Originally Posted By leemac Variety: <a href="http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935452.html?categoryid=31&cs=1" target="_blank">http://www.variety.com/review/ VE1117935452.html?categoryid=31&cs=1</a> This thing looks like box office gold - the early reviews have been exceptional.
Originally Posted By leemac HR weren't so kind - almost like they saw a completely different movie to Variety: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2b97jl" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2b97jl</a>
Originally Posted By leemac Rolling Stone liked it: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/22nzny" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/22nzny</a> Don't think EW have reviewed it yet.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>HR weren't so kind - almost like they saw a completely different movie to Variety:<< They also saw completely different Looney Tunes. What's up with this? >>Warner Bros. animators of old could mix genres and play with reality in the space of a three-minute Looney Tunes short<< Three minutes? That's a mighty short short! And Duck Amuck was a Merrie Melody, not a Looney Tune. Aside from that, the HR review sounds like exactly the movie I'm expecting - sitcom sillliness, but with decent cinematography and some CG animals. Tossing in a bunch of references to Disney animated features doesn't impress me anymore, not after 3 Shrek movies. But I'll still see you at the theater. The production numbers better be awesome.
Originally Posted By leemac mawnck - it sounds like this one is worth it all on its own: "Most striking, however, is a prolonged production number, "That's How You Know," that moves through many sections of Central Park and employs dozens or more musicians, dancers and backgrounders. It's hard to think of a traditional musical number done on such a scale since the '60s, so it's startling to behold. Like the rest of the film, the sequence reaches far back into the past for its inspiration and manages to make it feel like something new again."
Originally Posted By kennect I am a little older and little more grey haired compared to when this film was first mentioned...But it does seem the wait has been worth it...What I love about the current TV ad is the idea that she made a dress out of his draperies...Well I make draperies for a living so I get a small chuckle out of seeing that...I hope the film is a tremendous success with the public...
Originally Posted By ToonKirby "I saw it in the window and just had to have it ..." And Variety and HR ALWAYS disagree on movies. I think it's, you know, a law or somethin' ... - kch, <a href="http://moviedearest.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://moviedearest.blogspot.c om/</a>
Originally Posted By kennect Toon, I too find it interesting that the two publications you mention really seem to be at odds when it comes to film reviews...As a general rule I enjoy reading the HR reviews more so...They seem to approach things from potential BO status...I am not sure what it will be but during the night I recorded a piece on TV about the premiere...It should be interesting to see it later today...
Originally Posted By threeundertwo >>"I saw it in the window and just had to have it ...">> That's also a line from Carol Burnett's sendup of Gone With the Wind. Rotten Tomatoes is at 100% for Enchanted (with only a few reviews in so far, granted). <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/enchanted/" target="_blank">http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ m/enchanted/</a>
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >That's also a line from Carol Burnett's sendup of Gone With the Wind.< Yeah, that's the reference I was going for.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror The Reporter and Variety's reviews diverge only based on who's reviewing. In general, I've found them to be in accord on most big studio pics. Just my observation, but I've read an awful lot of both publications' reviews over the last 12 years...
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror I will add that this particular reviewer has some odd tastes - he actually gave a positive review (overall) to the third RESIDENT EVIL movie. So... blah.
Originally Posted By leemac NY Times seemed to love it (almost a perfect review): <a href="http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/movies/21ench.html" target="_blank">http://movies.nytimes.com/2007 /11/21/movies/21ench.html</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh Seeing it tonight at 10:15. Reserved seats, huge digital screen, comfy chairs, and my great girlfriend!
Originally Posted By DlandDug Kenneth Turan at the LA Times is lovin' it: >>IT'S obvious but inescapable: "Enchanted" is as good as its name. An adroit combination of wised-up and happily-ever-after, its story of an animation princess thrust into New York's gritty reality gently mocks the mighty Disney fantasy machine without losing the core of the franchise's family appeal.<< <a href="http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-enchanted21nov21" target="_blank">http://www.calendarlive.com/cl -et-enchanted21nov21</a>,0,4195121.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels
Originally Posted By leemac It really seems to have captured the heart of even the most hardened critic: USA Today gave it ***/4 and Rotten Tomatoes has it at 91% (60 positive out of 66). And I've yet to read a single negative word about Amy Adams - some are even talking up Oscar noms for this role.
Originally Posted By threeundertwo Loved it loved it loved it loved it. We left the theater singing "even though you're vermin..." LOL Hilarious lyrics. Amy Adams steals the show. And she has *wrinkles,* God bless her. She makes little crow's feet look cute. The whole thing was a delicious antidote to Shrek. Bring on the merchandise! I'm so there!
