Two days filled with many activities that i like to do with ma Loves ones. Saturdays me and ma mon petite ami went out for an outing from movie to taking picture. Thank you again for teaching me, sorry me not the techno gadget gurl. Huhuhuh! Herm..the thing that i wanna share is the movie that i watch on last weekend. Manage to squeeze our time to watch movie, even me n him kinda bz lately.
Enough of that,
I'm not a good date or a good company if come to horror movie. Trust me i will scream on top of ma vocal like nobody business.Poor me as well he really likes this type of genre so sometime i tend to close ma eye almost half of the movie.hehheeee! so that i get the nightmare at night's. Yes i have to admit that i did read this story before but did not finished it as i lost interest with the book of course. Haha! This time the effect it good the to bad the story line is kinda empty. Much diffrent compared to previous movie before this 2010 version.Hey! this ma honest opinion about this movie and will share the synopsis of this movie later.
Letter of Juliet
This movie i read on this magazine, sorry can remember which but the review make me impress of this movie. As we both on que to buy the tickets either the shrek or this movie. I suggest this movie to him and I'm really glad we choose this. Heheh! many thing that i like about the movie from the feeling of lost the person that we love, to childhood memory lane to the simple manners that we can imply in our daily life.
I vote 4 star for this movie, and this heartless, selfish fiancee takes the advantages in many ways. So Ladies, open yer eyes, huhuhuh! i didn't mean in a bad way but in other way to deal with the relationship and always listen to our heart.
So now I present the review of this two movies..taken from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/.
*A Nightmare on Elm Street
Forget about the plot, the actors and the director. What you require to make a new "Nightmare on Elm Street" are these three off-the-shelf sound effects: 1. A sudden, loud clanging noise mixed with a musical chord. 2. Snicker-snack sounds, which Freddy Krueger's steel finger claws make every time they are seen. 3. A voice deepener, to drop Freddy's speaking voice to an ominous level.
On top of that, you need your sudden cuts, your lighting from below, your thump-thump-thumps and of course a dog that barks at something unseen in the night, so that your teenage heroine can go out on the lawn in bare feet and flimsy PJs and call "Rufus! Rufus! Here, boy!" You know in your bones that Rufus is now checking into Doggie Heaven.
Oh, and actors. Lots of Dead Teenagers, seen in the last moments of their lives, when they enjoy a farewell Moment of Deceptive Safety just before there's a sudden loud clanging noise and the snicker-snack claws disembowel them and Freddy rumbles, You have nothing to worry about. This won't hurt one … little ... bit.
The 2010 edition of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is number 8 1/2 in the series. I arrive at that number not out of a desperate desire to be seeing the Fellini film instead, but because "Freddy vs. Jason" (2003) should in all fairness count for half a film on this list, and half a film on the "Friday the 13th" list.
It is sad to think of all those Dead Teenagers. They were played by ambitious, talented young actors, some of them now in their 40s, who survived grueling auditions for the honor of being slashed by Freddy. Some of them are now successful: Johnny Depp, for example. Robert Englund became famous playing Freddy, but where can that lead when you're always wearing a mask of makeup. Now Jackie Earle Haley plays the role. For what purpose? He might as well play Santa Claus.
It was 26 long years ago when Freddy first began to haunt the nightmares of the children of Elm Street in Springwood, Ohio. At least 137 victims have been claimed by Freddy in the years since then, but the shady little street is still lined with handsome homes, and hasn't been leveled, covered with ashes and sprinkled with holy water. The franchise was founded by Wes Craven, the Ray Kroc of horror, who made the excellent "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" (1994), about Freddy haunting the dreams of the makers of the "Nightmare" movies.
Freddy is not a good argument for a supernatural existence. He can live inside wallpaper, appear anywhere and has no need of physical existence, except, arguably, when he inflicts actual physical damage. Yet he's such a bore, always growling away with his deep-voiced hahahahaha. If a man leads an interesting life, he ought to be able to make good conversation, is what I say.
I stared at "A Nightmare on Elm Street" with weary resignation. The movie consists of a series of teenagers who are introduced, haunted by nightmares and then slashed to death by Freddy. So what? Are we supposed to be scared? Is the sudden clanging chord supposed to evoke a fearful Pavlovian response? For Rufus, maybe, but not for me. Here, boy.
*Letter to Juliet
I know “Letters to Juliet” is a soppy melodrama, and I don’t mind in the least. I know the ending is preordained from the setup. I know the characters are broad and comforting stereotypes. In this case, I simply don’t care. Sometimes we have personal reasons for responding to a film.
“Letters to Juliet” is about Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), an American girl who visits Verona with the man she’s engaged to marry (Gael Garcia Bernal). He’s always leaving her behind to investigate wine and truffles for his New York restaurant. She visits the house allegedly inhabited by Shakespeare’s Juliet. Below the balcony there, lovelorn women for years have posted “letters to Juliet,” asking for advice.
Sophie finds a letter 50 years old, written by a young British girl about a Tuscan boy she met, fell in love with and allowed to fall out of her life. Sophie writes to the girl, the letter amazingly finds its way, and soon Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) arrive in Verona. So now, if we’re experienced moviegoers, we know what must happen by the end of the story.
All of this is wrapped up in unimaginably beautiful shots of the Italian countryside, the warmth of the friendship between Sophie and Claire, and visits to many of the men named Lorenzo Bartolini, which was the name of the boy Claire loved so long ago. A hard-hearted realist would suggest that Sophie help Claire check out the possible Lorenzo Bartolinis by use of the phone, but no. “Letters to Juliet” requires the three of them to visit the candidates in person, leading to a series of false leads and at last, of course, to the real Lorenzo Bartolini (Franco Nero).
As it happens, this story stirred memories of romantic memories in my own life. Once in a small hill town outside Rome, under a full moon, I stood before the balcony being used by Franco Zeffirelli for his great film “Romeo and Juliet” (1968), and heard Nino Rota hum his theme music to Zeffirelli. Some years later, I stood beneath the “Juliet’s Balcony” in Verona itself with a woman dear to my heart and saw the notes pinned to the wall.
And the very first movie set I ever visited, before I was yet a movie critic, was “Camelot” (1967). On that set I met and interviewed Vanessa Redgrave, who was not yet 30, and Franco Nero, who was 26. They played Guenevere and Lancelot. They fell in love on the set, married and had a child. Finally on New Year’s Eve 2006, they married. Even earlier, Franco walked Vanessa’s daughter Natasha Richardson down the aisle when she married Liam Neeson.
So you see, when Vanessa marries Franco 40 years after falling in love with him, and they are playing characters who meet after 50 years, and this all has to do with Juliet’s balcony — reader, what am I to do? I am helpless before such forces.
Vanessa Redgrave recently lost her sister Lynn. I met Lynn once on London. I went to her house for tea. This was not long after the success of “Georgy Girl.” My interview has been lost in the past, but I remember the feeling of the day, Lynn sitting cross-legged on the carpet beside to her coffee table, smoking and jolly, a famous actress friendly to an unknown kid her own age.
I have strayed far from the film. But I’ve told you what you need to know about it. I also want to observe that our response to every film depends on the person we bring to it. Pauline Kael said she went to a movie, and the movie happened, and she wrote about what changed within her after she saw it. This is quite valid. Sometimes, however, we go to a movie, and our lives have happened, and we write about what hasn’t changed.
P/s: Watch the letter for juliet ;)