Please correct my film reviews
I am an EFL learner. This is my first post in this forum.
I wrote a few film reviews (I also publish them on IMDb as user reviews) and I would like to know if they are correct as to English grammar and style. I hope you find them interesting too!
P.s. These reviews may contain spoilers (the "Wimbledon" review in particular).
Hulk (2003), directed by Ang Lee
I loved the long jumps, not the too long story
As a kid I grew up reading Marvel comics; as an adult I like movies with more than just action. So I should be a perfect candidate to like Ang Lee's adaptation of Stan Lee's creature, which aims to combine action and real drama, comic books and Greek tragedy. On the surface, there is everything: the bad science, the crazy military, the greedy corporation, the tragedy of a (slightly theatrical) mad scientist, a sprinkle of romance, a difficult father-daughter relationship, some visionary comic-style scene transitions and split-screens, some not-so- bad-as-they-say visual effects, even the beautiful American natural scenery, and of course the main ingredient: Marvel version of Frankenstein meets Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde, with all his incredible anger and strength. But then, there is too much. And not every ingredient is as fresh and satisfying as it should be. The movie goes on for almost an hour telling a complicated plot about the Banner family and some bio experiment gone terribly wrong, before the gamma rays eventually unleash the raging Hulk we all love. Only then, we begin to really care about our guy being chased by some stupid people who make him angry and make him transform into the green creature. But the Hulk's story is interrupted again by digressions and flashbacks. Another major problem in this flick is that there is a lot of Eric Bana. The Australian actor playing Dr. Bruce Banner is at the same time too bulky to make a credible nerdy lab genius, and too dull to make viewers care about him, at least before the transformation. The other characters, Betty Ross (a charming Jennifer Connelly), General Ross (stiff yet human), Bruce's old father (Nick Nolte), and even the computer-animated cartoon-like green creature, are not so bad, but the weakness of the Bruce Banner character, together with the overloaded plot, spoil a potentially good movie. My vote: 6 out of 10, but I would give 6 and a half if I could give half marks. Had the movie been 20 minutes shorter, my vote might have been a 7. In conclusion, if you are a fan, I say: do buy or rent the DVD, I think you'll enjoy it anyway. But don't expect too much from it, or you might be disappointed.
Wimbledon (2004), directed by Richard Loncraine
A lightweight romantic comedy that delivers
Three words say it all: British romantic comedy. If the genre is not your cup of tea, you won't like this flick either. But if you loved other British romantic comedies like "Love Actually", "Notting Hill", "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "About a Boy", and so on, then you'll probably like "Wimbledon" too, even if the storyline is simple and the characters are not as deep as they could be. Just don't take it too seriously, and suspend your belief about Wimbledon players not sleeping the night before an important match because they play Romeo and Juliet, and you'll fully enjoy the movie: entertaining, funny, romantic, British. The storyline is simple yet effective. Cute but usually unlucky British tennis guy meets cheeky yet romantic American tennis golden girl, and gets lucky. Not only he has sex before each match, but he even wins the matches. After some (romantic) troubles and some (tennis) adventures, our hero incredibly wins Wimbledon, she doesn't, but she is going to in the future. And they'll live happily ever after. Of course! If you like tennis, the movie has a plus side. You'll root for the hero when he plays the match of his life. (Spoiler alert!) Of course our man is going to win, because he's in credit with life (having been unlucky in his tennis career), because he is British (and this is a British film), because his opponent is American (and this is a British film, again) that acts like a spoiled child, and -most of all- because the guy is in love, and in romantic comedies Love Wins All! Paul Bettany and Kirsten Dunst are not Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, they are not Boris Becker and Steffi Graf either, but they are cute and a good choice for the parts. If you love London, you'll enjoy the locations too. My vote is 7.5 out of 10.
Summer with Monika (1953), directed by Ingmar Bergman
A light, simple, yet beautiful film, still fresh after more than half a century, about young people and about life. There are times in life when you only think of "now and here", enjoying true love, dreams, and freedom, away from the family and from the dumb world, in a boat on the coast during a splendid summer (the original Swedish title translates to "Summer with Monika"). And there are other times when life is harsher and you have to take responsibility, or suffer consequences. So, the lesson of life is hard in the end. But the story of Monika and her lover Harry is so much more than a moral tale for yesterday's and today's youth. It is also a summer of impatience, defiance, and rebellion. Monika's naked body, for instance, was a striking image for 1953 audiences, but it still is a cry for liberty from social constraints to today's viewers. The Swedish natural scenery also calls for freedom, in sharp contrast to the shady life in town, to family rules, to the violence of men who drink and beat women, to the greedy merchants and employers. At the same time, the film shows us the flip side of total freedom. That is to say you can't just run away from your life, but you should, and you can, make it better through commitment and hard work. Don't be afraid of the big name: it's a film by Bergman, but it is fascinating, easy to follow and even very funny at times. My vote is 8 out of 10.
Last edited by orangeparser; 03-Jan-2011 at 16:24.
Reason: added some information
Re: Please correct my film reviews
Well, yes. Actually Nick Nolte plays the father as an old man, while a different actor plays the father earlier in the story.
Bruce's old (using "old" here almost sounds as though there is a new father - older?)
father (Nick Nolte)
I meant that he deserved from life more than he received so far, therefore life owes him, life is in debt with him, so to speak.
Of course our man is going to win, because he's in credit with life (I don't understand this part - in credit?)
Here the "big name" is just one, Bergman's. Should I use "names" (plural) anyway?
Don't be afraid of the big names
: it's a film by Bergman, but
By Mehrgan in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 27-Dec-2010, 00:05
By marker in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 29-Oct-2010, 22:23
By doingresearch in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 18-Jun-2010, 04:32
By brackets in forum Editing & Writing Topics
Last Post: 25-Sep-2009, 18:15
By the_girl in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 12-Jan-2009, 17:01
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO