mysteriouspersonage
Joined Mar 2008
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews25
mysteriouspersonage's rating
I completely sympathise with those who view this as totally over-hyped as I've experienced first hand the effect it has on some rather deranged fans in the form of two former friends of mine who spent about a month speaking entirely in sentences with either the meaning 'I love Vince' or 'Xanthe looks like Naboo'. This by now has become a very old joke. I do look like Naboo, I've never once argued this point but do people really need to remind me every couple of days? As a result I've held a grudge for a long time without ever actually watching the series and giving it a fair chance, then about a month ago I finally got fed up of not really knowing what people were comparing me too (much like when people called me 'the girl from the ring') and watched all three series over a couple of days. I'm so glad I did because the feeling of loathing turning to love is so warm and lovely. Almost as warm and lovely as the show itself.
I can't really tell you what its about or why you should watch it because it can't really be explained. But I promise you it's one of the least cynical and good natured and funny besides programmes i have ever come across. Each episode it an experience you want to live out over and over again.
I hate the term 'random' applied to anything other than computer programmes which are designed to make genuinely random decisions so i totally reject the idea that anything about this show is random because it isn't, it's not weirdness for the sake of weirdness either, it has it's own beautiful logic if your prepared to go looking for it. It doesn't mind whether you like it or not either.
I think each individual gets something different out of it when they watch it so even reviewing it seems a little pointless. You're going to have to decide for yourself on this one, because the words of any one person don't really do it justice.
What i got out of it was a kind of inner peace not least of all because now when someone shouts 'Naboo' at me I can say 'I'm going to have to turn my back on you'.
I can't really tell you what its about or why you should watch it because it can't really be explained. But I promise you it's one of the least cynical and good natured and funny besides programmes i have ever come across. Each episode it an experience you want to live out over and over again.
I hate the term 'random' applied to anything other than computer programmes which are designed to make genuinely random decisions so i totally reject the idea that anything about this show is random because it isn't, it's not weirdness for the sake of weirdness either, it has it's own beautiful logic if your prepared to go looking for it. It doesn't mind whether you like it or not either.
I think each individual gets something different out of it when they watch it so even reviewing it seems a little pointless. You're going to have to decide for yourself on this one, because the words of any one person don't really do it justice.
What i got out of it was a kind of inner peace not least of all because now when someone shouts 'Naboo' at me I can say 'I'm going to have to turn my back on you'.
There are really two types of films, films that are real and films that are films. There are some fantasy films that blend great acting with subtle effects with the result that they are spellbinding and they are real, Interview with the Vampire, Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish are these sorts of films. There are other films which blend big names with special effects made only to 'wow' the audience and these are just films, i promise they will not be remembered. Inkheart is definitely this sort of film.
Inkheart was made because it was guaranteed to make Hollywood money. It played a successful genre quite typically and to it's own downfall. Overall it lacked grace, structure and subtlety. Why was this? Many reasons.
To begin with the story was always going to be a difficult one because it was so complicated. The whole thing relied mainly on the belief that certain people known as silvertougues can simply read things straight out of a book. This concept was put to it's audience in the first few minutes and before anyone could ask for an explanation of just how that worked and how it was decided what was read out of the book and what was read in it whisked you off to the next bit.
Mainly the plot revolved around the idea of the central character 'Mo' searching the world for a copy of 'Inkheart' a book he had accidentally read his wife into. There's a sentence that lacks explanation, for during the film many times Mo reads from the book as does his daughter Meggie who turns out to have inherited his gift and nothing is taken into the book.
Because of this weak but complicated starting point the film calls for talent and dramatic special effects to distract the audience from the enormous gaps in the plot.
Major characters are portrayed by a variety of accomplished actors including Jim Broadbent, Paul Bettany and Andy Serkis who as always deliver a performance to the best of there ability and which do fortunately breath life into there otherwise weak and confusing and in unnecessarily complicated characters.
However in the central role we have Brendan Fraser a man who never fails to irritate me from the moment he appears on screen. Some people may call his performances hypnotic but if that is the case it is only because he has no control of his eye-brows. Watch them seriously, perhaps one of the reasons i can't focus on the plot is because i'm to busy watching them bounce up and down his face all the way through the film.
And then there is it's other asset the special effect which whilst indeed stunning blatantly mark it out as 'a film'. Effects that from the moment they first appear on the screen cry out 'hey look at our great visual effects!' When it comes to visual and special effects i always say the biggest compliment a film can get is when nobody notices them. Take my favourite film 'Interview with the Vampire' which whilst it uses exceedingly complex and state of the art (or it was at the time the film was made) effects they are so wonderfully subtly done nobody noticed them and they won no awards, i did not notice them until i atched the directors commentary. No such luck with Inkheart.
That said there is a silver lining. The film is watchable if you try not to focus on the plot and to see Andy Serkis in another one of his wonderfully wicked and vaguely amusing roles makes the film worth seeing once, as long as you are not the one paying for it. And the children took it well enough.
In fact the main thing that marked it out as 'just a film' for me was actually the usual irrelevant pop song playing over the credits.
Inkheart was made because it was guaranteed to make Hollywood money. It played a successful genre quite typically and to it's own downfall. Overall it lacked grace, structure and subtlety. Why was this? Many reasons.
To begin with the story was always going to be a difficult one because it was so complicated. The whole thing relied mainly on the belief that certain people known as silvertougues can simply read things straight out of a book. This concept was put to it's audience in the first few minutes and before anyone could ask for an explanation of just how that worked and how it was decided what was read out of the book and what was read in it whisked you off to the next bit.
Mainly the plot revolved around the idea of the central character 'Mo' searching the world for a copy of 'Inkheart' a book he had accidentally read his wife into. There's a sentence that lacks explanation, for during the film many times Mo reads from the book as does his daughter Meggie who turns out to have inherited his gift and nothing is taken into the book.
Because of this weak but complicated starting point the film calls for talent and dramatic special effects to distract the audience from the enormous gaps in the plot.
Major characters are portrayed by a variety of accomplished actors including Jim Broadbent, Paul Bettany and Andy Serkis who as always deliver a performance to the best of there ability and which do fortunately breath life into there otherwise weak and confusing and in unnecessarily complicated characters.
However in the central role we have Brendan Fraser a man who never fails to irritate me from the moment he appears on screen. Some people may call his performances hypnotic but if that is the case it is only because he has no control of his eye-brows. Watch them seriously, perhaps one of the reasons i can't focus on the plot is because i'm to busy watching them bounce up and down his face all the way through the film.
And then there is it's other asset the special effect which whilst indeed stunning blatantly mark it out as 'a film'. Effects that from the moment they first appear on the screen cry out 'hey look at our great visual effects!' When it comes to visual and special effects i always say the biggest compliment a film can get is when nobody notices them. Take my favourite film 'Interview with the Vampire' which whilst it uses exceedingly complex and state of the art (or it was at the time the film was made) effects they are so wonderfully subtly done nobody noticed them and they won no awards, i did not notice them until i atched the directors commentary. No such luck with Inkheart.
That said there is a silver lining. The film is watchable if you try not to focus on the plot and to see Andy Serkis in another one of his wonderfully wicked and vaguely amusing roles makes the film worth seeing once, as long as you are not the one paying for it. And the children took it well enough.
In fact the main thing that marked it out as 'just a film' for me was actually the usual irrelevant pop song playing over the credits.
I realise there are many who say that 'The Black Cauldron' is by far Disney's worst cartoon. I disagree.
Although i have nothing per say against light princess stories or the animal fun Disney usually goes in for: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Fox and the Hound, The Jungle Book, Cinderella... etc. I say it's always nice to have a change, something for the less stereo typical, darker children to enjoy.
I didn't know i was one of these children until i saw 'The black cauldron'. which quickly became my favourite Disney film.
I'm sure I am not the only one who has watched many Disney films and not been fully satisfied, ending it and thinking 'yes but that wouldn't really happen would it' thought maybe it's a bit to happy. Thought that maybe we need a better villain.
The first time i saw 'The Jungle Book' i was fine with Shear Carn but Ca the snake terrified me. You're never afraid of the people you're supposed to be afraid of in these films.
In Lady and the Tramp you're supposed to be scared of the Rat and creatures like that but i was too busy being completely freaked by the cats. In Beauty and the Beast it wasn't Gaston i was afraid of or the beast but that machine her father had. In The Little Mermaid it wasn't Ursula but those 'unfortunate soul' things. In Snow White it wasn't the witch it was the trees. The same applied for all of these Disney films except the Black Cauldron.
The villain is what makes this film. From the moment the film opens you see this terrifying black pot with this deep dark voice over which is then contrasted with the introduction of Taren, the central character and his pig, Hen.
It turns out the horned king is searching for the black cauldron which will give him the power to raise an army from the dead and to find the black cauldron the king will come looking for Hen, a pig with strange divining powers so Taren (who dreams of adventure and the like) must take Hen to the cottage on the other side of the wood and keep her hidden there.
On the way however Hen is stolen by some terrifying flying dragon monster things and Taren had to follow them to the horned kings castle and get hen back.
The Horned King is as frightening as for once he should be and voiced by the immensely talented John Hurt. He is the most affective animated villain ever on screen and i say that with confidence. However to lighten the mood a little he is accompanied by a delightful but much abused little green goblin who is great fun as well as sweet and quite charming even if he is a little mischievous.
Also along the way Taren comes across a sweet but strong minded princess, a highly dishonest but charming bard and the most irritating character ever put on screen. I can't remember his name but it's irritating. He is the one thing i am afraid the brings down the entire film in Disney's lame attempt to introduce comedy into the mix.
The film closes with a dramatic and thrilling climax and does not disappoint. It was a welcome relief and change from every other Disney movie and a great success as far as i'm concerned. you might not like it but i always will.
the Animation is poor and so is the script but the story and the characters shine though and will remain one of my favourite cartoons of all time whatever anyone else says about it.
Although i have nothing per say against light princess stories or the animal fun Disney usually goes in for: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Fox and the Hound, The Jungle Book, Cinderella... etc. I say it's always nice to have a change, something for the less stereo typical, darker children to enjoy.
I didn't know i was one of these children until i saw 'The black cauldron'. which quickly became my favourite Disney film.
I'm sure I am not the only one who has watched many Disney films and not been fully satisfied, ending it and thinking 'yes but that wouldn't really happen would it' thought maybe it's a bit to happy. Thought that maybe we need a better villain.
The first time i saw 'The Jungle Book' i was fine with Shear Carn but Ca the snake terrified me. You're never afraid of the people you're supposed to be afraid of in these films.
In Lady and the Tramp you're supposed to be scared of the Rat and creatures like that but i was too busy being completely freaked by the cats. In Beauty and the Beast it wasn't Gaston i was afraid of or the beast but that machine her father had. In The Little Mermaid it wasn't Ursula but those 'unfortunate soul' things. In Snow White it wasn't the witch it was the trees. The same applied for all of these Disney films except the Black Cauldron.
The villain is what makes this film. From the moment the film opens you see this terrifying black pot with this deep dark voice over which is then contrasted with the introduction of Taren, the central character and his pig, Hen.
It turns out the horned king is searching for the black cauldron which will give him the power to raise an army from the dead and to find the black cauldron the king will come looking for Hen, a pig with strange divining powers so Taren (who dreams of adventure and the like) must take Hen to the cottage on the other side of the wood and keep her hidden there.
On the way however Hen is stolen by some terrifying flying dragon monster things and Taren had to follow them to the horned kings castle and get hen back.
The Horned King is as frightening as for once he should be and voiced by the immensely talented John Hurt. He is the most affective animated villain ever on screen and i say that with confidence. However to lighten the mood a little he is accompanied by a delightful but much abused little green goblin who is great fun as well as sweet and quite charming even if he is a little mischievous.
Also along the way Taren comes across a sweet but strong minded princess, a highly dishonest but charming bard and the most irritating character ever put on screen. I can't remember his name but it's irritating. He is the one thing i am afraid the brings down the entire film in Disney's lame attempt to introduce comedy into the mix.
The film closes with a dramatic and thrilling climax and does not disappoint. It was a welcome relief and change from every other Disney movie and a great success as far as i'm concerned. you might not like it but i always will.
the Animation is poor and so is the script but the story and the characters shine though and will remain one of my favourite cartoons of all time whatever anyone else says about it.