Reviews: Elizabeth 2 / Golden Compass / Enchanted / Pride & Prejudice 2K5 / Michael Clayton

213. Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
So I was the one guy on the planet who didn't like Elizabeth. I found it dreary and dull, but I had hopes that the Golden Age would brighten things up. And it was a brighter looking movie and a little bit better than the first. I thought the new love interest was an improvement over the Joseph Fiennes dude, who appears to have fallen off the planet along with Richard Attenborough. The guy got me interested in the New World (though sadly, we never get to see it). I followed the movie a bit better this time around and liked the struggle Elizabeth was having with which she was and what she was becoming.

At the same time, I still didn't like the movie. Elizabeth herself just doesn't do anything for me, and as much as I love Cate Blanchett, I thought her acting in this movie seemed like a step down from the first one. Some of her dramatic scenes had me laughing, like when she was giving her speech to her troops while struggling to control her horse. XD The movie also felt too, what's the word, showy? For example . .

The final battle with the Spanish armada was what I had hoped would be the saving grace of this film, but it turned out to be a let down and a mess. You almost wish the action newbie director would commission Michael Bay to direct that one segment. . . . Tell me I didn't just write that.

The one highlight in the film was the Archduke Charles. This character needs a spin-off!

The ending felt like a copy paste of the original: "Elizabeth went on to blahblahblah then she died." I'm still surprised that Elizabeth had a sequel, considering that the first basically tied up all loose ends, not to mention that Ye Olde Europe movies usually never get sequels. Is there a Shakespeare in Love Again on the horizon? 4 out of 10

214. The Golden Compass (2007)
Is Philip Pullman dead? If not, I guess he hasn't seen this film adaptation of his book yet.

I love His Dark Materials -- the series is in my Top 3 favorite books ever. That's why watching this adaptation made me cringe. The novel experienced a big crunch to become a movie: In the first 30 minutes, Lyra learns about dust, meets Mrs. Coulter, finds out about the kidnapped kids, runs away from Coulter and goes on a boat ride with the Gypsies. Whoa, what a rush. Maybe things would've turned out better if it was given the 3 hour LOTR treatment.

What else was cringeworthy? Hearing "Magisterium" and "Authority" mentioned over and over. Watching the child actors try to "act" . . Lyra, in particular, was like a walking cue card. How about that loud, generic score that never ends? (Silence makes kids fidgety, I guess). And some of the serious moments made me laugh. This is one screwed up adaptation.

It's too bad that the studio balked at the subject matter . . even though I didn't like The Da Vinci Code, it showed that discussing God in a questionable light is not just okay but sells incredibly well, and I had hoped it had laid the groundwork for future films. This film, though, makes me think that no progress was made at all, but I guess there's only so much you can expect from a kid's film.

I've always thought of the Golden Compass series as teen/adult novels. So it bugged me when I saw the characters start showing up on lunch boxes and Burger King toys. A while back, my friend argued that the books were for children too, but I really don't think they were and the censorship in this adaptation supports that. I think the movie would've been better if it had catered toward an older demographic.

Director/Writer Chris Weitz says he's a huge fan of the books, and I don't doubt it. I think he just had to follow studio guidelines which must've been frustrating and the reason why all those other directors quit before him. It's probably why the DVD doesn't have his commentary, because I think he'd bash the studio. ;) But to make up for the poor adaptation, he decided to go all out on the look of the film. And it does look VERY good, it's one of the prettiest kid films out there.

If I hadn't read the books, would I like the movie? Probably not, it would've been rushed and confusing and the acting would still suck. How about if I were a kid? . . Maybe. It's not a good adaptation, but it's not bad compared to some of the other children films I've seen.

And in the end, I'm glad the movie was made because it has driven people to read the books which is still the best way to enjoy the story. 5 out of 10

215. Enchanted (2007)
With all the hype and such a great trailer, I was really excited about seeing this movie. In the end, it reminded more of a Made for TV Disney special. The ones where the producer will go, "Alright guys, try to come up with a couple new ideas, but don't burn yourself out. It's just the Disney Channel."

The movie does have a few memorable moments here and there. One of my favorite parts involved a pidgeon and a cockroach, something I didn't expect to see in a G-rated Disney film. Sadly, the pidgeon/cockroach moments are rare and get lost in the romance. The drawn-out ballroom dance drove me nuts and was the first time I hit fast forward in years. Poor theatre goers. Then there's all those other times that the show makes no sense.

The songs were pretty annoying, but that's post-Lion King Disney for ya. Eh, music's subjective, a lot of people thought "how. DOES. she. KNOW. that. YOU. love. HER?" to a steeldrum beat was award-worthy.

What bugged me the most though was how "nice" New York City was. It just didn't feel like the anti-fantasy world it was supposed to be. I wasn't expecting Scorsese NYC in a G-rated film (though that would've been cool!), but it would've been nice if the people acted a bit more realistically. This NYC just seems too Disneyfied. I would've also hired a separate composer to score NYC-style music for the city just to differentiate the two worlds further, rather than using the one generic kids movie score that remains the same throughout (and never stops!!) Anyway, I'm just brainstorming some things here -- it's one of those movies that had me going, "Why didn't they do this? Why didn't they do that?" I mean, it's an interesting concept that didn't get stretched to its limits. Instead, it made me think more of Hercules in New York.

The highlight in the film for me was Amy Adams, who does a 360 from her role in Junebug which I didn't like. Patrick Dempsey, who I had heard so many good things about, er . . not so much. Kid is alright though as well as the fantasy world cast. I didn't even know that was Susan Sarandon until the credits rolled!

Anyway, it's too bad, I was expecting to be blown away by a 95% RT 8.0 imdb movie but was barely singed with excitement. Maybe I would've enjoyed this movie a lot more if I were a kid. As an adult though, it's just so-so. 6 out of 10

216. Pride & Prejudice (2005)
I'm still not sure why I majored in English Literature because I didn't meet the requirements: I had to like Shakespeare and I had to like Jane Austen. But in recent years, I've found enjoyment in Shakespeare films, like Titus, Polanski's Macbeth, and even Romeo + Juliet wasn't *that* bad. Could I find a film that makes Austen tolerable?

This rendition of Pride & Prejudice might be it. It's a GORGEOUS film that takes its time, in terms of look and pace, it kinda reminds me of Atonement except with a much more developed romance. The acting is very good -- I'm usually not a fan of Kiera Knightley's movies, but I thought she did a great job here. And I liked how they were able to get through a romance without any of the lust that bogs down most romantic films. I think there was only a single kiss in the whole film because it was more of an attraction of the minds than of flesh or wealth.

( Off tangent, but while watching the movie, I kept thinking how Keira and this Matthew dude would've been perfect for The Fountain, as I always thought Rachel and Hugh just didn't fit chemistry and acting-wise. But anyway . . )

The ending seemed to come out of nowhere, with everyone dropping off the face of the planet except Liz and Darcy -- I felt the resolution could've used more resolution. However, at least they avoided a wedding which is a trade-off I'll gladly take! :)

I was surprised that I ended up enjoying this film considering that I don't recall enjoying the book . . I wish more book-to-film adaptations had as high a standard as this! Is Pride & Prejudice the best story of all time as voted by the UK and Australia recently? Maybe if you were a reader in the 1800s, but I disagree that it is by today's standard. However, with the right filmmakers, it makes a pretty good movie. 8 out of 10

217. Michael Clayton (2007)
George Clooney continues to make intelligent film that the general public can't follow. Except FINALLY, for a change I managed to get what was going on here. I know nothing about law, so some of the legal terms threw me off, but otherwise, I could get why everyone was after that guy and why everyone was after the guy who was looking for that guy. Er . .

*That* guy is played by Tom Wilkinson, and for a guy I've never heard of, he definitely does some great acting here. I think he outshines both George and Tilda. I was also impressed by Michael Clayton's son . . he's one of the few kids I've seen who *can* act. Make money while you can, kid.

I really like how the story all ended, it was pretty exciting and the finale almost had me out of my seat cheering. :) However, I thought how the director kept the film going while the credits rolled was an odd choice . . once you see "George Clooney" beside George Clooney, the illusion's over. It would've been better if they just held off the credits for the whole ride, but I guess the director figured the average movie goer's attention span was too short. ( Though it you're going into Michael Clayton, I'm sure you weren't expecting a high concept popcorn flick. ;) )

If you've read some of my reviews, you know I'm pretty nitpicky when it comes to movies. But besides the odd-ball credits, I really can't think of much else to fault this movie for so . . 8 out of 10