BrickNash
Joined Sep 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews163
BrickNash's rating
I saw this film in the cinema on a date back in 1998. I can't remember much about it other than it was "ok", so I decided to give it another watch.
Practical Magic has a lot of strong points. The cast are all wonderful, and it's quite stacked too. The film is beautifully shot, with a warm colour grade and excellent cinematography which makes everything feel lush and comfortable.
The film is sadly let down by a few flaws. The pacing is erratic, and the film meanders for large sections in the first half, but there's no snappy dialogue to keep the viewer's attention. Tonally, it's all over the place too, and can't seem to decide what direction to go in. Diane Wiest and Stockard Channing are also PAINFULLY underused as the kooky witch aunts.
Practical Magic is a film which could have gone in many directions, but instead tries to do all of them at once. It's a bit of Sleepless in Seattle, a bit of Witches of Eastwick, and bit of Weekend and Bernie's, but it doesn't focus enough to be good at any of then, and the bland script fails to keep the long dialogue scenes interesting.
It could have easily been a classic, and it's still got a lot going for it, but be prepared for your attention to wander now and then.
Practical Magic has a lot of strong points. The cast are all wonderful, and it's quite stacked too. The film is beautifully shot, with a warm colour grade and excellent cinematography which makes everything feel lush and comfortable.
The film is sadly let down by a few flaws. The pacing is erratic, and the film meanders for large sections in the first half, but there's no snappy dialogue to keep the viewer's attention. Tonally, it's all over the place too, and can't seem to decide what direction to go in. Diane Wiest and Stockard Channing are also PAINFULLY underused as the kooky witch aunts.
Practical Magic is a film which could have gone in many directions, but instead tries to do all of them at once. It's a bit of Sleepless in Seattle, a bit of Witches of Eastwick, and bit of Weekend and Bernie's, but it doesn't focus enough to be good at any of then, and the bland script fails to keep the long dialogue scenes interesting.
It could have easily been a classic, and it's still got a lot going for it, but be prepared for your attention to wander now and then.
I saw this film in the cinema in 1992, so I have no nostalgic loyalty to the TV show.
In saying that, the latter is FAR superior in every single area.
The film is just plain boring. There's very little actual action here, and massive lengths where nothing happens between vampire fights. It feels like a proto version of Clueless, but without the fun or humour.
The narrative is messy at best. Lothos has no real lore or backstory, and it feels like he was invented just to get Rutger Hauer on board, but he's barely on screen for more than a minute.
The positives here are the cast. Everyone is great, and they are all talented performers. Joss Whedon is well known as a great writer, so the film really falls down in its direction.
Fran Kuzui really isn't suited to the job as a director. The film just looks incredibly cheap, with flat lighting, unimpressive sets, and amateurish blocking.
The fact that the film contains some rather big stars likely meant that she likely caved quite often to appease them, and it's well known that Donald Sutherland re-wrote his lines (much to the anger of Whedon).
It's clear that Whedon himself should have been the director, but I guess he didn't have the experience or trust to be handed his own project by the studio just yet. However, given Kuzui's lack of experience as well (she had only directed one film before this - 1988's Tokyo Pop), it seems odd that at least a co-direct didn't happen.
Regardless, the two obviously remained friends as she went on to successfully produce the TV show, and it's clear that her talents were better suited there.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer is interesting as a visible mis-fire. It's a start, and it's recognisable, but it misses the mark by a long way due to the stodgy direction and cheap feel.
Credit must be given to Whedon for persisting with the IP and turning it into one of the best TV shows ever made, but this film should be taken as its own thing and not any kind of official prequel.
Worth a watch for curiosity. Otherwise it's a dull slog.
In saying that, the latter is FAR superior in every single area.
The film is just plain boring. There's very little actual action here, and massive lengths where nothing happens between vampire fights. It feels like a proto version of Clueless, but without the fun or humour.
The narrative is messy at best. Lothos has no real lore or backstory, and it feels like he was invented just to get Rutger Hauer on board, but he's barely on screen for more than a minute.
The positives here are the cast. Everyone is great, and they are all talented performers. Joss Whedon is well known as a great writer, so the film really falls down in its direction.
Fran Kuzui really isn't suited to the job as a director. The film just looks incredibly cheap, with flat lighting, unimpressive sets, and amateurish blocking.
The fact that the film contains some rather big stars likely meant that she likely caved quite often to appease them, and it's well known that Donald Sutherland re-wrote his lines (much to the anger of Whedon).
It's clear that Whedon himself should have been the director, but I guess he didn't have the experience or trust to be handed his own project by the studio just yet. However, given Kuzui's lack of experience as well (she had only directed one film before this - 1988's Tokyo Pop), it seems odd that at least a co-direct didn't happen.
Regardless, the two obviously remained friends as she went on to successfully produce the TV show, and it's clear that her talents were better suited there.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer is interesting as a visible mis-fire. It's a start, and it's recognisable, but it misses the mark by a long way due to the stodgy direction and cheap feel.
Credit must be given to Whedon for persisting with the IP and turning it into one of the best TV shows ever made, but this film should be taken as its own thing and not any kind of official prequel.
Worth a watch for curiosity. Otherwise it's a dull slog.
Roxanne is my favourite romantic comedy, and this is mostly down to the razor sharp script by lead star Steve Martin.
Everyone knows it's an adaptation of Cyrano de Bergerac, so I won't go into that here, but instead focus on what a great film it is in its own right.
Roxanne has a wonderful sleepy town vibe. A place where everyone knows everyone else, and people just exist in this middle-class bubble. Everyone has a house (even single people with one income), everyone has a job, and even owning a store seems trivial.
The star of the show is of course Steve Martin. The character of Charlie is highly acomplished, well read, witty, brave, capable, and massivly intelligent, His drawback comes from his gargantuan nose, which is the one thing that makes him insecure.
It's a simple tale of overcoming something so significant to you, but doesn't really matter to others, and Roxanne does a great job of making us love Charlie and his team of goons.
There's no villain here. Even Charlie's rival Chris isn't a bad guy, and they are friends throughout the film.
Daryl Hannah doesn't really have much to do except be the object of desire for Charlie and Chris, but her character is intelligent and accomplished which is a good match for the intellectual Charlie. This offers an excellent reason why she would see past any physicality and be attracted to passion from a sharp mind.
The film is set at a nice pace, and there's no real lulls - quite a feat for a movie with almost no action.
My biggest criticism of this film is the fact that Martin does not know the difference between irony and sarcasm, and no one on the production bothered to correct him. When the naked Roxanne refuses a coat while standing in the freezing cold (and she genuinely needs one) - that's sarcasm!
Irony would be that she is naked in the cold but does not need a coat. However, it is clearly the first case scenario, and as such is a wrong use of the word.
Still, if that is the biggest complaint I can muster about this film then that's good going.
You don't see many films like this any more. It's not super dialogue heavy, or any kind of massive character study. Rather, it takes a simple concept, puts it in a nice setting, and has a lot of fun with it.
Highly recommended.
Everyone knows it's an adaptation of Cyrano de Bergerac, so I won't go into that here, but instead focus on what a great film it is in its own right.
Roxanne has a wonderful sleepy town vibe. A place where everyone knows everyone else, and people just exist in this middle-class bubble. Everyone has a house (even single people with one income), everyone has a job, and even owning a store seems trivial.
The star of the show is of course Steve Martin. The character of Charlie is highly acomplished, well read, witty, brave, capable, and massivly intelligent, His drawback comes from his gargantuan nose, which is the one thing that makes him insecure.
It's a simple tale of overcoming something so significant to you, but doesn't really matter to others, and Roxanne does a great job of making us love Charlie and his team of goons.
There's no villain here. Even Charlie's rival Chris isn't a bad guy, and they are friends throughout the film.
Daryl Hannah doesn't really have much to do except be the object of desire for Charlie and Chris, but her character is intelligent and accomplished which is a good match for the intellectual Charlie. This offers an excellent reason why she would see past any physicality and be attracted to passion from a sharp mind.
The film is set at a nice pace, and there's no real lulls - quite a feat for a movie with almost no action.
My biggest criticism of this film is the fact that Martin does not know the difference between irony and sarcasm, and no one on the production bothered to correct him. When the naked Roxanne refuses a coat while standing in the freezing cold (and she genuinely needs one) - that's sarcasm!
Irony would be that she is naked in the cold but does not need a coat. However, it is clearly the first case scenario, and as such is a wrong use of the word.
Still, if that is the biggest complaint I can muster about this film then that's good going.
You don't see many films like this any more. It's not super dialogue heavy, or any kind of massive character study. Rather, it takes a simple concept, puts it in a nice setting, and has a lot of fun with it.
Highly recommended.