Share ThePicturesGotSmall's profile
ThePicturesGotSmall
ThePicturesGotSmall's stats
- Review count3
- Helpfulness votes5
- First reviewOctober 24, 2011
- Last reviewFebruary 4, 2012
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3
ThePicturesGotSmall's Reviews
Overall rating
3
/
5
I'll Bet the Sequel's Cool, Too...
PostedFebruary 4, 2012
ThePicturesGotSmall
from Falls Church, VA
You'll probably enjoy "Chronicle." I did. Very cool special effects, interesting story line, a young cast of (mostly) newcomers, and generally likable characters (except Andrew's dad). It's the kind of exciting action picture you go to the movies to see. With that said, it's not going to win any Oscars, and doesn't pretend to want one. It's got teen angst, social outsider / outcast drama, comic book-style storytelling, and -- in the end -- even a superhero sub-text. You've seen it all before, but this is a new re-mix. The house was packed and the audience seemed to enjoy the show. Cool movie ... but not the best one you'll see in 2012. Go into it expecting nothing more than 90 minutes of entertainment, and you'll get your money's worth. I wouldn't urge a friend to see it, but if one told me he planned to go, I wouldn't try to stop him, either. Enjoy!
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
2
/
5
Interesting Concept, but Too Difficult to Follow
PostedOctober 31, 2011
ThePicturesGotSmall
from Falls Church, VA
I have no idea whether this movie's premise—that someone else wrote the works of Shakespeare—is true or false. But, if it mattered, this movie didn't do much to illuminate the question for me.
The truth is, going in, I didn't really care whether the premise was true. It's at least plausible and seemed like it might be interesting to consider. I mostly just wanted to enjoy a movie about a person and a period in history that are both of great interest to me. And I did enjoy it ... sort of.
In fact, believe me, I really wanted to LOVE this movie. I so hoped it might be on par with 1998's Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth.
Unfortunately, I can only give this picture two stars: "Fair."
I can't justify a third star because it simply was not as good as an "average" movie. You can at least follow an "average" movie. But I was lost ten minutes into this picture and never totally caught up. There were so many flashbacks and flash-forwards it made me dizzy. It was just plain tough to follow.
Now, I'm no expert, but I feel certain my knowledge of Shakespeare and the Elizabethan period are at least as good as the average movie-goer. I already knew most of these characters and their relationships to one another, as well as the backgrounds of the various plays. That proved to be very helpful because, without that prior knowledge, I could not have made much sense of this story.
I liked writer John Orloff's Legend of the Guardian: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010), but Orloff's no Quentin Tarantino. Pulp Fiction (1994) worked very well when the story was told out of order. Anonymous doesn't.
I can't find any real fault with the acting, the costumes, the sets, or anything else about this movie. It's just the herky-jerky story-telling—like a time machine with a bad transmission—that undid this movie for me. Some of the scenes are truly breathtaking. And some of the best "acting" in this film is in the scenes where you hear classic lines from some of Shakespeare's greatest plays, like the St. Crispin's Day speech from Henry V. Goosebumps. Proof that great writing goes a long way, even in a mediocre production.
I would not go out of my way to recommend this movie to any friends, but I also wouldn't necessarily wave them off if I knew anyone else who wanted to see it. I'd just warn them to try to read a plot synopsis on the Internet first, so they could keep up as the chunks of this story unfold in seemingly random order.
It was a real disappointment to be so disappointed by Anonymous.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Great Fun, Family-Friendly, Deserves More Buzz
PostedOctober 24, 2011
ThePicturesGotSmall
from Falls Church, VA
First things first: This movie was a lot of fun. It was a very enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. It's also a very imaginative re-telling of the classic tale, with enough special effects credibly thrown in that it was worth seeing in 3D. Definitely worth the price of admission, every penny. If you like action-adventure movies, you should go see it -- you won't be sorry.
Just don't expect the heavy seriousness of the Alexandre Dumas original. Even though it's definitely not a "kids movie," this is more like a comic book version of the story. And the liberties taken with certain plot points give this 2011 movie version a much happier ending. (For that matter, a lot of liberties were taken with the historical period, too, like showing Louis XIII holding court in a fully constructed Versailles ... but get your nose out of the history books and enjoy this adventure story!) In other words, lighten up! This is a refreshing new version of a great old classic.
The reviewer who asked, "What was Hollywood thinking?" clearly did not stick around for the credits. This is a German picture: made on location in Germany, by a German studio, with German financing, a cast of mostly German actors (except for the leading roles played by Brits and Americans) and a nearly all-German crew ... but performed in the English language. It reminded me of the European rock bands in the 1970s and '80s that all wrote lyrics and performed their work in English, so they might have a chance of breaking into the American pop music scene.
In fact, perhaps that was this movie's one big problem. They made it in English for an American audience but forgot to tell anyone here. I didn't even hear about it until the day I saw it. I caught the trailer on Front Row and thought it looked intriguing.
I was not disappointed by the movie, but I was disappointed by its opening weekend box office sales. You want to talk about what's wrong with Hollywood? How can a movie like Paranormal Activity gross six times as much as The Three Musketeers on opening weekend? (Or maybe we should ask what's wrong with the American movie-going public?) Whatever. This movie isn't trying to be pretentious enough for that particular debate.
Look, the costumes are sensational. The special effects are very cool. The dialogue is lively. The action is exciting. There were also solid performances by Milla Jovovich (Milady), Orlando Bloom (Buckingham), and Luke Evans (Aramis). Christoph Waltz (Richelieu) also deserves notice. (His performance as the neurotic mobster Chudnofsky in this year's The Green Hornet was visionary.) And American newcomer Logan Lerman was not only a good match for the part of D'Artagnan in this production, but he's probably the next Tiger Beat "it guy." Your teenage daughter will adore him. By the way, this movie is safe for the whole family (unless you're offended by violent swordfights).
While I'm at it, what a relief to see a movie that's based on a book instead of a video game, especially from this producer / director (Paul W.S. Anderson).
The Three Musketeers was a lot of fun. I was on the edge of my seat from start to finish. I would definitely recommend it to a friend. Heck, I might even see it again. So it's not the next Citizen Kane. Chill out. It's a cool movie, and there aren't enough of those around nowadays. The main thing that could improve this movie in my view is to see it get more of the “buzz” that it deserves. I hope more people get to see it. Enjoy!
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.