25 May 2012

Slow and painful.

Red Riding Hood starring Amanda Seyfried just left me bored and confused. It's hard to believe that this film is produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Catherine Hardwicke. I found no redeeming quality about this movie. Seyfried is a beautiful girl but this is definitely her worst peformance by far! She is so wooden as the title character and Gary Oldman just overdoes it. I can see why this film got a lot of bad reviews...it's a total stinker!

mark_maguire13

24 May 2012

Red Riding Hood skips merrily to panned-wood

Red Riding Rood, the latest in a line of live-action adaptations offairy tales, hinders in its pursuit of bringing the classic red ridinghood tale to life. Riding Hood was bitten, not by a wolf, but by adisjointed story line, unconvincing acting, wrong casting (besidesSeyfried) and cliché, unimaginative dialog. The real shame is that thebasic premise of the film has great potential; the concept of turningthe classic tale into a real life world of fantasy could have beenrather fascinating. A young girl from a quite village near a dark, darkforest who must make her way through the forest to the house of a lovedone, could have paved the way for many twists & turns, a complex blendof drama & romance, and a world of action and fantasy. Instead, what weare left with is a film with an unbelievably bad twist, and anunconvincing village from the...I guess 1700's? Amanda Seyfried is well suited to role. She is beautiful, but not sexy.She is strong willed, but retains an innocence one can see from thesparkle in her eyes. She was indeed convincing as the youngRiding-Hood. The supporting cast however was a major let down. MaxIrons and Billy Burke play the two love interests. Director CatherineHardwicke was unfortunately unable to let go of the major love interestfrom her box-office hit Twilight, which she directed previously to RedRiding Hood. These two men who fight over Seyfrieds character in thefilm, were too reminiscent of Edward Cullen. Their acting was clichéand unconvincing, as was their dialog. We have seen it before. JulieChristie who played Seyfried's grandmother gave a good, but not a greatperformance. And the rest of the cast, especially King Solomon (playedby Gary Oldman) are not worth assessing.The setting was also unconvincing. Which country are they meant to bein (especially with all the different accents; American, English, andNative African)? What period in history was this set in? If I had toguess I would say that it was located somewhere in North America towardAlaska, set during colonial times, perhaps when the settlers andpilgrims came to North America in search of the 'new world.' Howeverthis is unclear. King Solomon has two black bodyguards, one Asianbodyguard, and there was not one sign of a Cherokee Native-Americananywhere. Any good writer/director knows the setting paves way for thestory. The number one rule in film making is that the setting mustspeak for itself.The story line was extremely disjointed and unconvincing. Aspects ofthe storyline simply didn't make sense. One minute a character (weatherit be her Grandmother, her father, or the love interests) gave theimpression of evil and cruel intentions, but then the next minute weare suppose to be believe they are good, by the sudden shift in theirtone of voice. It dimply didn't make sense. The ending of the filmdidn't make sense, the twist didn't make sense, and Seyfried'scharacter at the end of the film, didn't make sense.In all, the film fails in its pursuit to tell a love story; aneffortless tail of romance, drama, and fantasy. It fails to follow alinear plot, and fails to demonstrate any particular moral or theme.The film was unbelievable and unconvincing, set in a town that lookedto plastic and technically constructed. The best part of the film isSeyfried's performance as the young hooded girl. If it was not for herperformance, I would have given the film a 2/10 rating. Seyfried bumpedit up to 4.

23 May 2012

DULL NONSENSE

this movie is ridiculous and is a copy-cat of the Twilight movies. like that wasn't enough. the story stinks, the actors are all terrible. very bad movie, very bad script, just all bad.

23 May 2012

What the H???!!!!!

I love stories about wolves, vampires, and other monsters, but I was very disappointed with this movie. I believe it has a great concept, however, it was lost in translation. The visual scenery was very beautiful, but the storyline was way lacking. It jumped around too much for my taste, and the choice of music used at the celebration didn't fit the dark ages or 15th century. I am glad I didn't purchase this movie because I would have been very upset that I wasted my hard-earn money, however, if you want to have your own personal "Razzie" award show, then this is the movie for you.

20 May 2012

Kind of a rip off

So the movie wasn't total crap, but not at all original. I kept comparing it to the 1985 movie The Company of Wolves The Company of Wolveswhich I really did like, despite it's age. Nice idea for a movie, but could have been better.

20 May 2012

great movie

got it on time great movie, the rental i got when i bought was awesome, because igot to watch it right away

19 May 2012

Absolutely awful! Twilight with a werewolf!

I mean where do I begin? A movie so bad Gary Oldman couldn't save it! First of the look of the film is pointless: it's too clean. People, in whatever time period the movie is based in, would not look so clean, neat or done up. There is no grittiness to the film -it looked like they were on sets thru the whole movie -very poor filming. The dialogue: well I can't write what I would really say because Amazon would kick it back, but the dialogue in this movie is cheesy with a capital "C". There is no point, no menace, no heart, no pulling you in. The language is modern English set in this time period -beyond retarded, with no accents (except Oldman's. It's like "we're all speaking in perfect modern English, too clean, wearing nice clothes while 'fearing' a werewolf". Even bad accents would have been preferable. The acting is atrocious -hands down. The word "wooden" is given an unjust definition when describing the acting in this movie. You know those awful movies that are on the SyFy channel? They have better acting than this piece of trash. This movie, pardon the awkward comparison, is like porn for teenage girls -hence the "Twilight" comparison (which I've never seen but have a younger sister who has). I half expected them to whip out an iphone & start texting or check their Facebook page. There is nothing redeeming about this movie other than Amanda Seyfried looks cute while she's not doing anything. An utter waste of time and money -luckily I rented it so I only wasted a few bucks. If you buy this, you're dedicated (or a teenage girl)! Catherine Hardwicke, who is the director, should be ashamed of making such tripe... (oh, and yes, I do know she directed the first dimwit... -er "Twilight").

collipal-1

18 May 2012

An unbearable experience

Back in 1984, the film The Company of Wolves took the classic taleLittle Red Riding Hood and brought it a Gothic and mature twist,examining the psychological subtext and its subjects of sexualrepression. It might not be a perfect movie, but it definitelyrepresents a unique and fascinating experience. Now, 27 years later, wehave the film Red Riding Hood touring around the same thematicterritory...but with the only ambition of capturing the teenagespectators with an imitation of Twilight. In other words, the fantasyconcept from Red Riding Hood is ruined by an insipid romance andfeelings which are as false as the medieval environment presented bythe movie. In summary, Red Riding Hood ended up being truly unbearableto me.To be honest, the romance in Red Riding Hood is kept as a peripheralelement. However, the many scenes dedicated to the werewolf mystery aretedious, because the pathetic screenplay tends to ramble between familydrama, religious mystery and the follies from the Preacher, interpretedby Gary Oldman with such an enthusiasm that he borders the caricature(something which might sound as an insult, but in a film which is fullof inert performances, Oldman is the only one who shows some energy).And even though the identity from the werewolf is kept in mystery for apretty long time, there is not too much suspense or any sensation ofdanger, anguish or horror. Due to that uncertainty, Red Riding Hoodlacks of identity, because it is frightened of being too violent forthe teenage girls, and it does not entirely delivered to the romance inorder not to drive away to fans of horror cinema either. The result isthat the film fails in every aspect.In conclusion, the tedious rhythm, insipid tone and disinterestedperformances (with the exception of Oldman's) make Red Riding Hood tobe a horrible film I suggest you to avoid like a plague.

Katey Rich

17 May 2012

Both better made than Twilight and far less entertaining, Red Riding Hood could easily lure the same crowd, but doesn't offer much to anyone not entering the theater ready to swoon.

William Thomas

16 May 2012

Oldman and Seyfried prove to be the big attractions, but Hardwicke's Riding Hood legend still lacks bite.

14 May 2012

Clumsy Romantic Tale

This review is from: Red Riding Hood (Amazon Instant Video) The murder mystery part of this movie was alright. I definitely found myself looking for clues and suspecting multiple different characters throughout the course of the movie. The romantic portions of the film, however, were not well-executed. The dialogue and plot developments between the heroine and her love interests was very forced and did not feel natural or intimate at all. It was clear that the director was that of the Twilight saga movies. I would suggest skipping this film and watching Sleepy Hollow instead, which it was unable to emulate.

Leonard Maltin

14 May 2012

Have you spent years wondering what the whole story was behind the fable of Little Red Riding Hood? Have you had questions about the motivations of the wolf, or

Brian Orndorf

13 May 2012

Truly dreadful...Hardwicke hasn't offered a competent directorial effort to date, with Hood a new low for the filmmaker. Not only is the feature a total eyesore, but one perfectly content to pilfer from a fad.

Armond White

13 May 2012

Too bad Hardwicke didn't adapt The Scarlet Letter -- better yet, she could have transformed the asinine Easy A.

Jason McKiernan

12 May 2012

what The Twilight Saga: New Moon might have looked like had Catherine Hardwicke stayed on to direct

Mary F. Pols

12 May 2012

Was Red Riding Hood masterminded by a cadre of particularly silly eleven year-olds undergoing withdrawal from Twilight? That's the only excuse for a movie this dopey.

lessbee59

09 May 2012

made me sick!

No, the movie actually made me sick!! I was excited about seeing themovie and love Amanda as an actress but from the first scenes, I knew Iwas in trouble... The motion sickness factor for this movie is WAY toohigh! I literally left the theater before 1/2 way thru and got sick.There should be warning on movies that use this kind of camera motionbefore we pay our money!! Otherwise I think the movie would have beenfine - the content was OK - the actors OK... No Oscar nominations! Thelead boys could have been cuter and more of a love triangle going. Idid not get to see the end and would love a play by play of the parts Imissed but I guess I will have to talk to someone who has seen thewhole thing. Sorry the motion was so bad that I could not have gottenmy monies worth!

thechrish

09 May 2012

Terrible ending

This film actually had some interesting parts, and the plot isn't bad.I think it was the ending that bothered me more than anything. I don'twant to post an unwanted spoiler, so I will keep it at that. The filmsets the tone nicely in the beginning, and it keeps you interested formost of the film. The characters are fairly interesting, and it reallydoes keep you guessing until the very end. So, I do like the mysteryside of it, but I am just a mystery movie fan in general, so I'm notvery hard to please in that area. I'd say as a mystery alone, this isactually a little above average as you have at least a half dozensuspects, and the director keeps alternating between them. BUT, theending to me was pretty lame. I'm not a big moral type guy when itcomes to movies, but the implied point in the ending was disturbing tome from that standpoint. I just feel like they took a film that couldhave been great and spilled grape juice on it - and once that dries, itcan't be cleaned up.

rum-punch-blog

09 May 2012

Enjoyable

After reading so many negative reviews, I'm compelled to writesomething. I was looking forward to this movie and went to see it onopening night. The showing was nearly sold-out. Look at who is attachedto this film - Catherine Harwick, Leonardo DiCaprio, Amanda Seyfried,Gary Oldman, Julie Christie. With suspended belief, the movie isenjoyable. Look, there are players from both the Twilight and HarryPotter franchises. It's more of the same - dark fantasy perfect forteens. The acting is not bad. Seyfried is stunning, as is Oldman. I'dconsider my taste in films to be refined, but I still managed to enjoythis. If you like beautiful wintry scenery and fairy tales, you willget something out of this. The plot is a bit flat, and yes, thecharacters have curiously American accents but it's not nearly as badas many say it is. The set and costume design are gorgeous and make upfor the inconsistencies. I got my $$s worth.

08 May 2012

Never getting that hour and a half back !!!!!!

This review is from: Red Riding Hood [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Short and sweet should have read the back ground info closer the connection to Twilight would have sent me running, was looking for a good scary movie on and old theme got pale teenagers insted, to be fair I'm not a teenage girl so my pespective is not the demographic the film was aimed at.