When in Rome starts out as so many romantic comedies before. A successful pretty girl too busy working to care about love. The only reason it actually works, and it actually does, is Kristen Bell. I've said it before, and I'll probably do it for a while. I love that girl. Still, Serious Moonlight proved I'll come down with a fury fist also on her movies if I'm not satisfied.
So. When in Rome actually kept my attention for a while. Bell dancing with the unfamiliar, to me, Josh Duhamel in her sisters wedding gave me hope of a pleasant movie. Of course they strayed off trying to stand out, adding a fantasy tag to the movie and a spell to the plot. Bad move. From there the only thing keeping my interest is Bell, and even in my book that doesn't come close to be enough. I just wish Kristen stopped trying so hard to stand out. Doing a couple of regular romantic comedies isn't the career killer it maybe once was. Serious Moonlight and When in Rome is much worse than even Forgetting Sarah Marshall, as Jason Segel and Russell Brand won't ever help anybody's careers.
Alexis Dziena and Danny DeVito does well in their small roles, and Duhamel was a pleasant enough new actor for me. Director Mark Steven Johnson on the other hand, is a guy making anything he directs into crap. I haven't yet reviewed Ghost Rider here, but I can mention there's another rotten tomato coming. Also Daredevil didn't turn out half the movie it could have been, so I guess I'll stay far away from his debut Simon Birch. Stick to writing Mark. Even there you don't impress, but at least other directors can come in and save the pieces.
And Kristen: Call me! You should sack your agent and I'll help you read scripts. This crap isn't worth your time.
Monday, May 31, 2010
From Paris with Love (2010)
From Paris with Love is the third movie director Pierre Morel makes and it's also the third based on Luc Besson's story work. I really enjoyed their last work Taken, but this one is more straight forward typical 90's action movie with heavy allusions to other familiar movies.
To begin with the easiest recognizable, the title reminds us of James Bond going to Russia with love back in the 60's. An early scene here reminds a lot of an early scene from the John Woo Hong Kong movie The Killers, which I recently reviewed. There's also the not so subtle homage to Quentin Tarantino as the John Travolta character again has a Royal with cheese thing going, much like in Pulp Fiction. I could go on, but you get the picture.
The acting isn't half bad. Travolta has a fun time with his killing machine special operations character 'Charlie Wax', and while I could imagine better he delivers enough to pull it off. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the agent wannabee 'James Reece' doing low grade work in Paris, now paired up to help 'Wax' on his Paris mission. Rhys Meyers is highly believable in his role, but I'm still far from in love with the cast. He really doesn't give us a lot, and as such fails were other young actors have portrayed these kind of rookies before.
The story is the main reason From Paris with Love doesn't manage to elevate to the fun movie Morel and Besson intended. It's just a little to straight forward story-wise to make it when the acting ain't driving the characters better. Truth being told. If you're surprised by anything in this movie, you haven't seen many movies in this genre. It doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat even once, and if you don't you really need some other excellent aspects in it to make it worth the runtime. There's about three minutes worth of gunfights really well done and about eight seconds of car driving the same. That's not enough, but it's better than a lot of other writers and directors ever manage to get into their b-action movies. At least that's something. I'm sure we'll see more to both Besson and Morel in the years to come, and hopefully they'll again elevate to the level they had in Taken.
To begin with the easiest recognizable, the title reminds us of James Bond going to Russia with love back in the 60's. An early scene here reminds a lot of an early scene from the John Woo Hong Kong movie The Killers, which I recently reviewed. There's also the not so subtle homage to Quentin Tarantino as the John Travolta character again has a Royal with cheese thing going, much like in Pulp Fiction. I could go on, but you get the picture.
The acting isn't half bad. Travolta has a fun time with his killing machine special operations character 'Charlie Wax', and while I could imagine better he delivers enough to pull it off. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the agent wannabee 'James Reece' doing low grade work in Paris, now paired up to help 'Wax' on his Paris mission. Rhys Meyers is highly believable in his role, but I'm still far from in love with the cast. He really doesn't give us a lot, and as such fails were other young actors have portrayed these kind of rookies before.
The story is the main reason From Paris with Love doesn't manage to elevate to the fun movie Morel and Besson intended. It's just a little to straight forward story-wise to make it when the acting ain't driving the characters better. Truth being told. If you're surprised by anything in this movie, you haven't seen many movies in this genre. It doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat even once, and if you don't you really need some other excellent aspects in it to make it worth the runtime. There's about three minutes worth of gunfights really well done and about eight seconds of car driving the same. That's not enough, but it's better than a lot of other writers and directors ever manage to get into their b-action movies. At least that's something. I'm sure we'll see more to both Besson and Morel in the years to come, and hopefully they'll again elevate to the level they had in Taken.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Runaway Jury (2003)
Today I revisited Runaway Jury. A movie I haven't seen since it came out on DVD back in the days. Being another John Cusack movie it was just a matter of time I guess, and much like on my first visit Runaway Jury is a solid court room drama thriller in John Grisham's usual way. Because this is a movie based on a John Grisham novel, like The Firm, The Client, The Pelican Brief, The Rainmaker and a several others both before and later. Grisham is the attorney author with credibility, authenticity and nerve.
When you add actors like Cusack, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman to a script based on a Grisham novel, you're in for the best the genre has to offer. This time his focus is on the jury advisors, a hi-jacked jury and in the background the gun industry as the big money issue like tobacco companies have been used before in others.
This movie won't blow your mind. It never really picks up pace. It's not filled with twists and turns. Still it holds your interest for more than two hours, and it does so because it gives a little twist on the way it looks at the American jury system. It gives some insight into the research on potential jurors in big money cases, the manipulations behind the scene and there's a lot of interesting stuff worth doing on that focus.
The lack of twists, action and such makes this a movie you need the ability to lean back and enjoy for the other stuff. You must enjoy good character acting, the subtle ways of the court room and the masterminding of the puppet show. If you're that kind of a viewer, Runaway Jury is a treat. Of course because of the limitations within this genre, it'll never be made a movie scoring higher than 12 Angry Men. It's just not possible to elevate this kind of movie beyond it, but this is a good attempt.
When you add actors like Cusack, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman to a script based on a Grisham novel, you're in for the best the genre has to offer. This time his focus is on the jury advisors, a hi-jacked jury and in the background the gun industry as the big money issue like tobacco companies have been used before in others.
This movie won't blow your mind. It never really picks up pace. It's not filled with twists and turns. Still it holds your interest for more than two hours, and it does so because it gives a little twist on the way it looks at the American jury system. It gives some insight into the research on potential jurors in big money cases, the manipulations behind the scene and there's a lot of interesting stuff worth doing on that focus.
The lack of twists, action and such makes this a movie you need the ability to lean back and enjoy for the other stuff. You must enjoy good character acting, the subtle ways of the court room and the masterminding of the puppet show. If you're that kind of a viewer, Runaway Jury is a treat. Of course because of the limitations within this genre, it'll never be made a movie scoring higher than 12 Angry Men. It's just not possible to elevate this kind of movie beyond it, but this is a good attempt.
Dare (2009)
Dare is a teen drama on sexual awakening, or at least that's what it tries to be. The sad fact is Dare only dares to hide the fact the script is weak, the acting worse and the story holds no interest. With daring I'm thinking about the attempts to shock. Sadly those really doesn't shock anybody at least a bit familiar with teen behavior, adolescent sex and the other.
Zach Gilford raised to fame with his good guy role at teen TV drama series Friday Night Light. The feeling you get from his role in this movie as 'Johnny', is an attempt to establish himself as versatile. He does not succeed. His 'Johnny Drake' is the most unbelievable part of the movie, and it says something in such a poorly acted piece.
At the end of the day I don't care about 'Johnny', 'Alexa', 'Ben' or either of the others. Their stories aren't special, their lives doesn't touch me in any way and I only feel robbed for a hour and a half because there's nothing here worth portraying.
Zach Gilford raised to fame with his good guy role at teen TV drama series Friday Night Light. The feeling you get from his role in this movie as 'Johnny', is an attempt to establish himself as versatile. He does not succeed. His 'Johnny Drake' is the most unbelievable part of the movie, and it says something in such a poorly acted piece.
At the end of the day I don't care about 'Johnny', 'Alexa', 'Ben' or either of the others. Their stories aren't special, their lives doesn't touch me in any way and I only feel robbed for a hour and a half because there's nothing here worth portraying.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Maiden Heist (2009)
The Maiden Heist is just another of those movies throwing around good actors and forgettable scripts. It's neither funny, interesting or important in any way. Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman, William H. Macy and Marcia Gay Harden. You really expect so many good actors to not come together unless the script holds a better standard.
Then again it might be good satire, as I time and again prove that's something I'll never get the hang on.
Then again it might be good satire, as I time and again prove that's something I'll never get the hang on.
The Messenger (2009)
The Messenger is a strange little movie. Mostly because it's got several quality signs, but no end product. Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson acts well, the story is a somewhat interesting human piece, but the movie lacks the nerve to make me take much interest in it. I might be too far from the wars fought, the American look at their own soldiers and such, but keep in mind I did enjoy Taking Chance even if I haven't come around to review it here yet.
There's really not a lot I can say about this movie, without coming across as a jack-ass that is. It's one of those movies I would have liked to like, but quite honestly just can't because it's not good enough. All stories aren't supposed to be taken to the big screen, even if the story itself might be worth telling. It's something about the time spent able to entertain you, to challenge you, enlighten you or something. When it comes to this I'm quite indifferent. That's never a good thing.
There's really not a lot I can say about this movie, without coming across as a jack-ass that is. It's one of those movies I would have liked to like, but quite honestly just can't because it's not good enough. All stories aren't supposed to be taken to the big screen, even if the story itself might be worth telling. It's something about the time spent able to entertain you, to challenge you, enlighten you or something. When it comes to this I'm quite indifferent. That's never a good thing.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Greta (2009)
I'm sorry Greta. You probably had a story down there you wanted to tell, but you failed on so many levels. Hillary Duff is awful in this. A complex rebellious and suicidal character, with brain, beauty and edge? Come on. Ms. Duff can't portray half of it, and not even that half especially realistic. I noticed she was also given executive producer credits, so I guess there was too few people actually trying to direct her acting because I've seen her better. Not that much would be needed to outdo this piece of garbage acting.
The supporting cast struggles as well. You can see those decent or better of them, struggle to act of Duff. It's not easy having scenes with such a leading actress. Are you going to outshine her completely? Are you going to try and help her catch the essence of the scene? It seems like half the time the other actors and actresses is having an internal struggle on how to interact.
The story has some layers underneath, but it's all just a little too teen-movie. We'll see her issues, touch on her problems, note the girl underneath all that rebellious drama and feel something, but the story is so unbalanced that when you combine it with the acting you wish you could help the original author in some way, cause this couldn't have started out this bad.
Ms. Duff: Sing more, take acting lessons and next time: Stay only in front of the camera with tougher people behind the scene telling you what to do and especially telling you when you don't act at all.
The supporting cast struggles as well. You can see those decent or better of them, struggle to act of Duff. It's not easy having scenes with such a leading actress. Are you going to outshine her completely? Are you going to try and help her catch the essence of the scene? It seems like half the time the other actors and actresses is having an internal struggle on how to interact.
The story has some layers underneath, but it's all just a little too teen-movie. We'll see her issues, touch on her problems, note the girl underneath all that rebellious drama and feel something, but the story is so unbalanced that when you combine it with the acting you wish you could help the original author in some way, cause this couldn't have started out this bad.
Ms. Duff: Sing more, take acting lessons and next time: Stay only in front of the camera with tougher people behind the scene telling you what to do and especially telling you when you don't act at all.
Avatar (2009)
Avatar is James Cameron's CGI created world, and sadly those CGI creations is also the lone real strength of the movie. Cameron tries to tell a story both more epic and grand than he got runtime for, but he also downplay too much of the smaller pieces needed to make an epic tale.
The overall story is both grand and decent. Grand because he pitch a new world, a future where we interact with other species and creative technological impacts. But also only decent because the story ain't original when you get past the the new world creations and the avatars. He hides a lame ass story in a CGI creation hoping to impress enough moviegoers to make up for all funds going into it, and there he succeeds. He doesn't succeed on the movie though, and after finally watching it I'm really happy it didn't get any of the big Oscars. It just doesn't deserve them.
Still. It's well worth watching. There's some really creative pitches on the locals, their customs and interactions with animals. And there's some great scenery, much thanks to the imagination behind the special places of Pandora. This is a simple entertainment tale told in the same mold as simple CGI action movies does their thing. It's not epic, but it's spectacular. And sometimes that's all you need from your time at the cinema.
The overall story is both grand and decent. Grand because he pitch a new world, a future where we interact with other species and creative technological impacts. But also only decent because the story ain't original when you get past the the new world creations and the avatars. He hides a lame ass story in a CGI creation hoping to impress enough moviegoers to make up for all funds going into it, and there he succeeds. He doesn't succeed on the movie though, and after finally watching it I'm really happy it didn't get any of the big Oscars. It just doesn't deserve them.
Still. It's well worth watching. There's some really creative pitches on the locals, their customs and interactions with animals. And there's some great scenery, much thanks to the imagination behind the special places of Pandora. This is a simple entertainment tale told in the same mold as simple CGI action movies does their thing. It's not epic, but it's spectacular. And sometimes that's all you need from your time at the cinema.
The Book of Eli (2010)
The Book of Eli is a post-apocalyptic western tale about a lone man and his book, in a world even tougher than that pioneers had to conquer centuries ago. Denzel Washington is playing the lead in this movie directed by the Hughes Brothers, and Denzel does well.
He's not got a lot to work with, but he's believable in the role of the lone wolf martial art stylistic warrior. Some rough fight scenes add to the value of the movie, as they don't try to make them neither too long and unrealistic annoying as he's a single man, but neither do they make the mistake of not spilling enough blood. Bloodshed is a must in such a tale, and they don't fall short.
I enjoyed as usual Gary Oldman in another of his bad guy portraits, but also Mila Kunis did well as the young sidekick of the lone wolf. Not as convincing in everything, but she's learning the trade. She's doing a lot better now than just a couple of years ago.
The action is okay, the acting is okay+, but it's at the storyboard this movie falls short. The religious relic with rivers of blood in its shadow, post-apocalyptic world where water is rare and clean clothes, lighters and such trading merchandises and obviously the lone good against the collective of evil. It's not a lot original, not a lot of a story at all really.
He's not got a lot to work with, but he's believable in the role of the lone wolf martial art stylistic warrior. Some rough fight scenes add to the value of the movie, as they don't try to make them neither too long and unrealistic annoying as he's a single man, but neither do they make the mistake of not spilling enough blood. Bloodshed is a must in such a tale, and they don't fall short.
I enjoyed as usual Gary Oldman in another of his bad guy portraits, but also Mila Kunis did well as the young sidekick of the lone wolf. Not as convincing in everything, but she's learning the trade. She's doing a lot better now than just a couple of years ago.
The action is okay, the acting is okay+, but it's at the storyboard this movie falls short. The religious relic with rivers of blood in its shadow, post-apocalyptic world where water is rare and clean clothes, lighters and such trading merchandises and obviously the lone good against the collective of evil. It's not a lot original, not a lot of a story at all really.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
Lucky Number Slevin is worked with great craft. It's a lot of good acting, it's a great plot and it's all pretty much wrapped up nicely. After deciding on my rating, I went by my IMDB page to discover it's exactly the same as I gave the first time I watched it. Whenever an eight or better holds up the second time around they've done a lot correct.
The first third of the movie have minor issues. It's about how they present the entire story, the angle they pitch it from and the feeling you get watching. It's like an obvious tease. You can spot the direction it'll take, you can guess well on what's about to happen and there's some minor scenes were the entire balance between the movie's intentions and the feel you get, is a bit off. As it turns out they're just getting warmed up. In the final two thirds it's a lot more focused on what they're trying to tell, which scenes should be shot and such. You can forgive the first part, but in the end when you reflect on the movie it's still the same parts being half the reason you can't speak of it amongst the all time greats.
There's another reason as well, but then we'll be far into the plot, and I don't think it's wise to go spoilerish in reviews. Let's just rather focus on something completely different. It's a big surprise to me Jason Smilovic, who wrote this movie, haven't turned up with another movie. He's created several TV-shows without much success so far as no-one have got a second season yet, but the debut movie should hopefully bring him back into the big screen genre sooner rather than later. While the movie borrows and steals from classics, it's still done classy within its own universe. There's nothing wrong being inspired by the greats, as long as you find your own way delivering in the end.
Overall it's a highly enjoyable movie, even the second time around. It was a whisper of bigger things to come from Josh Hartnett, whom I for a long time only though of as just another pretty boy. Bruce Willis is doing a crossover between his characters from Die Hard, Last Man Standing and a couple of others, but it's these kind of characters Willis has made a career on. Freeman, Kingsley, Liu and Tucci are mostly all in there delivering. It's not Freeman's finest hour, but to be honest few have to compete with them self as difficult while talking about their own finest hours. The other three was doing very well. And the director and actors had a great script to work from. It's the biggest thing about this movie. After watching it you know it went a lot of work into the script. The balance of the story isn't 100 %, but it's close enough you salute the writer.
The first third of the movie have minor issues. It's about how they present the entire story, the angle they pitch it from and the feeling you get watching. It's like an obvious tease. You can spot the direction it'll take, you can guess well on what's about to happen and there's some minor scenes were the entire balance between the movie's intentions and the feel you get, is a bit off. As it turns out they're just getting warmed up. In the final two thirds it's a lot more focused on what they're trying to tell, which scenes should be shot and such. You can forgive the first part, but in the end when you reflect on the movie it's still the same parts being half the reason you can't speak of it amongst the all time greats.
There's another reason as well, but then we'll be far into the plot, and I don't think it's wise to go spoilerish in reviews. Let's just rather focus on something completely different. It's a big surprise to me Jason Smilovic, who wrote this movie, haven't turned up with another movie. He's created several TV-shows without much success so far as no-one have got a second season yet, but the debut movie should hopefully bring him back into the big screen genre sooner rather than later. While the movie borrows and steals from classics, it's still done classy within its own universe. There's nothing wrong being inspired by the greats, as long as you find your own way delivering in the end.
Overall it's a highly enjoyable movie, even the second time around. It was a whisper of bigger things to come from Josh Hartnett, whom I for a long time only though of as just another pretty boy. Bruce Willis is doing a crossover between his characters from Die Hard, Last Man Standing and a couple of others, but it's these kind of characters Willis has made a career on. Freeman, Kingsley, Liu and Tucci are mostly all in there delivering. It's not Freeman's finest hour, but to be honest few have to compete with them self as difficult while talking about their own finest hours. The other three was doing very well. And the director and actors had a great script to work from. It's the biggest thing about this movie. After watching it you know it went a lot of work into the script. The balance of the story isn't 100 %, but it's close enough you salute the writer.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Finding Neverland (2004)
Finding Neverland is the story about 'Sir James M. Berrie', the creator of 'Peter Pan', and his friendship with the family who inspired his 'Neverland'. Directed by Marc Forster, who previously gave us Monster's Ball and later have signed off on movies like The Kite Runner and Stranger Than Fiction, are helped along by the magnificent cast of Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet in the leading roles. No one in their right mind should deny both are extremely talented actors.
While the story at hand is nothing short of magical, inspiring and admirable, it's still not necessary one bringing all the greatest compliments when brought to life in a movie. The imagination and playfulness of 'Berrie', the enchanted children and the times they lived in all make for inspired story writing. Bringing in parts of the story very well known now about 'Peter Pan', doesn't help as much as it sell out its own story.
I'm inspired by the story told, I see the world in a slightly brighter light and I most definitely admire 'Berrie' for staying in touch with his inner child. Still I'm not equally enchanted every step through the movie. There's something to be said about my dislike of those times portrayed, as all that facade and gossip and such annoys the living daylight out of me. There's also something to be said about too little time spent on showing us just a little more of the interactions between 'Berrie' and his wife, as it would go a long way defining their marriage a little better.
I enjoyed the movie, I'm delighted and enchanted by the back story of 'Peter Pan' and the acting is great. I still can't justify all of the movie which touches on 'Peter Pan', and I end up feeling more for the character 'Berrie' than I do for this movie about him and his befriended family. I guess that's another reason to credit Depp, but then again it's also a reason to question Forster.
While the story at hand is nothing short of magical, inspiring and admirable, it's still not necessary one bringing all the greatest compliments when brought to life in a movie. The imagination and playfulness of 'Berrie', the enchanted children and the times they lived in all make for inspired story writing. Bringing in parts of the story very well known now about 'Peter Pan', doesn't help as much as it sell out its own story.
I'm inspired by the story told, I see the world in a slightly brighter light and I most definitely admire 'Berrie' for staying in touch with his inner child. Still I'm not equally enchanted every step through the movie. There's something to be said about my dislike of those times portrayed, as all that facade and gossip and such annoys the living daylight out of me. There's also something to be said about too little time spent on showing us just a little more of the interactions between 'Berrie' and his wife, as it would go a long way defining their marriage a little better.
I enjoyed the movie, I'm delighted and enchanted by the back story of 'Peter Pan' and the acting is great. I still can't justify all of the movie which touches on 'Peter Pan', and I end up feeling more for the character 'Berrie' than I do for this movie about him and his befriended family. I guess that's another reason to credit Depp, but then again it's also a reason to question Forster.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is the newest addition to the ever growing family of animated movies. Who would have guessed even when Toy Story enchanted as many as it did? Sadly. Just like Toy Story didn't manage to thrill me, also this one failed on balancing the quirky, the fun, the morale and the storytelling.
It's a fun enough thought having this magical weather machine, the outcast inventor and the father-sons relationship adding drama and family values to the enterprise, but as a story it never quite embrace the story for the story rather than the aim and idea. It's not that easy to explain why it didn't quite speak to me, especially as there's little wrong with the animations or voices. In this case it's all about the story, the entertainment value and morale myself, as an adult, rather would see more subtly injected into these kind of animated movies. Much of the reason I even mention Toy Story here to begin with, is because that's exactly why it didn't win me over either. I wish more animated movies cared more about the story and animations, and less about how the morale and ethics are presented.
It's a fun enough thought having this magical weather machine, the outcast inventor and the father-sons relationship adding drama and family values to the enterprise, but as a story it never quite embrace the story for the story rather than the aim and idea. It's not that easy to explain why it didn't quite speak to me, especially as there's little wrong with the animations or voices. In this case it's all about the story, the entertainment value and morale myself, as an adult, rather would see more subtly injected into these kind of animated movies. Much of the reason I even mention Toy Story here to begin with, is because that's exactly why it didn't win me over either. I wish more animated movies cared more about the story and animations, and less about how the morale and ethics are presented.
The Holiday (2006)
The Holiday is just another romantic comedy, but wrapped in pre-Christmas holiday mood. Starring Jack Black, Jude Law, Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet, writer and director Nancy Meyers have got quite the A-team following up on her previous works which includes the 2003 movie Something's Gotta Give starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton along Frances McDermond, Amanda Peet and Keanu Reeves. It seems obvious Meyers have something attracting all these stars to her romantic comedies.
And she presents some of it here as well. It's some heart into the storylines, there's some cute admiration of former Hollywood glory and some interactions intriguing as well as interesting. Unfortunately she doesn't manage to keep herself enough on track to get it home safely, but just about enough to make it a nice experience going into the Christmas holiday. I for one enjoyed Kate Winslet ever so much once again, and Eli Wallach was brilliant. The rest of the cast never enchanted my need for on-screen magic, but even with 138 minutes runtime, which is a lot for these kind of a movie, I didn't feel like I completely had wasted my time... even the second time I watched it....
And she presents some of it here as well. It's some heart into the storylines, there's some cute admiration of former Hollywood glory and some interactions intriguing as well as interesting. Unfortunately she doesn't manage to keep herself enough on track to get it home safely, but just about enough to make it a nice experience going into the Christmas holiday. I for one enjoyed Kate Winslet ever so much once again, and Eli Wallach was brilliant. The rest of the cast never enchanted my need for on-screen magic, but even with 138 minutes runtime, which is a lot for these kind of a movie, I didn't feel like I completely had wasted my time... even the second time I watched it....
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a tease. It starts out interesting with its Imaginarium, its dark enchantment and Lily Cole. Soon enough the movie loose its appeal. Where the promise is fascinating, the viewing pleasure is quite unimaginative, unoriginal and much like most trailers it promise a great deal more than it can deliver.
Co-writer and director Terry Gilliam is a familiar name to unfamiliar movies. With a past including Twelve Monkeys, Brazil and Monty Python, he's no stranger to strange happenings. From this movie I'll sadly only take the memory of Heath Ledger, well aware this was far from his best performance, and the revelation of Lily Cole whom I've never seen before.
In my opinion; if you can't imagine the last 80 minutes of the movie after its first 40 minutes, you might be in desperate need of an Imaginarium. I don't mind predictability, if we at least get entertainment on other levels or style in the performance. Gilliam's touches became more boring than anything else, and then I found the length of it unbearable. I'll rather look to his other works, I'll rather remember Ledger for other roles and I'll most definitively look out for Lily Cole in her next roles.
Co-writer and director Terry Gilliam is a familiar name to unfamiliar movies. With a past including Twelve Monkeys, Brazil and Monty Python, he's no stranger to strange happenings. From this movie I'll sadly only take the memory of Heath Ledger, well aware this was far from his best performance, and the revelation of Lily Cole whom I've never seen before.
In my opinion; if you can't imagine the last 80 minutes of the movie after its first 40 minutes, you might be in desperate need of an Imaginarium. I don't mind predictability, if we at least get entertainment on other levels or style in the performance. Gilliam's touches became more boring than anything else, and then I found the length of it unbearable. I'll rather look to his other works, I'll rather remember Ledger for other roles and I'll most definitively look out for Lily Cole in her next roles.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The Boondock Saints (1999)
It was the end of the decade where Quentin Tarantino had redefined violence in movies through his masterpieces Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Troy Duffy comes up with The Boondock Saints of Boston. Where this movie lacks in dialogue and well thought out and focused plot, it makes up for a lot in stylish camera angles, non-linear storytelling through the different leading roles and King Kong-ain't-got-nothing-on-you-cool shaped in the same mold used to bring Micheal Madsen's Reservoir Dogs' character 'Mr. Blonde' to life.
Brothers 'Connor' and 'Murphy MacManus' are The Boondock Saints, and they only hunt criminals. When justice doesn't spread it wings in court, these Irish boys steps into the darkness with guns blazing and prayers flying. Reading the crime sections of the newspaper or watching the news on the television, many have probably wished someone would step up and clean up. They probably didn't have 'Rocco's friends in mind, but you'll take what you get at a certain point.
Where Tarantino's dialogue, eye for details and focused scripts elevated his violent 90's flicks to art worth re-visiting over and over and over again, Duffy's piece for the genre doesn't have these elements taking it to the next level. There's a couple of scenes annoyingly out of sync with the rest of the movie and there's a couple of scenes unnecessarily over the top touching on parody.
The acting is great. I love the cast for the vigilante's, as even Duffy's friend David Della Rocco is pitch perfect as the friend 'Rocco'. Willem Defoe does a very interesting FBI agent, and while Brian Connolly's 'Il Duce' can't hold the candle to other memorable locked up psychos, it was still an interesting touch.
All things considered The Boondock Saints scores high enough on style, cool and story presentation to be a highly rewarding action movie, but it's no masterpiece.
Brothers 'Connor' and 'Murphy MacManus' are The Boondock Saints, and they only hunt criminals. When justice doesn't spread it wings in court, these Irish boys steps into the darkness with guns blazing and prayers flying. Reading the crime sections of the newspaper or watching the news on the television, many have probably wished someone would step up and clean up. They probably didn't have 'Rocco's friends in mind, but you'll take what you get at a certain point.
Where Tarantino's dialogue, eye for details and focused scripts elevated his violent 90's flicks to art worth re-visiting over and over and over again, Duffy's piece for the genre doesn't have these elements taking it to the next level. There's a couple of scenes annoyingly out of sync with the rest of the movie and there's a couple of scenes unnecessarily over the top touching on parody.
The acting is great. I love the cast for the vigilante's, as even Duffy's friend David Della Rocco is pitch perfect as the friend 'Rocco'. Willem Defoe does a very interesting FBI agent, and while Brian Connolly's 'Il Duce' can't hold the candle to other memorable locked up psychos, it was still an interesting touch.
All things considered The Boondock Saints scores high enough on style, cool and story presentation to be a highly rewarding action movie, but it's no masterpiece.
The Class (2008)
Director: Laurent Catet
Writer: Scenario: Laurent Catet, Robin Campillo, François Bégaudeau Inspired by Novel: François Bégaudeau
Cast: François Bégaudeau
Genre: Drama
However, the later told a story within its descriptions, while The Class works more like a documentary. I don't mind documentaries, but I do when they hide as an ordinary drama movie. We follow a year of this class, but we never get really close on them. Most of us have lived within a classroom. We know how it works, the society within the society. There's always leaders, there's silent followers and so on and so forth. In The Class most of the students roles within the room stays hidden. It takes away a lot of the movies credibility.
It also covers nine months of school, but it's impossible to know how much time has passed of the year at any given time. It makes it impossible to take in the changes in the context of time passed since different situations. Added with the lack of a story to tell and the lack of hierarchy presented, I can't really praise it like so many others have. Keep in mind this was nominated for Oscar for 'Best Foreign Movie' and it won the 'Golden Palm' at Cannes Film Festival.
Being realistic, having good acting and painting a picture of some of the younger French's problems, doesn't manage to make me forget about its problems. It certainly didn't help being French. Of course reading sub-texts kill some of the experience, but my main objections was elsewhere.
Escape from New York (1981)
It's not easy to review Escape from New York. Keep in mind. It's 29 years since director John Carpenter released this movie. A lot has changed in three decades, not least the way action movies and technology have changed. The way I see it, I can't do it justice anyway I go at it, so I just do as usual; I try my best to rate it the way it holds today, while overlooking the technological advances since it was made.
Kurt Russell never became a star, and I can't judge history. He's limited, even for an action role, but this might be the role defining him in his career. Surely it's one of the handful of roles defining his career. On the supporting cast there's a lot more interesting names. Harry Dean Stanton and Lee van Cleef is spending quite some time making us forget about Russell for a while, and when they didn't Adrienne Barbeau sure helped. I only wish we got to see more women like Adrienne in today's movies.
With a story set in the future, Carpenter made the entire New York into a prison. Unfortunately Air Force One goes down there with the President being captured by the criminals, and 'Snake Plissken' is as part of a deal sent in trying to get him out of the city alive. The initial plot lines I buy. I've had to swallow a lot worse in other movies. The problem is this 'Plissken' character lives on reputation and word of mouth only. He never does a lot to explain why he got there in the first place, why people have heard he was dead or why he's so notorious to begin with. Add in a quite lame action part of the story, it's never a movie giving you value enough for your time. The supporting roles, the prison city of New York and the criminals living there, does however make it interesting enough.
Kurt Russell never became a star, and I can't judge history. He's limited, even for an action role, but this might be the role defining him in his career. Surely it's one of the handful of roles defining his career. On the supporting cast there's a lot more interesting names. Harry Dean Stanton and Lee van Cleef is spending quite some time making us forget about Russell for a while, and when they didn't Adrienne Barbeau sure helped. I only wish we got to see more women like Adrienne in today's movies.
With a story set in the future, Carpenter made the entire New York into a prison. Unfortunately Air Force One goes down there with the President being captured by the criminals, and 'Snake Plissken' is as part of a deal sent in trying to get him out of the city alive. The initial plot lines I buy. I've had to swallow a lot worse in other movies. The problem is this 'Plissken' character lives on reputation and word of mouth only. He never does a lot to explain why he got there in the first place, why people have heard he was dead or why he's so notorious to begin with. Add in a quite lame action part of the story, it's never a movie giving you value enough for your time. The supporting roles, the prison city of New York and the criminals living there, does however make it interesting enough.
Elizabethtown (2005)
I love me some Kirsten Dunst, and have never denied it, but Elizabethtown isn't very entertaining. It didn't help a lot having Orlando Bloom there, but I guess that cast was more about capturing the other half of the potential watchers rather than me. I'm not convinced running from Lord of the Rings trilogy to Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy have done him any good as an actor. Rather than hiding in ensembles along greatness like Depp and Mortensen, he should have worked harder on carrying movies on his own acting.
Anyhoo. This wasn't Kristen's most inspired role either, and the story is tiresome and rather boring. It's got some moments and visions elevating it from disaster, but director Cameron Crowe did so much better in his debut Say Anything.... Of course back then he had John Cusack carrying weight.
Anyhoo. This wasn't Kristen's most inspired role either, and the story is tiresome and rather boring. It's got some moments and visions elevating it from disaster, but director Cameron Crowe did so much better in his debut Say Anything.... Of course back then he had John Cusack carrying weight.
Fever Pitch (2005)
This 2005 Fever Pitch is the American version of the novel, and seen in an other light than the 1997 British movie. This time it's baseball rather than soccer, Boston Red Sox rather than Arsenal, and Drew Barrymore and the Farrelly brothers getting the headlines for attending watchers rather than Nick Hornby who wrote the novel.
It's not as funny as the British movie and I didn't enjoy the attention turned more towards the woman between a man and his sports, rather than a man torn between a woman and his love for the sports team. I don't think it did them any favors. Stop making American versions of anything great. Rather teach the Americans to accept British humor or subtexts for other languages. The remakes are rarely any better than the originals as they lose out on passion, timing, heart and even talent.
It's not as funny as the British movie and I didn't enjoy the attention turned more towards the woman between a man and his sports, rather than a man torn between a woman and his love for the sports team. I don't think it did them any favors. Stop making American versions of anything great. Rather teach the Americans to accept British humor or subtexts for other languages. The remakes are rarely any better than the originals as they lose out on passion, timing, heart and even talent.
Fever Pitch (1997)
The 1997 Fever Pitch is the British version of Nick Hornby's novel with the same title. Colin Firth is the leading man in this story about a man and his romances, both the football (soccer) team and a woman.
Hornby's book is brilliant, and the movie manages to take much of it well onto the big screen. It still doesn't manage to really capture his passion, his choices and the humor. If you love soccer, or really any sport, or a man or woman who loves a sport, then you'll find a lot to relate to and laugh of. If you don't love, sport or someone loving sport, I doubt this movie will speak to you.
Hornby's book is brilliant, and the movie manages to take much of it well onto the big screen. It still doesn't manage to really capture his passion, his choices and the humor. If you love soccer, or really any sport, or a man or woman who loves a sport, then you'll find a lot to relate to and laugh of. If you don't love, sport or someone loving sport, I doubt this movie will speak to you.
Out of Sight (1998)
Out of Sight is George Clooney charms Jennifer Lopez. The rest of the movie isn't worth much, as it's a sad excuse of an action/crime/thriller. Even I know Clooney is seen as one of the sexiest men out there in 1998 land, and I'll sign any petition claiming J-Lo attracts.
It's still sad when these kind of stories only rely on their leading stars to attract our eyes and leave our brain home. That's what romantic comedies are for...
Out of Sight is a career bank robber breaking out of jail, kidnapping the female U.S. Marshall agent while doing so and we later follows Clooney's out of jail plans and J-Lo's search to look him up again. I suggest watching a real crime/thriller/gentleman thief movie and a real romantic comedy, and forget about this hybrid.
It's still sad when these kind of stories only rely on their leading stars to attract our eyes and leave our brain home. That's what romantic comedies are for...
Out of Sight is a career bank robber breaking out of jail, kidnapping the female U.S. Marshall agent while doing so and we later follows Clooney's out of jail plans and J-Lo's search to look him up again. I suggest watching a real crime/thriller/gentleman thief movie and a real romantic comedy, and forget about this hybrid.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Law Abiding Citizen is a tragic excuse for a crime thriller, and even sadder for its attempts to play on the drama angle as well. Starring Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler as the leading duo, and both equally unable to bring enough life into their characters to make me care much for either of them.
I could put holes in the plot, but would have to make spoilers to do so. I still feel the need to say it's not much to brag about. Unrealistic, highly unlikely and complete BS are descriptions going through my mind during the runtime. For instance: When did lawyers begin taking part in pretty much anything related to leads in a police case? Jamie Foxx' character are so often in places he shouldn't be, it's ridiculous.
Honestly. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this movie. I better just forget about it. Let's just summarize: Weak leading characters, forgettable acting, leaking plot, too little connection to feel any suspense for what's going to happen next, and by dropping in spoilers I could make the laundry list even longer.
I could put holes in the plot, but would have to make spoilers to do so. I still feel the need to say it's not much to brag about. Unrealistic, highly unlikely and complete BS are descriptions going through my mind during the runtime. For instance: When did lawyers begin taking part in pretty much anything related to leads in a police case? Jamie Foxx' character are so often in places he shouldn't be, it's ridiculous.
Honestly. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this movie. I better just forget about it. Let's just summarize: Weak leading characters, forgettable acting, leaking plot, too little connection to feel any suspense for what's going to happen next, and by dropping in spoilers I could make the laundry list even longer.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Killer (1989)
Dip huet seung hung
The Killer was an earlier work, but not the first they cooperated in. To me they are one of the great duos of directors-actors. No-one popularized Hong Kong movies like John Woo, but he's lost some of his excellence in his Hollywood productions.
The Killer is made with a lot of heart. An innocent girl is blinded during an assassination by our leading killer, and he feels guilty and connects with her. You can feel the bond between the injured girl and the assassin, as well as between the assassin and the police inspector trying to catch him. There's a lot of subtle and not so subtle interactions going on.
The action sequences doesn't ever try to come off as realistic, but they are in good old fashioned Hong Kong style trying to entertain. I sure was entertained by this movie, and as it's been many years since I last watched Hard Boiled I think it's about time I check it out again as well.
The Killer is among the very best, if not the best, the genre has to offer.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Valentine's Day (2010)
Valentine's Day was done seven years ago. Back then they called it Love Actually, and they did a lot better job. I like pretty people. I can fully enjoy Jessica Alba or Jennifer Garner, or even both in the same movie, but the amount of beauty in a movie isn't equal to its strength. Valentine's Day is filled with pretty actors, rising stars and superstars, but its got severe lack in so many other areas.
The stories on hand is very uneven, the casting is amusingly wrongly balanced and it's too often obvious, without managing to embrace the heart of the stories like Love Actually did. I don't mind knowing in my heart what for sure will happen in a romantic comedy, but then there's got to be other sides of the movie attracting me, like heart, or like focused storytelling and balanced script, or any of the other aspects of a romantic comedy. In this movie it's a lack in every department.
I have no idea who is prettiest, sexiest or have most appeal of Ashton Kutcher, Bradley Cooper, Topher Grace, Patrick Dempsey, Jamie Foxx and whoever else was male in this movie, but I know for sure the best actors wasn't close to those getting most runtime. As that's pretty much the sole reason I have to judge the male characters, I got to deduct a lot there.
A lot of rinsing stars and superstars gives this movie a lot of headlines, but it's sadly very little to read below those.
The stories on hand is very uneven, the casting is amusingly wrongly balanced and it's too often obvious, without managing to embrace the heart of the stories like Love Actually did. I don't mind knowing in my heart what for sure will happen in a romantic comedy, but then there's got to be other sides of the movie attracting me, like heart, or like focused storytelling and balanced script, or any of the other aspects of a romantic comedy. In this movie it's a lack in every department.
I have no idea who is prettiest, sexiest or have most appeal of Ashton Kutcher, Bradley Cooper, Topher Grace, Patrick Dempsey, Jamie Foxx and whoever else was male in this movie, but I know for sure the best actors wasn't close to those getting most runtime. As that's pretty much the sole reason I have to judge the male characters, I got to deduct a lot there.
A lot of rinsing stars and superstars gives this movie a lot of headlines, but it's sadly very little to read below those.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Grifters (1990)
The Grifters is a 90's noir piece about Roy Dillon and his two women, his mother and his girlfriend. All three are grifters, all play their angles and its a lot darker than the modern gentleman's fairy tale con men seen in the Ocean movies and such.
I wish I could say I was intrigued, but it felt just felt like the movie tried to be tense and smart while mostly being paranoid. I enjoyed Annette Bening as 'Roy's girlfriend 'Myra', but I never felt like Anjelica Huston got her character as his mother down. John Cusack as 'Roy' isn't his finest hour as I see it, but many claim it to be one of his best roles ever. Overall the acting is good, but the attempted noir have scripted them into a wannabe state.
I feel the potential in the movie, but only Bening got to take on enough different states of mind to build her character. Felt like Cusack and Huston was a lot more limited by the amount they got to work with. Both Bening and Huston got Oscar nominated, Annette in the 'Supporting Actress' category and Anjelica in the 'Leading Actress' category.
There's a couple of holes in the overall plot, which I can't mention of spoilerish reasons. There's also some parts of the story they seem to have forgot. There's actually an inner circle con I still have no idea how worked even after watching the entire movie. That kind of ruins a lot, as there wasn't that many complicated scams going on. There's also a couple of Captain Obvious moments. Overall all these small things ruin a movie with potential for me.
I wish I could say I was intrigued, but it felt just felt like the movie tried to be tense and smart while mostly being paranoid. I enjoyed Annette Bening as 'Roy's girlfriend 'Myra', but I never felt like Anjelica Huston got her character as his mother down. John Cusack as 'Roy' isn't his finest hour as I see it, but many claim it to be one of his best roles ever. Overall the acting is good, but the attempted noir have scripted them into a wannabe state.
I feel the potential in the movie, but only Bening got to take on enough different states of mind to build her character. Felt like Cusack and Huston was a lot more limited by the amount they got to work with. Both Bening and Huston got Oscar nominated, Annette in the 'Supporting Actress' category and Anjelica in the 'Leading Actress' category.
There's a couple of holes in the overall plot, which I can't mention of spoilerish reasons. There's also some parts of the story they seem to have forgot. There's actually an inner circle con I still have no idea how worked even after watching the entire movie. That kind of ruins a lot, as there wasn't that many complicated scams going on. There's also a couple of Captain Obvious moments. Overall all these small things ruin a movie with potential for me.
The Saint (1997)
The Saint adds to the tally of charming fictitious legends 'Simon Templar'. Along the likes of 'James Bond' and 'Modesty Blaise', 'Simon Templar' are more of a vigilante than anything else. While 'Bond' might be funded by MI-6 and have license to kill, and 'Modesty Blaise' equally tied to MI-6 despite not being an employee, they both have to operate on the side of the law eluding the police. So does our 'Saint'. I'll have to admit he isn't close to be as fascinating as 'Modesty', but I enjoy the fictitious world of 'Simon' ahead of 'James' any day.
I'm not that impressed by Val Kilmer though. He doesn't quite manage to pull of the cooler than cool charming gentleman. Elisabeth Shue on the other hand is quite a scene stealer. I still feel I haven't sen enough of here after Leaving Las Vegas and this in the late 90's. Also with this script she manages to come across as interesting, layered, and most definitely starving for loving attention and emotional growth.
The story is too thin. I wish they didn't spend so much time in Russia. The character they're selling needs a little more location changes to work. As mentioned do I also struggle with Kilmer, and then it's too few selling points for the character. Spending a lot of time crawling sewers doesn't help a lot.
I don't remember well my 'Templar' from my youth, but I've read they've changed a lot from the character in the novels. I think they missed on a couple of character choices made for the movie, but they could easily have missed worse. We find him somewhat layered, but the combination of missing establishment of his trade skills and Kilmer's acting makes me far from the fan I could have been.
Like so many other fictitious con artists, thieves and vigilantes, 'Templar' enjoys showing up despite the obvious danger. A typical ego trademark, but a most enjoyable one when they make it work. I wish they would have, I wish anyone but Kilmer had got the lead and I wish they had introduced 'The Saint' with a better script, because there's plenty of potential in the character. They're just not even close to reach it.
I'm not that impressed by Val Kilmer though. He doesn't quite manage to pull of the cooler than cool charming gentleman. Elisabeth Shue on the other hand is quite a scene stealer. I still feel I haven't sen enough of here after Leaving Las Vegas and this in the late 90's. Also with this script she manages to come across as interesting, layered, and most definitely starving for loving attention and emotional growth.
The story is too thin. I wish they didn't spend so much time in Russia. The character they're selling needs a little more location changes to work. As mentioned do I also struggle with Kilmer, and then it's too few selling points for the character. Spending a lot of time crawling sewers doesn't help a lot.
I don't remember well my 'Templar' from my youth, but I've read they've changed a lot from the character in the novels. I think they missed on a couple of character choices made for the movie, but they could easily have missed worse. We find him somewhat layered, but the combination of missing establishment of his trade skills and Kilmer's acting makes me far from the fan I could have been.
Like so many other fictitious con artists, thieves and vigilantes, 'Templar' enjoys showing up despite the obvious danger. A typical ego trademark, but a most enjoyable one when they make it work. I wish they would have, I wish anyone but Kilmer had got the lead and I wish they had introduced 'The Saint' with a better script, because there's plenty of potential in the character. They're just not even close to reach it.
The Blue Lagoon (1980)
Within The Blue Lagoon there's a story hiding. Too bad it hides well and every actor involved helps reminding us. There's something really disturbing about bad actors/actresses acting like they're pure and unknowing. That's pretty much the concept of this movie, and needless to say Shields and Atkins haven't exactly been box office guarantees the past two decades.
I wish I could enjoy it. I remember a teenage girl I once knew, and she loved this movie back then. Oh, how the knowledge can ruin the fun. There's thankfully laws preventing child pornography, and there's a reason I don't think these kind of stories will ever fulfill their potential on screen. This is a story in desperate need of being told in a novel and pictured only inside the head of the reader. Then the purity as well as the story can shine, because I'm still convinced there's a story hiding there somewhere.
I wish I could enjoy it. I remember a teenage girl I once knew, and she loved this movie back then. Oh, how the knowledge can ruin the fun. There's thankfully laws preventing child pornography, and there's a reason I don't think these kind of stories will ever fulfill their potential on screen. This is a story in desperate need of being told in a novel and pictured only inside the head of the reader. Then the purity as well as the story can shine, because I'm still convinced there's a story hiding there somewhere.
Air Force One (1997)
Air Force One is hijacked, and POTUS himself, being a decorated war veteran, takes on the terrorists. POTUS being the President of the United States. Add Harrison Ford in the lead, and this can't be good.
In all fairness. To watch this movie in a post The West Wing world is rather unfair. Aaron Sorkin presented Air Force One, presidency, and concerns about who's in charge during distress, in that show in a way making Wolfgang Petersen's movie a couple of amateur hours. This movie was however made two years prior to Sorkin's epic saga began.
I'm anything but impressed by Ford's acting. I'll give him a lot of credit for spotting good roles in huge movies, but as an actor he's extremely limited in my eyes. Air Force One is not one of the good roles he's spotted, and as far as the acting goes it just confirms my opinion on that matter. There's however quite a lot of good actors in supporting roles among the senior staff.
And finally. You can't just compare this movie to the Sorkin's TV show, as this movie is supposed to be an action most of all. It's not. The plot stinks, the credibility is non existent and the solutions is cartoonesque. Air Force One is nothing but a waste of time. The only thing I got from it is this question about the girl portraying the First Daughter; whatever happened to Liesel Matthews?
In all fairness. To watch this movie in a post The West Wing world is rather unfair. Aaron Sorkin presented Air Force One, presidency, and concerns about who's in charge during distress, in that show in a way making Wolfgang Petersen's movie a couple of amateur hours. This movie was however made two years prior to Sorkin's epic saga began.
I'm anything but impressed by Ford's acting. I'll give him a lot of credit for spotting good roles in huge movies, but as an actor he's extremely limited in my eyes. Air Force One is not one of the good roles he's spotted, and as far as the acting goes it just confirms my opinion on that matter. There's however quite a lot of good actors in supporting roles among the senior staff.
And finally. You can't just compare this movie to the Sorkin's TV show, as this movie is supposed to be an action most of all. It's not. The plot stinks, the credibility is non existent and the solutions is cartoonesque. Air Force One is nothing but a waste of time. The only thing I got from it is this question about the girl portraying the First Daughter; whatever happened to Liesel Matthews?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Do the Right Thing is a Spike Lee baby in every way. Writing, directing and starring himself, there's really no one else to share credit or blame with. From my point of view we're talking blame, but I'm not blind to the reactions and responses it's gotten elsewhere.
I don't mind giving credit for being influential, asking questions about society and bringing attention to race related issues. The problem for me is the movie's many weaknesses as a movie. The acting vary a lot. There's some really good performances, but there's also some performances so painful to watch it should be obvious to Spike he should have chased them off the set. The story tries to build tension from a slow everyday feel of the neighborhood until the climax. The problem is it manages to bore me a lot during the first three quarters. I've lost interest in the story before he brings the story to attention.
The movie is so out of focus, it's ruining momentum rather than building the feel of tension. Add some characters everybody, white, indian, asian or afro-american alike, all should be brushing off as out of their mind, I can't for the better of me excuse the runtime of this supposedly late 80's classic. Whining, bitching, insulting, boring or crazy. Anyway they pitch this, it must be one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen.
I don't mind giving credit for being influential, asking questions about society and bringing attention to race related issues. The problem for me is the movie's many weaknesses as a movie. The acting vary a lot. There's some really good performances, but there's also some performances so painful to watch it should be obvious to Spike he should have chased them off the set. The story tries to build tension from a slow everyday feel of the neighborhood until the climax. The problem is it manages to bore me a lot during the first three quarters. I've lost interest in the story before he brings the story to attention.
The movie is so out of focus, it's ruining momentum rather than building the feel of tension. Add some characters everybody, white, indian, asian or afro-american alike, all should be brushing off as out of their mind, I can't for the better of me excuse the runtime of this supposedly late 80's classic. Whining, bitching, insulting, boring or crazy. Anyway they pitch this, it must be one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Crazy Heart (2009)
Crazy Heart don't reinvent the wheel in any ways. Jeff Bridges do the washed out country singer only a year after Mickey Rourke did his washed out The Wrestler, and before that we've seen other alcoholics or pill poppers or whatever. These are the stories always coming around, but as they are given new faces in life these are also the stories always true to human nature.
The quality differences in these movies are what makes or break them. They need good acting, a focused script, and a good understanding of how high their story need to go on the happy ending scale to work. There's really not much else to ask for. They'll never be original, but done with quality in their three main areas and some heart, and they'll be well worth the attention anyway. Crazy Heart sure is.
Bridges is brilliant in the lead as 'Bad Blake'. A 57 year old washed out drunk country and western singer playing in small establishments, while counting the dollars in his pockets to decide which brand of booze he can afford. He's credible in everything he does throughout the movie, and it wasn't a huge surprise he collected the 'Best Lead Actor' Oscar for his performance.
I've enjoyed Maggie Gyllenhaal's performances for quite a while, and she doesn't let me down here either. Her 'Jean' is an important support character to the story of 'Bad', and her performance is as usual with the right amounts of lovable, flawed, sexy, layered and credible. Also Colin Farrell comes along as the new generation country and western star 'Tommy Sweet', who started his career along and learned from 'Bad'. Along with performances from Robert Duvall, James Keane and a couple of others, they all make sure Crazy Heart nails the acting parts.
The script is focused. They know very well which story they are trying to tell, and they execute with militant precision. They are also well aware of how high they need to go on the happy ending chart. The music is very good. Not for nothing it was were this movie got its second Oscar.
Crazy Heart is actually pretty brilliant. There's not a lot of reasons to deduct points from the overall score. It's a story we've been told before, but as long as the world is filled with stories resembling these they also need to be written down and filmed. This is one of the better ones I've seen. In fact it's so good it's very close to an even better rating from me. I'm quite sure I got to get back to this one again to consider whether or not to actually award it a nine, but for now it's a rock solid country and western eight.
The quality differences in these movies are what makes or break them. They need good acting, a focused script, and a good understanding of how high their story need to go on the happy ending scale to work. There's really not much else to ask for. They'll never be original, but done with quality in their three main areas and some heart, and they'll be well worth the attention anyway. Crazy Heart sure is.
Bridges is brilliant in the lead as 'Bad Blake'. A 57 year old washed out drunk country and western singer playing in small establishments, while counting the dollars in his pockets to decide which brand of booze he can afford. He's credible in everything he does throughout the movie, and it wasn't a huge surprise he collected the 'Best Lead Actor' Oscar for his performance.
I've enjoyed Maggie Gyllenhaal's performances for quite a while, and she doesn't let me down here either. Her 'Jean' is an important support character to the story of 'Bad', and her performance is as usual with the right amounts of lovable, flawed, sexy, layered and credible. Also Colin Farrell comes along as the new generation country and western star 'Tommy Sweet', who started his career along and learned from 'Bad'. Along with performances from Robert Duvall, James Keane and a couple of others, they all make sure Crazy Heart nails the acting parts.
The script is focused. They know very well which story they are trying to tell, and they execute with militant precision. They are also well aware of how high they need to go on the happy ending chart. The music is very good. Not for nothing it was were this movie got its second Oscar.
Crazy Heart is actually pretty brilliant. There's not a lot of reasons to deduct points from the overall score. It's a story we've been told before, but as long as the world is filled with stories resembling these they also need to be written down and filmed. This is one of the better ones I've seen. In fact it's so good it's very close to an even better rating from me. I'm quite sure I got to get back to this one again to consider whether or not to actually award it a nine, but for now it's a rock solid country and western eight.
The Outsiders (1983)
The Outsiders is Francis Ford Coppola's movie based on S.E. Hinton's quite famous novel about 'The Greasers' and 'The Socials'. Looking back at it now there's little doubt they sure picked some rising names as their young cast. All of them might now exactly be known for their talent, but never the less they sure made names for them self.
Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Tom Cruise, Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze and C.T. Howell. It's quite a collection of late 80's and early 90's tabloid headliners. Anyhoo. In my opinion the biggest problem this movie has cast-wise is two of their weakest actors are those most on screen. Macchio and Howell haven't exactly turned out superstars compared to the rest of the cast, and it's sure no coincident. Both have severe acting lacks.
The story doesn't live up to the cult fame the title might suggest either. It's really not that good a story. It lacks depth that doesn't feel phony, its outsider amongst the outsiders doesn't come across as credible and then the overall story can't excite. I'll have to admit I haven't read the book, but at least it doesn't work well in the movie.
I give it some cult points for its outstanding supporting cast, as a collectible if not as a collection of talent. Not enough to actually be worth the stride down memory lane, but enough to at least hold some retro significance.
Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Tom Cruise, Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze and C.T. Howell. It's quite a collection of late 80's and early 90's tabloid headliners. Anyhoo. In my opinion the biggest problem this movie has cast-wise is two of their weakest actors are those most on screen. Macchio and Howell haven't exactly turned out superstars compared to the rest of the cast, and it's sure no coincident. Both have severe acting lacks.
The story doesn't live up to the cult fame the title might suggest either. It's really not that good a story. It lacks depth that doesn't feel phony, its outsider amongst the outsiders doesn't come across as credible and then the overall story can't excite. I'll have to admit I haven't read the book, but at least it doesn't work well in the movie.
I give it some cult points for its outstanding supporting cast, as a collectible if not as a collection of talent. Not enough to actually be worth the stride down memory lane, but enough to at least hold some retro significance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)