|Page 5 of 41:||              |
|Index||405 reviews in total|
In short - give me my 2 hours back! There were countless books written
and movies shot about destiny and our ability to control it, but never
before have I seen such a simplistic, idiot-proof, insulting to the
intelligence, take on this topic.
Damon delivers one of his most bland performances to date, and is not helped by a lackluster script and a boring, linear storyline. This half-hearted effort couldn't have made it as an episode of the twilight zone, let alone a feature length movie.
A movie can be intelligent, interesting, involving, fun, entertaining, actually it can be almost anything... Problem is, this movie is nothing. Just a waste of digital space and 2 hours of my life. (Or may be the bureau wanted me to see it in the first place.)
2/10. If it was any worse, I'd have walked out.
A new member of the official Hollywood script-pickers club. Not even Ben Affleck would touch this one. The ideas for new movies are becoming increasingly bizarre. Inception, The Tourist and now this oddment. Let's stick to remakes, or even movies that aren't exact remakes but are really (for example, Goonies becomes Super 8). Some people believe that you need to go to a cinema and view these pieces of work on the silver screen. Unfortunately, you have to pay for that and since George Lucas's hi-jacking of Star Wars I am reluctant to trust the straight to general cinema releases as a mark of quality. In fact, the limited release movies are often much more creative and original. I give this movie 2 stars but only for the ridiculous hats, the true stars of the show.
Do we control our destiny, or do unseen forces manipulate us? Matt
Damon stars in the thriller The Adjustment Bureau as a man who glimpses
the future Fate has planned for him and realizes he wants something
else. To get it, he must pursue the only woman he's ever loved across,
under and through the streets of modern-day New York. On the brink of
winning a seat in the U.S. Senate, ambitious politician David Norris
(Damon) meets beautiful contemporary ballet dancer Elise Sellas (Emily
Blunt)--a woman like none he's ever known. But just as he realizes he's
falling for her, mysterious men conspire to keep the two apart. David
learns he is up against the agents of Fate itself--the men of The
Adjustment Bureau--who will do everything in their considerable power
to prevent David and Elise from being together. In the face of
overwhelming odds, he must either let her go and accept a predetermined
path...or risk everything to defy Fate and be with her. The Adjustment
Bureau is written for the screen and directed by George Nolfi (writer
of Ocean's Twelve, co-writer of The Bourne Ultimatum). It is based on a
short story by Philip K. Dick ("Total Recall," "Minority Report" and
This is a very lovely movie must watch for all people !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"There's much to be said for challenging fate instead of ducking behind
it." Diana Trilling
Fate, determinism, chance, existential choice, and love-- all need adjustment, and the sci-fi The Adjustment Bureau is right for you if you love those abstractions and miss Twilight Zone and X Files. Matt Damon gives a strong under-acted performance as a New York senatorial candidate dogged by the Adjustment Bureau under the direction of a "chairman" who writes the life plan for specially targeted humans. His minions adjust as is necessary to the god-like's plans with as few "ripples" as possible.
Based on Philip K. Dick's short story, The Adjustment Team, it's an imaginative screenplay that takes itself not too seriously but risks being underdeveloped. What distinguishes Damon's David and his dancer-love Elise (Emily Blunt) is their determination to fulfill their serious love despite the Bureau's plans contrary to the consummation. The on-screen chemistry between Blunt and Damon is so pleasing that I am tempted to call this film a romance rather than a sci-fi thriller.
Actually, what makes me so favorable is the nicely-acted romance, which asks questions about whether to choose love or public service, love or professional success. For the existentialist, these are vexing alternatives squarely in the realm of personal choice, not a bureau's design.
Therein rests the philosophical core of the film: Can mankind be trusted with free will given how badly they have screwed up over the last 2000 years or so? The Bureau's notable success at intervention during the 16th through 19th centuries promises that it needs to make itself felt again, especially as the path of a future USA president must be controlled.
Although I am tempted to cite the absurdities of the plot and the philosophical inconsistencies, I will refrain in favor of a pleasantly provocative tale that tries more than most other films at this time to engage our minds. The parallel to Inception is not far-fetched; the manipulation is just different. But in the end the humans must take control of their fates, and in both films they do.\
Although it's not Blade Runner or Minority Report (both Dick stories), I applaud a film that dares to remind us of our determination to forge productive lives. Egyptians today are living proof of the power of free will.
"If I'm not supposed to be with her, why do I feel like this?" Dave Norris about Elise and the Bureau's plan to keep them apart.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I guess the Film leaves you mostly unsatisfied and not in the good way.
I watched it at a Sneak Preview tonight, hadn't seen any trailers and
knew nothing about the story so far. After the first couple of scenes i
really thought, man thats some nice ideas there on the screen book.
Sadly enough i started to get more disappointed scene after scene.
A couple of things really really annoyed me during the movie like "hey we're the bad guys you can't beat us - just so you know our only weakness is water" i mean that is just to easy for such a production don't you think?
And even though the film played with the ironic of the adjusters being that weak, i never really felt some sort of danger for the love story. I mean once Damon and blunt start using the doors it starts getting pathetic and can't be taken serious in any way anymore. I mean the love scene at the statue of liberty? Zero effort by the director.
I mean i expected something like this to happen in the end. But it was way more awful than i thought. Really?? Cmon! That was cheap. Believe in Love, make your own destiny? I really had the feeling nobody had any interest to make the original good concept into a good shaped movie.
Nevertheless i liked the Character Norris and the scenes between him and the adjusters had something to me. Overall still a little sad that they did not made some more complex out of the idea.
Just my opinion - and taste is different
I struggled to get a handle on this sci-fi romance. Is it the meeting
of Damon & Blunt's cleft chins? Perhaps, in a reversal of the
postmodern revisiting of the 1960s in Mad Men this is Roger Sterling
(John Slattery)'s tinkering with the future?
No, really, it's just another tepid Philip K Dick adaptation. At its time of release (this week) it's fashionable to say its Bourne (the Damon bit) meets Inception (the magic realism bit). However it bears resemblance to others too - Vanilla Sky (noumenal New York), Minority Report (more Dick), The Thomas Crown Affair (hats), The Matrix (predetermination) and even Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (sci- fi romance) to name a few (oh, go on then - Orson Welles' The Trial is also in there).
Like many mongrel films it ends up being less than the sum of its parts. Though Damon has charisma and John Slattery injects some realist ennui into his deus in machina role, damp, compliant phone-ins from Emily Blunt and Terence Stamp shackle the show. The shortcomings of the cast are entirely of a part with the production - the film doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to be all of the above, jumping from a scene of *fun* through a door marked *thrills* and then on to another door marked *romance* without backing itself up. Diverting 5/10
The film deals with two very important philosophical matters (forces
that control the destiny of all men and use of free will) in a very
frivolous way.This is very curious for a movie that cost over
50.000.000 dollars.The script doesn't have major plot twists.The
characters are one-dimensional,which is a huge drawback for a thriller
with almost no action.
There is no emotional stimulation for the spectators.There isn't even the slightest passion between the two lovers,so the film doesn't have an impact as a love story either.
Matt Damon is efficient as always,but the rest of the actors and actresses offer very unmemorable performances.
The direction is uninspired.There isn't any visual satisfaction either,although the film belongs in a genre with opulent visual delights.
If you want to see a powerful love story in the form of a thriller,"The next three days" is a must.You won't regret it...
The film was on the shelves for quite some time before its release.I think that this fact means a lot... No rabbits out of these hats!
The Adjustment Bureau is a mediocre movie with a storyline that never
really goes anywhere interesting for its audience, despite a cast that
do try their very best with what they are given. The chemistry between
Matt Damon and Emily Blunt is undeniable, they are without a doubt the
movies highlight, as their love is very believable, I would like to see
them on screen together again. The biggest issue is that it's literally
afraid to keep it's story moving, it's as if the writer was not sure
what to do next, so he simply kept lingering till the movie was over.
The film had a huge promise with this secret, very shady organisation,
but it never expends on this idea that would have been exciting and
intriguing for the audience. As for the main characters relationship,
it's underdeveloped, like the story, it never moves forward, I did not
find myself knowing more about their relationship by the end of the
movie as I did at the start. While the performances are good and it has
some nice moments, the Adjustment Bureau simply had too many missed
opportunities to recommend.
An organisation begin to keep a man away from a woman he desires.
Best Performance: Matt Damon
The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
A fun and funny and farcical romp about fate and love. The Bureau is a layer of men quasi angelswho watch over mere humans and guide their futures. The center of attention is Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) who encounters a blip in the system. And helping him along (or not) is a young woman he meets twice by accident, Elise (Emily Blunt).
The rules are not very clear here, even though they get explained a couple of times. The Bureau men (and they are only men) seem to have unlimited powers at times (moving the floor to trip a running Norris) and other times are helplessly running to try to catch up with him. Then they reappear far ahead. There is a trick about going through doors (rather like "Monsters Inc.") but sometimes there are no doors and the men pop up here and there.
So you can't take this seriously and logically at all. Just go with the flow. Like the stricture that this huge god-plan, mapped in little notebooks, goes all to hell if two people fall in love. Or more accurately, kiss like mad. Remember that trick when the world is against you.
The movie works and will make you wonder and laugh and feel good despite its internal flaws. The main reason (for me) is the truly natural on screen chemistry and rapport of the two leads. It's as if they are hitting it off as we watch, really smiling and delivering clever comebacks with great timing. It's worth watching for Damon and Blunt above all.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When science fiction meets romantic drama in a Hollywood film, one of
them almost always suffers. Writers either lack the skill to pull off
the combination in a way that's mutually reinforcing and consistent, or
they lack faith in movie audiences to comprehend what they're watching
without lots of pace-killing exposition. In the case of "Adjustment
Bureau" we have the added Hollywood trope of political intrigue. The
result is only occasionally enjoyable. The rest is just a mess.
What's enjoyable are the performances of fine actors making the best of some sketchy material. Damon seemed a natural for the Norris character, even though he's done better work in the "Bourne" films. The interplay between him and Blunt is completely authentic on screen. Mackie, Slattery and Kelly are very good also, and Terence Stamp is always good for that suave, menacing role.
Unfortunately, the script seems more focused on humanizing the "adjusters" than in filling out the other characters. Oh, there's tons of back story on Norris and his family, mostly from Mackie, but the relationship between long-ago events and present-day reality seems either forced or tenuous. Blunt's Elise character has no back story at all, and her front story is strikingly one-dimensional.
The main problem, though, is simple logic. We're told that the Bureau has "the story" and is simply "adjusting" its characters to keep to the plot. But the plot keeps changing, apparently, and it never makes sense to me. Both Slattery and Stamp seem to have telekinetic powers (if only to make people fall down) as well as a sort of omniscience. Why, then, are they so powerless to prevent a simple kiss, or to predict that one of their agents will secretly aid Norris? Why does Stamp, after telling the Damon character why the powers-that-be can't trust lowly humans to manage their affairs through free will, minutes later send him on his way to prove his point? Why is Norris' political career so important to them? And the hat thing: why not just get an extra hat for Elise? I could go on, but suffice it to say that there are inconsistencies, plot holes and loose threads galore.
One personal peeve of mine is the obligatory celebrity cameo, specifically media figures who seem to appear in every single movie with a political angle -- even when, as here, politics plays a minor part in the story. It no longer adds verisimilitude to a film, if it ever did; it's just a cliché. And a self-defeating one, because many filmgoers these days don't watch CNN and have no idea who James Carville is. In coming years nobody will even remember these people, let alone recognize them.
I don't discount the problems inherent in making a story like this accessible to easily distracted audiences. I don't even want every question raised by the story answered. I just want the story to be internally consistent, to make sense on some level. It can be done, it has been done before. But not this time.
|Page 5 of 41:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|