Reviews written by registered user
|231 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I thought Skyfall was the weakest of the three Bond films starring Daniel Craig. It was a sentimental mess with none of the hard edge of the previous films. The whole story of disappointment with M was childish. M wasn't being a nice mommy. Where is the professionalism of a double-o agent? SPOILERS ahead. I had three scenes that were a major problem to me. First when Eve was told to "take the shot" why didn't she fire again? If the hard drive was the most important item then the thing to do would be to shoot Bond and once he was out of the way to shoot Patrice and knock him off the train. Instead the scene was wrapped in this sentimental emotionalism. "Oh no I shot James Bond!" Weak. The second was the escape of Silva from the glass cage. Okay I can accept some deus ex machina reason for his slipping away, just to keep the story going, but why weren't the underground passages and tube guarded or secured. This facility was supposed to be highly guarded and top secret and all Bond had to do was to lift a grate and voilà a ladder leading to the tube. They had to know the ladder and tunnel were there when they built the place or did the entire British secret service not think about looking under the grates. It was a HUGE security hole. Did they rent the place at the last minute from an ad in the newspaper? It is a wonder some wino living in the subway didn't wander up the ladder and fall asleep in the glass cage. Come on. Why not have Patrice blow a hole in a wall that led to the tube? The third problem was the ending. If Bond knew that people were coming to kill he and M then why not get some help. I assume Britain has an army, or Special Forces, or a police department that could have been utilized. If they were out of communication then how did Patrice find them? Couldn't that dork Q do something to help? Was this action over a weekend and no one was available? How could Silva commander a helicopter and troop of men and the British secret service had nothing. The whole scheme was so amateurish. Silva should have won since he seemed more capable than the whole British government. The whole end fight sequence seemed from a different movie that would have starred Arnold Schwarzenegger. Disappointing. Lots of action and big bangs but a weak script. I thought Javier Bardem was good as the bad guy, given the weak script. Naomie Harris is likable but the love interest part was not believable. Bérénice Marlohe was sufficiently babeish. Ralph Fiennes seems to be a good replacement for Judi Dench and the whole ending in M's office was fun.
"Passion" was not as good as the original "Love Crime" movie. The story was the same but "Passion" added some surrealistic touches that really made no sense. The original "Love Crime" starred Kristin Scott Thomas and Ludivine Sagnier playing the roles that Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace reenacted in "Passion". Ms. Thomas was believable as a glamorous cut-throat executive where Rachel McAdams seemed like a high school mean girl in comparison. Noomi Rapace was decent playing the Ludivine Sagnier role, in fact maybe a bit more believable, though not as much of a babe. I never got into the story that Rachel McAdams was anything but a catty girl, not some powerful executive. Maybe it was because the age difference between the executive and the assistant was greater in "Love Crime". Much of the dialog in "Passion" was stilted and flat. The story by itself was powerful but the telling of it in "Passion" seemed so amateurish, as if there was no confidence that the story could hold the audience's attention so other aspects had to be added to improve it. Those added touches made no sense and the ending was just confusing. "Love Crimes" told the story straight out and the performances held it together. I wanted so much to like "Passion" and in the end I was disappointed. "Love Crime" was a far superior movie. I rate "Passion" a 5; "Love Crime" an 8.
I enjoyed this version of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". It was a well made and well acted movie and I gave it a 7/10 rating. But I enjoyed the Swedish version more, 8/10. The Swedish version was truer to the book and a bit more coherent. The acting in both movies was fine, some great performances in both and I can't really fault either movie. I thought the American version could have been a bit confusing since they took such liberties with the book's narrative. The main character of Mikael Blomkvist in the American version was a bit less conspicuous which is a good thing since I got rather sick of Mikael Blomkvist by the end of the third book. He wasn't a believable character since he was so self-righteous and such a ladies man. His portrayal by Michael Nyqvist in the Swedish version was also underplayed, and well acted. The really big difference between the versions was the portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. She was the biggest draw of the books and the movies and her character drove the narrative for me. Noomi Rapace portrayed her in the Swedish version and was wonderful in the role. She was Lisbeth Salander to me. Rooney Mara in the American version was good but not in the same league with Noomi Rapace. In the American film she came across as a more deliberately rude, petulant little girl, like a spoiled ,rich, high schooler who did what she did to get attention and anger people. Noomi Rapace's version came across as a more disturbed person, someone who just didn't have social skills or even thought about them. In the books she was more of a idiot savant or someone who could have Asperger syndrome. She was horrible mistreated as a youth but was extremely intelligent and talented. Noomi Rapace had that down. Her most interesting scenes were as Lisbeth sitting and thinking. You could see the wheels turning. You could see her figure things out. Rooney Mara didn't have that. She just was shock value. Not that she was bad in the role but just not deep enough. She bragged more and was more out there with her personality. Noomi Rapace was very internal and disliked anyone getting close to her. She had few friends and even with them she was very reserved. It was a wonderfully intriguing portrayal. Both movies are good but if you are a fan of the books you may like the Swedish version more with Noomi Rapace's portrayal of Lisbeth Salander.
I did not enjoy this movie. I have to admit I had very low expectations for this movie and I wasn't disappointed. The animation was poor. The characters looked and moved like Bizarro marionettes. They were all acute angles and stilted jumpy movements. The character development was perfunctory and the story purely a derivation of the past Star Wars movies. I saw no innovation or original thoughts. The special effects only work in juxtaposition with human actors. The viewers can relate to the human and place themselves within the movie and be part of the action. They can relate to the actor walking into a strange, alien setting and vicariously enjoy the scene. All this is lost in animation. Anything can happen in animation. Reality becomes animation reality. The light saber is just a bright light on the screen not a dangerous weapon wielded by a human. There is no danger or excitement since it is a cartoon. The poor animation pushes us further away from our reality towards cartoon reality. The previous Star Wars movies drew us closer into its reality by having us identify with the humans. If this is the final Star Wars movie the ending is a real whimper.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It is a good movie. It is not a great movie. After all of the hype I
was a bit disappointed. I enjoyed the movie but thought it was just a
run of the mill superhero action flick. The performances were good. All
of the actors were believable and Heath Ledger's Joker was a great
character but it was a one note performance. There was no real depth to
the character for me. Each time he appeared he acted in the same
psychotic manner but there wasn't an exploration as to why he was doing
what he was doing or where he planned to take the story. The story was
just a simplistic hatred of Batman and a want to unmask him. Sorry,
same old, same old. Superhero movies suffer from clichéd story lines.
Superman in each movie will be exposed to kryptonite. Profess his
unfulfilled love for Lois Lane, (why I don't know. She is usually
portrayed as some skinny, ambitious harpy), and is eventually saved
from the bad guy by some babe. Spiderman yearns with unfulfilled love
for his girlfriend and fights off some bad guy while reminiscing again
about his Uncle, who we get to see die again. Batman will struggle with
his demons while fighting off another bad guy punctuated by corrupt
cops and double crosses.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is a fine actress and is attractive but she is not an outstanding beauty who would attract the Joker to her in lieu of all of the other babes in the room. It is not helpful when the script has to tell you that the character is beautiful. The character's looks should tell you she is beautiful. Monique Curnen was there to provide the corrupt cop. One of many. She was wasted. Give me something new and fresh. Not a new gadget but a new story line. Explore more than the obvious. This movie was a series of vignettes of action scenes and simplistic twists. There were way too many deus ex machina moments and the twists did nothing but provide excuses for more action scenes. SPOILER ALERT. The scene with the cop being goaded by the joker to beat him up was clumsily telegraphed. Gordan appearing again at the exact opportune moment rang false. Aaron Eckhart's accident and metamorphosis into Two-face was rushed and hardly used. It became more of a distraction from the main story of the Joker. The Joker's character could have been examined in more depth. As it was the ending felt like it was there only to provide grist for the sequel. Heath Ledger's unfortunate death, which added hype to the movie, also destroyed the ending of the movie. There was no closure. It seems more like coming attractions for the next movie. Don't get me wrong it was a fun movie but it is just a summer popcorn movie and not a wondrous masterpiece it is being touted as. See it, enjoy it and then forget it until the next installment.
I thought it was a fun movie with an odd lack of suspense. Action sequences were OK, entertaining but they lacked spark. The cast was wasted except for Cate Blanchett who was the best thing about the movie. Ray Winstone, a good actor, was almost invisible and Karen Allen was little more than a nice smile. Shia LeBeauf was a nonentity. John Hurt's character was fun but it could have been played by anybody and his enormous talent wasn't on display. Besides Cate Blanchett the cast, including Harrison Ford, were just going through the motions. I would have like to have seen more unknowns play the parts then maybe you could suspend belief long enough to enjoy the story. The beginning with the blast and rocket sled was fun. The cycle chase was good but it went down hill from there. The rest was a rerun of action scenes from past adventure flics and totally PG. A hot babe is wet jungle gear would have helped. Cate Blanchett was too cool to sweat. It was an entertaining 2 hours but really totally forgettable soon afterward. As a summer blockbuster it pales next to Ironman.
I thought "Hitman" was a stupid, poorly made movie that would appeal to teenagers who don't get out into the real world much, i.e. gamers. The dialog was trite and stifled. The acting was wooden and the characters were clichéd. I've seen "HighDef" movies and TV. This movie will never be mistaken for "HighDef". It was definitely "LoDef". Scenes were out of focus and the resolution even in set up scenery shots was poor. Most of the movie did not make much sense. The story was minimally just enough to provide some reason to show events on the screen but each scene was hardly tied to an overall structure. It was just one gory action scene after another just for the sake of having an action scene. I gave the movie a 3 rating only because Olga Kurylenko had nice long legs. Her character's personality wasn't in the least appealing but the legs were nice. Miss this movie. Miss this movie. Miss this movie.
I did not like "The Kingdom". It had a bad case of shaky cam. Why film makers persist with the shaky camera to generate interest is beyond me. It seems they are incapable of framing a shot. They tend to move the camera all around and maybe think there is a good shot in there somewhere. I think they should study a movie like "Seven Samurai" to understand what a well framed shot is like. If there is some reason for a shaky camera, maybe in kinetic action shots, I can accept it but a shaky cam during a conversation plus obscured shots. Why? Is it because the actors and the conversation alone won't hold anyone's attention then consider a decent screenwriter or better actors. It is style over substance. Maybe the lack of substance in movies is the driving force. Also I have to comment on the extreme close-ups. Why? What is next, nostril cam? The elite FBI team in this movie seemed to be portrayed with the mentality of high school students. There was this snarky background banter and the jokes. Not repartee but jokes, stupid boorish jokes, and this is coming from supposedly well educated, highly trained individuals who are in Arabia investigating the death of colleagues. It was poorly written. Jamie Foxx did a good job despite the weak script. Poor Jennifer Garner obviously was suffering from some virus that caused her to look wan and misshaped and puffed up her lips. Chris Cooper, a fine actor, was wasted. My wish that Jason Bateman got shot went unfulfilled. The Arab cast was very good and seemed much more mature and realistic than the Americans. The last half of the movie was action filled and moved quickly thankfully free of the snarkiness of the rest of the movie. I did not like the anti-Arab or the anti-Islam tone of the movie. You can have bad guys and an enemy without disparaging, or joking, about a culture we seem to be ignorant about. If you like things' blowing up real good and your view of world is basically jingoistic then you may like this movie. I didn't.
The film editors had to have been on Dramamine. I disliked the shaky camera and the half obscured views. I can understand a partially blocked view if there is a point to it. Like to represent some surreptitious filming but to have the camera view blocked by intervening objects, thus bring to the forefront that the character is being filmed, i.e. that they are actually actors doing a job, seems counterproductive. I would think the goal is to get the audience to forget that they are watching a crafted production and have them suspend disbelief and get involved in the story. The stylized camera work did the opposite. I was constantly reminded that the camera was purposely obscured with blurry objects for no reason but style, like look at this I'm blocking half the shot. Aren't I cleaver? I found it very irritating. This was the weakest of the three Bourne films with the action sequences shot in a way that obscured what was actually happening. I don't like the jittering hand-held camera and extreme close-ups. I think it detracts from the movie. Maybe it makes the cinematography easier since shots don't have to be composed, just move that camera in and most of the filming could be done in a broom closet. "The DaVinci Code" sucked for the some reason. Also the 21st century deus ex machina of computers was abundantly evident. A couple of keystrokes can replace intelligent writing easily plus the computers can be fickle and reveal all if needed while being conspicuously absent when suspense is needed. Matt Damon was good in his role, looking serious and troubled, and he was effective in the fight sequences, as far as I could tell. Joan Allen was very good as an intelligent mature woman, rare to see in the bimbo age of movies. David Strathairn, who I typically like, was too much of a cliché for my tastes. A standout was Julie Stiles. She had this tight lipped intelligent look. You could just see the wheels turning as she analyzed each situation I believed she was an intelligence operative who was trained to keep secrets and revealing very little of what she was feeling. She was great. Albert Finney did a competent job in another clichéd role. It seems that in these movies the idealistic, good people are young and the bastardly, manipulators are all old fogies. I would rate this movie as a weak 7 out of 10 on the basis of the strong performance of Ms. Stiles and Mr. Damon and on the basis of a continued compelling story. The camera work downgraded my rating.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"1408" was an effective scary movie. I typically do not go for this type of movie. I don't believe in ghosts or supernatural phenomena and so just the depiction of either leaves me unimpressed. How well the movie tells the story and pulls you into its world is very important. Too often the premise and execution is just silly and not in the least scary. Frank Booth in "Blue Velvet" was scary. Anyway I enjoyed the movie. It was paced well and slowly revealed the scary bits. I think it was effective because it could be seen as just a mental breakdown of the protagonist, that what was happening was just happening inside his head. I'm going to issue a SPOILER warning here so I don't wreck the watching experience for others but I really want to comment on the false ending. I thought the false ending was effective since it was the way most of these types of movies end and I was ready to leave when things started to go weird again. I was surprised and amused at how effective it was. SPOILER warning defunct. John Cusack was effective in the role of the disbelieving author. He plays the world weary part well. Samuel L. Jackson was good as always. The movie is not a gore fest but is more of a physiological thriller and I recommend it. I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
|Page 1 of 24:||          |