flawed as it is, "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" captured my imagination and I enjoyed it. With a more tightly-written screenplay and characters, George Lucas would have really had something, but just as with "Episode IV," you have to look at the movie as a jumping-off point for the two later films, which most likely will be better on the story and, hopefully, on the performance levels. Going into "The Phantom Menace," I wasn't actually a "Star Wars" fan, but coming out I wanted more; I wanted to see what was going to happen next. "Episode II" may be three years away, but I'm already highly anticipating it, and the imperfections of "Episode I" have only sparked my interest even more since, like "The Empire Strikes Back," it is sure to be superior.

Synopsis:
The first of three prequels to George Lucas's celebrated STAR WARS films, EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE is set some 30 years before the original STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE in the era of the... The first of three prequels to George Lucas's celebrated STAR WARS films, EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE is set some 30 years before the original STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE in the era of the Republic. Naboo, a peaceful planet governed by the young but wise Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), is being threatened by the corrupt Trade Federation, puppets of an evil Sith lord and his terrifying apprentice, Darth Maul (Ray Park). Jedi knights Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor, performing an amazing vocal imitation of Alec Guinness, the older Obi-Wan) are called on to intervene in the trade disputes. Along the way, they acquire an apprentice of their own in the form of young prodigy Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), or as STAR WARS fans know him, the future Darth Vader. They also encounter Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best), a goofy, lizardlike creature who has been banished from his underwater world for clumsiness. When the Trade Federation launches an attack on Naboo, the queen and her allies must battle hordes of robot troopers while Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan face off against the sinister Darth Maul. One of the most anticipated films of all time, THE PHANTOM MENACE sets the stage for the tumultuous events to come. Lucas fills the screen with detailed sci-fi creatures and locations, revealing the most creative and exquisite sets, costumes, and character designs to hit the screen since the original trilogy. [Less]

Starring: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Jake Lloyd, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Oliver Ford Davies, Terence Stamp, Pernilla August, Frank Oz, Ahmed Best, Adrian Dunbar, Hugh Quarshie, Kenny Baker, Warwick Davis, Brian Blessed, Ray Park, Ralph Brown, Anthony Daniels, Silas Carson, Keira Knightley
Director: George Lucas
Screenwriter: George Lucas
Producer: Rick McCallum
Composer: John Williams
Studio: 20th Century Fox

Read More Movies

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Rated: PG-13 for epic battle sequences and scary images
Runtime: 3 hrs 34 mins
Genre: Science-Fiction/Fantasy
Theatrical Release:Dec 18, 2002 Wide
Worldwide Box Office: $921,600,000
Reviews :
The start of the film was a bit of a surprise for a press screening: there was no pre-amble (unless you count dimming the lights as a preamble), no introduction from anyone, not even the usual film censor warning - we were straight into a very familiar New Line logo followed by black background title with Howard Shore's ominous music starting up behind it. The real opening shot for the movie was possibly the most jaw-dropping sequence in the whole movie. One of those "This is good. Oh! My! God! It's getting better. Oh Lord! It's getting even better. Sheeeee-it!!" shots! For those that don't know, there is no recap other than that of Gandalf's fall, told in an inspired and inventive way which allows the movie to dive straight into showing what happens during Gandalf's fall at Moria. I would never have believed this fight with the Balrog could be filmed. It was. And it works (well, it works as long as you're not one of those interminable 'Do Balrogs have wings?' debaters!)! The atmosphere was electric and I was obviously not the only one completely spellbound by this jaw-dropping introduction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now before going any further I should first explain where I am coming from in attempting to give my review of this movie: I am not a Tolkien Society purist - Yes, I left my first viewing of "Fellowship Of The Ring" disappointed with many of the changes, but not all of them because many made sense in a film. A page-by-page film copy would make a very dull movie and the source material is difficult. Nor am I one of those rose-tinted "Peter Jackson can do no wrong and anyone who drops even a hint of criticism is a fool and has no brains" fans that I recall encountering this time last year all over the official Decipher fan club boards. I like to think I lie somewhere in between the two extremes - a big fan (eventually!) but also one aware of where things could have been better and knowing that the first movie was somewhat flawed by some of the more crass changes that must have Tolkien turning in his grave. So that's my going-in point as a reviewer! I should also add that the hypocrisy of the "must get in on the latest fad" reviews of this second movie in the British press today astounds me.

The critics are unanimous: this is a million times better than the first film in the trilogy (you'd think the first film was an unmitigated disaster, reading some of these guys!) - everyone wants a piece of the record-breaking action it seems, and to claim they helped make it so! The gross hypocrisy of people like Alexander Walker who slated the Fellowship movie last year at a time when the whole franchise could have been jeapordised, is frankly astounding. Last year's 'technically good but oh-so-dull' movie this year spawns pathetic brown-nosing guff like 'It has a grandeur that it's not hyperbole to call Miltonic', references to 'Tennysonian images of eerie beauty' and ' the greatested battlepiece composen for the screen since Eisenstein'. Pretentious? Moi?!

Personally, I trust TORn reviewers more than a press who thinks Tolkien wrote some funny book about fairy stories or something! Many of TORn's volunteer reviewers from the New York screening have not been happy about changes from the books in this second movie. Most often touted is the change to Faramir. Next the crassness of Gimli's comedy lines, with the same unfunny "toss" reference from the first movie allegedly being repeated ad nauseum in this second movie. And the concensus seems to be that the ents don't quite work. These were not the biggest problems for me after my first viewing - which left me, to be blunt, disappointed, and wondering how on earth so many people could be saying it's a "better" movie than the first (don't worry, stick with me because I revised some opinions after my second viewing later that day, but will the general public get a chance to do that too?!). A couple of things stood out though and I really haven't revised these much even after a second viewing (which, thankfully, DID have me leaving the cinema thinking 'Heck, it's a good movie'). Firstly, despite some marvellous setpieces (most already featured in the trailers) the film is confusing to anybody who doesn't know the books. My overall impression was "Man, they really ran out of time in trying to edit this stuff together properly or doing reshoot work". On the one hand we have Edoras - which looks like some kind of "Kingdom" that has about 20 citizens and some scenes that frankly look like they had the filming budget of a half-price Xena TV episode. On the other we suddenly have thousands of warriors at Helms Deep with an obvious budget and attention to detail that is awe-inspiring. What is going on? Secondly, whoever decided to have John Rhys-Davies do Gimli AND Treebeard has made a huge mistake of unbelievably amateur proportions. John keeps slipping between a Scottish accent and a Welsh one - it annoyed me about his Gimli in film one but I got used to it. It now annoys me about Gimli AND Treebeard in film two! It's obvious that Treebeard and Gimli are the same person (or, rather, the same voice) - how confusing is that on a big-budget movie? Don't get me wrong - John makes a great Treebeard overall, and a great Gimli overall, but NOT both together. This is madness!

OK, moving quickly on, here are some sound-bite quick comments to other reviews or concerns people have raised with me via email. Is Faramir different? Yes, but he had to be to work in the film. Is his sudden change of heart towards the end out of character and inexplicable? No. It's quite clear. He is not totally committed to the view he initially takes, overhears a moving speech from Sam to Frodo (one so obviously manufactured that I half-expected the words 'written in light of September 11th' to be flashing in large neon above Sam's head while it was delivered) and makes an immediate decision based on that. Faramir did not upset me. Nor did the Gimli humour. There is one "Toss me" line - Do the makers really not realise the extremely crass double-entendre of that expression?, I wonder. The Toss me line, like several others, screams out "Tolkien didn't write me" in a way that nothing in the BBC radio series ever did - it's crass writing, pure and simple, which I guess can be explained away as a cheap laugh for the modern dumbed-down audience but makes me wonder why they didn't go the whole way and have Legolas calling everyone 'Dude' and describing Rivendell as 'Cool'. All that being said,the second movie is no worse than the first in this respect and despite what old farts like me think "Let them eat man flesh" and "Let's hunt orc" appear to still be two of the most quoted movie lines, so what do I know anyway?! I digress. Back to the initial critiques and my comments on them.... Are the ents crap? No, they're not. They're a bit too Harry Potter/Disney-esque compared with everything else in the movie but by the time we get to the destruction of Isengard (a scene I would have sworn was unfilmable) they're working very nicely. There's one rather long, bad blue-screen shot of Treebeard walking with Merry and Pippin in his branches (which sticks out like a sore thumb because there are other shots of the same thing that look perfect) but heck, if this was the price of getting such a brilliant CGI Gollum I guess I can live with that.

With the questions/other people's critiques out the way, let me summarise the highlights. First the things I didn't like (I want to end on a positive note so bad news first!): afore-mentioned 'pretend there are thousands of people when it's blatently obvious there are less than 20' scenes; the score (sorry Howard, but too much of this sounded like a direct lift of the Fellowship score with nowhere near enough new material - no oscar this year!); waste of Karl Urban and Craig Parker's acting abilities (they don't really get a chance to shine in this movie); un-scary wraith on winged steed vs Frodo scene (oh look a single puny arrow to a massive thick neck scares mammoth beast away in agony - puhlease!); complete lack of direction for Christopher Lee in the 'Ents attack Orthanc' scene (how long is one man expected to just look bewildered and keep pacing back and forth? Give him something to do given the way he's been built up as a mean villain!); Aragorn/Arwen love scene (has this been edited from the end of the much-rumoured 'show them having sex' scene? - It sure looks like it); Aragorn's "resurrection by horse" scene; the impressive but too long Helm's Deep scene; and undoing all the good that's been done on making Frodo darker with a final cutesy Sam and Frodo joking 'back to old Frodo self' scene at the end of the movie.

And the good stuff, the stuff I did like?: every scene with Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill, Miranda Otto or Brad Dourif in it; expansion of Gimli, Merry and Pippin characters - at last some character depth!; Sam getting some more material to deliver (and conveying his real relationship with Frodo); Gollum and Smeagol and both of them together - it's a toss up (oh damn! that word again) as to whether Gimli or Gollum get the best comedy lines; Frodo and Sam hiding at the Black Gate; the storming of Orthanc by the Ents; Faramir (well acted); wargs ("large Rottweilers on speed" they make the threat of the nazgul look like a cuddly toy); oliphaunts; Gandalf vs the Balrog in valley and on mountain; New Zealand scenery (even more breath-taking than the first movie - oh my!); Elrond and the original book's Appendix material on Aragorn and Arwen; innovative ways of dealing with 'Is it Saruman or is it Gandalf?' descriptions in book (loved the Theoden being cured by Gandalf scene too) and the Dead Marshes.

So, overall? If you didn't like the first movie, you'll not like this. If you came to love the first movie do yourself a favour - book TWO viewings of this movie so that you can get to see it as I suspect the director wanted you to see it and saw it as he was putting it together (on your second viewing). I suspect my third viewing at some future date will be the one where I decide I love the second movie the way I came to really love the first after initial disappointment.

I left this press screening, not disappointed, but more worried about what the 'regular cinema goer' (as opposed to fan club member) would make of it. I don't think the over-hyping of the movie in the press helps anyone - it can only raise expectations to an unreasonable level. A friend (Hi Sindarleaf!) waiting for the celebrity premiere stopped me and asked what I thought and I had to hesitate before giving a reply which should really have been 'I need to see it again before I comment'.

Synopsis:
Picking up where the first film left off, Peter Jackson's THE TWO TOWERS throws the remaining members of the Fellowship into the scattered chaos of Middle-earth, now fully under siege by the forces... Picking up where the first film left off, Peter Jackson's THE TWO TOWERS throws the remaining members of the Fellowship into the scattered chaos of Middle-earth, now fully under siege by the forces of Sauron. While Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) journey to the dreaded Mordor, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) are held captive by orcs, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) search for their abducted companions. Soon Frodo and Sam are joined by the sulking and duplicitous Gollum (portrayed by the voice and motion-captured acting of Andy Serkis), who becomes their guide through the barren lands leading to Mount Doom. Meanwhile Merry and Pippin encounter the looming Treebeard (voiced by Rhys-Davies) and Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli find themselves in the land of Rohan, accompanied by an old friend. As the tale continues, each scenario becomes more perilous, and fierce battles erupt at both Isengard, home of the treacherous Saruman (Christopher Lee), and the massive Helm's Deep. After masterfully setting up the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, Jackson continues the trilogy with the increasingly dark and battle-filled TWO TOWERS without skipping a beat. Although the director takes a few more liberties in adapting the second installment, he skillfully cuts from one scenario to the next, creating a tightly woven tapestry with the various storylines. Joining the impressive cast this time around are Miranda Otto as Éowyn; Bernard Hill as her father, King Théoden; Brad Dourif as the aptly named Grima Wormtongue; Karl Urban as Éomer; David Wenham as Faramir; and Serkis under the remarkable CGI facade of Gollum. An intense epic that features one jaw-dropping sequence after another, THE TWO TOWERS more than carries its weight as the crucial centerpiece of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Andy Serkis, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, John Rhys-Davies, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, Miranda Otto, Bernard Hill, Liv Tyler, Brad Dourif, Karl Urban, Hugo Weaving, David Wenham, Cate Blanchett
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriter: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Producer: Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Tim Sanders
Composer: Howard Shore
Studio: New Line Cinema

Read More Movies

Sponsored Links

Best Comedies 2009

Box Office Cartoon movies

Monday, April 27, 2009

Titanic (1997)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

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

The Dark Knight (2008)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

RSS Feed

Link Exchange

Movies Schedule

Movie On Theaters

DVD New Released

All-time box office worldwide

Sponsored Links

Followers

Fans Movie

Sponsored Links