NewYorker's stats
- Review count10
- Helpfulness votes0
- First reviewApril 20, 2008
- Last reviewMarch 8, 2012
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3.1
NewYorker's Reviews
Overall rating
4
/
5
Better than Expected.
PostedMarch 8, 2012
SPOILER ALERTS!
This is a sequel to Phantom of the Opera. "Love Never Dies" takes place 10 years after the end of the Phantom. Here's a brief summary of the plot -- it is thought that the Phantom died in a fire in the theater in London in 1895. In reality, he was secreted away to Coney Island, New York where he runs a "freak show". He fits in with the odditites that are gathered.
The Phantom mourns that he has lost his musical muse, Christine Daae. He longs for Christine to come back to him (singing "Till I Hear you Sing"). Poof! Christine is coming to the United States to sing at a concert. The Phantom doubles the amount of the salary that she is supposed to receive to have Christine sing one song just for him -- "Love Never Dies".
Well, along the way, we learn that Christine was impregnated by the Phantom sometime near the end of the Broadway show, and she has a ten year old kid. She has also married the Viscount from the Broadway show (and it appears that the marriage is unhappy).
Fast forward --- Christine sings, everyone finds out that the kid is the Phantom's, the Viscount leaves Christine, and Christine is killed at the end of the show leaving the Phantom to raise his kid.
Love Never Dies was running in London's West End for about one year before it closed. I thought that this was a recording of the London show: This is actually a recording of the Melbourne Australia version of the show (which, by the way, is much better than the London staging).
There are two "show stopping" tunes -- "Love Never Dies" and "Till I Hear You Sing". The actors in this particular production did "ok" jobs with those two songs, but the London case did them better. (If you want to hear the songs, check out the London Phantom, Ramin Karimloo, singing the song on yahoo or youtube).
Based upon the commercial failure of the London production, it is unlikely that this show will ever make it to Broadway. So, Broadway fans, keep an eye out for it on PBS or on DVD. It is clearly worth seeing to follow the end of the musical journey for the Phantom and Christine.
This is a sequel to Phantom of the Opera. "Love Never Dies" takes place 10 years after the end of the Phantom. Here's a brief summary of the plot -- it is thought that the Phantom died in a fire in the theater in London in 1895. In reality, he was secreted away to Coney Island, New York where he runs a "freak show". He fits in with the odditites that are gathered.
The Phantom mourns that he has lost his musical muse, Christine Daae. He longs for Christine to come back to him (singing "Till I Hear you Sing"). Poof! Christine is coming to the United States to sing at a concert. The Phantom doubles the amount of the salary that she is supposed to receive to have Christine sing one song just for him -- "Love Never Dies".
Well, along the way, we learn that Christine was impregnated by the Phantom sometime near the end of the Broadway show, and she has a ten year old kid. She has also married the Viscount from the Broadway show (and it appears that the marriage is unhappy).
Fast forward --- Christine sings, everyone finds out that the kid is the Phantom's, the Viscount leaves Christine, and Christine is killed at the end of the show leaving the Phantom to raise his kid.
Love Never Dies was running in London's West End for about one year before it closed. I thought that this was a recording of the London show: This is actually a recording of the Melbourne Australia version of the show (which, by the way, is much better than the London staging).
There are two "show stopping" tunes -- "Love Never Dies" and "Till I Hear You Sing". The actors in this particular production did "ok" jobs with those two songs, but the London case did them better. (If you want to hear the songs, check out the London Phantom, Ramin Karimloo, singing the song on yahoo or youtube).
Based upon the commercial failure of the London production, it is unlikely that this show will ever make it to Broadway. So, Broadway fans, keep an eye out for it on PBS or on DVD. It is clearly worth seeing to follow the end of the musical journey for the Phantom and Christine.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
A Disappointing Set Up For the End
PostedNovember 21, 2010
For fans of the Harry Potter book series, you'll know that book seven moves fairly slowly in the first half of the book -- All of he action is in the last 1/4 of the book.
Well, this movis is all about the set up for the last movie. This movie "drags" along at a very slow pace. Even those portions of the first half of the seventh novel that were exciting were given short shrift in this movie.
I was disappointed with this movie.
I felt as though the producers could have done a three hour movie of the seventh book that was outstanding -- instead, the producers are milking it by making the seventh book into two movies. I can only hope that the second half of the movie that comes out in July, 2011 vindicates this one.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
Annoying 3D
PostedOctober 10, 2010
You have to wear 3D glasses to view this movie. After about 30 minutes, I had to give my eyes a rest and take off the glasses and look away from the screen.
For the most part, the movie is very pretty looking. But there are scenes where there is far too much activity of the screen to be able to focus on what is going on.
Don't expect a cute movie like "Happy Feet" like they have been advertising this movie. This is a brutally violent movie that is trying to be sold as a "family movie" because it is animated.
Overall, I would tell other people to go see it because of the technology associated with its production. I would clearly not waste another 90 minutes (felt more like 2+ hours) to watch this movie again.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
It was OK
PostedJuly 19, 2009
This movie had a chance to be really great, but there was a lot of stuff from the book that was left out, and there was a lot of useless information that was included in the movie that was not highlighted in the book. (For example, is it really necessary to spend 45 minutes on Ron Weasley's dopey love affair?)
Also, if you are waiting for a big finish with Dumbledor's funeral - forget it. The movie is nothing like the book in that regard.
I also missed the close interaction between the three major characters - Harry, Hermione and Ron.
Also, if you are waiting for a big finish with Dumbledor's funeral - forget it. The movie is nothing like the book in that regard.
I also missed the close interaction between the three major characters - Harry, Hermione and Ron.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
2
/
5
Extremely disappointing
PostedDecember 14, 2008
The only reason I'm giving this movie two stars (instead of one or none) is because I could look at Keanu Reeves for hours with no complaints. In this particular film, his presentation is stilted and slow and he shows almost no range of emotion.
From an acting perspective, the only good thing about this film is Jennifer Connelly's work. After watching the movie, I defy anyone to tell me why Will Smith's kid was ever cast in it. I thought he was just awful and thoroughly unbelievable.
Final word -- Don't go to the movie if you think you are going to see one special effect after the next -- if you've seen the trailer to the movie, you have already seen all of the special effects.
From an acting perspective, the only good thing about this film is Jennifer Connelly's work. After watching the movie, I defy anyone to tell me why Will Smith's kid was ever cast in it. I thought he was just awful and thoroughly unbelievable.
Final word -- Don't go to the movie if you think you are going to see one special effect after the next -- if you've seen the trailer to the movie, you have already seen all of the special effects.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Pretty Good
PostedJune 8, 2008
For an animated movie, Kung Fu Panda really holds your attention. It is 90 minutes long, but seemed like much less. There is a little bit of violence, but nothing that would make anyone have nightmares. The voices are great, and Jack Black as the Panda is a terrific choice of actor. Even the mob of kids that were in the theater when I saw this movie did not make it unenjoyable -- the story is so good that you can really focus on the movie.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
Just OK
PostedMay 25, 2008
I am a huge Indiana Jones fan, but I was a little disappointed by Crystal Skull. There is really no new ground here -- it is pretty formulaic. This time Indy's arch-nemesis is a Russian woman played by Cate Blanchette, and they are looking for clues to find the Crystal Skull in ordeer to achieve world domination -- yada yada . . . .. So they look all over the place, including in the same warehouse that holds the Arc of the Covenant from the First Indy Movie. They find clues and go on adventures through the jungle, see a lot of bugs (ants and scorpions this time through) and lots of natives guarding the ultimate destination. And at the end of it all --- I just said "who cares", One thing is revealed in this movie that may keep the franchise going for years to come -- I won't give it away, but it involves Shia LaBoeuf's character.
It was fun enough for two hours, but I really wanted and expected a lot more.
It was fun enough for two hours, but I really wanted and expected a lot more.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
1
/
5
This movie is Awful
PostedMay 11, 2008
Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I had high hopes for a movie based on "Speed Racer". But, there are few words that can do justice to how bad this movie is -- let's start with awful, terrible, rotten, and any other synonym you can come up with. It was a complete and total waste of the price of movie admission.
What there is of a story is driven by incessant primary colors flashed across the screen to create some kind of futuristic race track. After seeing the movie, I now understanding why the overwhelming majority of movie critics described it as a vomit of partially chewed Skittles candies.
There is virtually no story: the actors have nothing to work with so the acting is just dreadful; and the frenzied pace of the purported special effects left me wanting to leave the theater less than an hour after the movie started.
By the way, any movie that relies upon a chimpanzee to move its plot forward demonstrates how bad the human actors must be.
I don;t know the target audience for this movie, but it is most certainly not anyone over the age of 5 years old. SKIP THIS MOVIE!!
What there is of a story is driven by incessant primary colors flashed across the screen to create some kind of futuristic race track. After seeing the movie, I now understanding why the overwhelming majority of movie critics described it as a vomit of partially chewed Skittles candies.
There is virtually no story: the actors have nothing to work with so the acting is just dreadful; and the frenzied pace of the purported special effects left me wanting to leave the theater less than an hour after the movie started.
By the way, any movie that relies upon a chimpanzee to move its plot forward demonstrates how bad the human actors must be.
I don;t know the target audience for this movie, but it is most certainly not anyone over the age of 5 years old. SKIP THIS MOVIE!!
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
The Ending was Not Good
PostedMay 4, 2008
The first two hours of this movie was terrific -- great special effects and a pretty good story. The last three minutes of the movie (the part just before the credits) was ridiculous. It was unrealistic and not in keeping with the comic book story.
For anyone who has seen the movie, can anyone disagree that Tony Stark painted a target on his back? Did he really need to answer the last reporter's question?
Unless they do an amazing "about face" inf there is a sequel, I don't think there will be much additional life in this series.
For anyone who has seen the movie, can anyone disagree that Tony Stark painted a target on his back? Did he really need to answer the last reporter's question?
Unless they do an amazing "about face" inf there is a sequel, I don't think there will be much additional life in this series.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Good Fantasy
PostedApril 20, 2008
The media has been selling this movie as a Jackie Chan/Jet Li Kung Fu movie. It is that and a whole lot more. It's almost akin to the Wizard of Oz with a person who is out of place and has to save the "Forbidden Kingdom" before he is able to go home.
There are clearly a few spots in the movie where you want to stand up and cheer for the involved characters.
Good flying effects and a strong storyline. I was surprised that this movie would also be appropriate for children.
There are clearly a few spots in the movie where you want to stand up and cheer for the involved characters.
Good flying effects and a strong storyline. I was surprised that this movie would also be appropriate for children.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.