Reviews written by registered user
|100 reviews in total|
This is far from your everyday movie, and only for those with a deep
appreciation for the diversity of film-making, or fans of Hunter S.
Thompson. This does not mean those mentioned will enjoy it, although
definitely respect the attempt. I personally found it fascinating. To
portray a permanently drug induced state to the big screen was done
with creativity and subtle humour. You could expect nothing less from
director Terry Gilliam who has played such a massive role in the
brilliant and original Monty Python works.
Having never read any of Hunter S. Thompson's work, I get the impression that justice is done for the adaptation to the big screen. An absolutely quality cast must be credited for this, ensuring a natural performance is achieved. Las Vegas which features strongly throughout the movie seems to be so appropriate when dealing with this subject matter, they just seem to go hand in hand.
"The Truman Show" owes a lot to the direction of Peter Weir. Weir
refuses to pump out the movies in a search for extra dollars. Instead
he chooses wisely and directs brilliantly. Just by looking at a list of
his movies will surprise and even amaze you. So as you would imagine
"The Truman Show" is another success.
Truman Burbank has the perfect life, or so he thought until finally his life long suspicions about his world begin to unravel. Even though the idea for Truman is not totally original, it is thought provoking enough and allows the audience to wonder, what if? If you think this couldn't happen, just look back over the years at the stupidity of the human race and think again.
Jim Carrey once again nails his role, as do the entire cast. It is rare he fails to perform at a level that perfectly complements the movie and its genre. This is something he does not receive enough credit for. Acting for a comical role or a more dramatic role requires no less effort for the performance to be spot on.
Even though I am yet to see the original I find it highly unlikely this
could be a better movie. The name Adam Sandler is possibly unfairly
associated with movies involving the same old jokes and big punches and
hits. Sandler isn't this one dimensional as movies like "Punch Drunk
Love", and the romcom "The Wedding Singer" will attest. It bothers me
that his comedy's are becoming fairly stagnant. This is fine if you are
a huge Sandler fan, but if you are impartial to his work you will be
losing interest quickly. Sandler needs to pop up with a few art-house
serious roles, and evolve a little more with his own material.
The rest of the cast plod along with less than exciting performances. Perhaps my biggest problem was the way violence was deemed to be the resolution to all the problems. This may be the truth in the real world or it may be part of the movies humour, but I found it sickening.
I loved the table tennis table and ball.
When you consider that Mel Gibson, the chip himself, and Julia Roberts,
another classically overrated Hollywood actor, star in this movie, you
have to be very wary. They both regularly produce very average movies
with very average performances. This was one reason why I was a little
surprised by this movie. I quite enjoyed the idea as I think most
people do of a conspiracy theory, no matter how far fetched it may be.
Mel is a very capable actor, just a bitter individual who lets his emotions take control of the truth. This was one of the few recent movies he's been associated with where he has remained fairly neutral. Julia Roberts was also performing at the higher end of her acting capabilities, and because of this was not a distraction of disappointment which is so commonly a feature of her performances.
It's nothing to get excited about, but easy viewing for a quiet night in.
What can I say, I've seen it all before. So many people loved this
movie for the strength Billy maintained to stick to his guns. They
loved the story that has been chewed on, spat out and then recycled for
decades. Worst of all however, they loved Jamie Bell's performance in
the lead role.
Jamie was solid at best, but was irresponsibly led to believe by those close to him and the media that he was the most brilliant actor Britain had ever seen. He is simply another average actor who got a lucky break and changed into an arrogant spoilt brat because of it.
You have to hope the film makers in Britain are finally going to put to rest the same old Northern English cities "blue collar worker" hard luck story.
Could there be a movie made in this world worse than this one? Of
course there is but this is still a shocking movie. What chance does a
remake of "Point Break" seriously have? Neither contained a script
worth performing, let alone an idea with originality. They both
produced ordinary performances from the cast of alleged actors. They
also both contained action scenes that were so ridiculous you could
only smile at the the disgraceful way money is handed out to
pretenders, sorry producers to make this crap.
At least "Point Break" mixed the action scenes between sky diving and surfing rather than the mundane street racing over an over. Maybe they could have towed someone on roller skates behind the cars for extra adrenaline.
Daredevil achieved nothing as a movie. There was no enjoyment from
watching, no interest in the acting, and certainly no belief in the
story, whether it be comic super hero or not. For every new scene, and
every second I watched, I simply hoped there would be a big turn around
and something would spark some interest. This never eventuated and I
found myself slipping deeper and deeper into a state of painful shock.
As for Ben Affleck, he was simply terrible. Nothing about his performance enhanced his profile as an employable actor. He ripped the shine out of his and all the other performances and spat on the leftovers.
Having never read, heard or seen anything to do with the "The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I was prepared for this film to be
anything. There has been a lot of talk about the movie resembling the
Monty Python sense of humour and comedy. Whilst there were obvious
similarities, I don't believe it was quite strong enough nor contain
frequent enough laughs to totally warrant this comparison.
What I did like was the not too serious attempt to bring an almost impossible galaxy to the big screen. The lighthearted approach allowed the viewer to relax into the characters and imagine the possibilities of such a life and existence. The casting was pretty good, with Martin Freeman, Stephen Fry, John Malkovich and Alan Rickman spot on. Perhaps only Zooey Deschanel appeared to struggle a little with the role.
The Interpreter is an extremely packaged political thriller that
contains only a little punch. The main reason I gave it a go was Sean
Penn who seems to rarely make mistakes selecting his work. Nicole
Kidman can be a mixed bag, and Sydney Pollack a competent seasoned
veteran director. All three performed well without setting the screen
The use of the United Nations building was a big plus and definitely gave the movie more realism. It also gave the viewer more of an idea on what a massive organisation the UN is.
Even though "The Interpreter" was enjoyable the ending was definitely a disappointment. It wasn't that it was necessarily wrong, just that you knew what was coming. This was the "Hollywood Factor" showing through. Perhaps the reason it didn't turn into real Hollywood trash was the fact it was filmed and produced in New York.
Derek (Ben Stiller) and Hansel (Owen Wilson) are the worlds greatest
two models. And nobody in the world could play them quite like Stiller
and Wilson. Stiller was also a writer and the director of Zoolander and
knows how to put together a movie.
While the movie often focuses on Derek and Hansel out modelling each other, I believe the real contest was off screen being played out on screen between the two. This being who could play the more sarcastic and larger than life model. Stiller may win this, but the sheer arrogance of Wilson's on screen demeanor tips the scale in his favour for me. When the two work together they are up there with the great duo's of comedy.
This is far from Stiller's best work however, moving along a little too slowly at times. Having said this it is still well worth a look and should give you plenty of laughs providing you appreciate the Stiller Wilson combo.
|Page 1 of 10:||         |