Reviews written by registered user
|51 reviews in total|
First of all, if you are expecting to see something along the lines of
the first Matrix film, forget it. Consider this more like Matrix 4. The
first Matrix film was heavy on new ideas, but, as the series developed,
it became more Hollywood: Lots of action, more special effects, and a
basic story line. This is how I saw Jupiter Ascending.
At the beginning, the film held some promise. I liked the absurdity of Jupiter Jones (give me a break), played by Mila Kunis, discovering that she played a key role in the history of the universe. This held promise as did Channing Tatum's deadpan character, Caine Wise (yeah, I know). There were also some intriguing scientific ideas that I thought would be explored and that could lead to some interesting conclusions. Unfortunately, the movie deteriorated into a series of action scenes rife with special effects designed for the 3D viewer. I saw the movie in 2D but, as anyone who's seen 3D movies knows, certain special effects work best in 3D (things flying at the camera). In fact, you start wondering if the movie wasn't made around the 3D effects.
The story is more or less predictable. I found it difficult to accept the love story aspect as believable. The only excuse Jupiter gives for her interest in Caine is that he's not good, I'm not sure if she was commenting on his acting or not. The acting is sub-par by all involved. The number of times Jupiter is saved from death at the last second by Caine is laughable.
So, basically, what you are left with are a string of loosely connected special effects, which, to be honest, are mainly good. I saw the movie with my 12-year-old son and he liked them as well as the numerous fight scenes. I have a feeling if I asked him about the plot, he could only give me a basic idea.
Maybe we're expecting too much from the Wachowskis. It's beginning to look as if the Matrix was a one-off. Maybe the temptation of making a Hollywood blockbuster is just too strong to resist. The film will make a lot of money, kids will like it, but if you really want substance in a film, you had better look elsewhere
...and that's a sentence that's probably never been written before.
Interstellar is not a movie for everyone. It is a long film and my guess is that many will be asleep by the end of the first hour. It is slow to develop and at times seems like a sequence of university physics lectures on black holes, cosmology, relativity, and quantum physics. Indeed, in order to proceed with the story, it is sometimes necessary to inform the viewer of why what will happen next makes some scientific sense. These lessons are shoehorned in at various points. Scientists themselves may argue over the fine points of some of the physics in the film, but, with a few exceptions, the science is good enough.
Now, from what I've just written above, you may think that I would not recommend this picture to anyone. In fact, I would recommend it to everyone. This is because Interstellar is a masterpiece. That's a shaky limb to climb out on, I realize, but even for those who do not like science, there is a payoff. If you like science fiction, you will be satisfied. If you like special effects, you will get them, and, if you like love stories, this, in some ways, is one of the greatest love stories ever written. The idea of the timelessness of love, in all its forms, underpins all the science in this story and we're back to the wormhole.
Despite the high quality of this film, it received no Academy Award nominations for best film and only one minor nomination for best production. This, I believe, shows the shallowness of those involved in selecting these films. Intelligent films have been frequently overlooked in the past. Great films like Inception, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Matrix, Lost in Translation, and even that perennial topper of best films lists, Citizen Kane, never won best picture awards. And remember, Alfred Hitchcock never won an Academy Award for best director.
The acting is better than average, but you will not be discussing the quality of the acting when you finish the film. Actually, what you should do is to watch the film again before you reach any conclusions. Anyway, that's what I did. The second time confirmed what I thought. If you look under the scientific veneer of this film, you will see something that will make this, like all great films, timeless. That's just relativity.
There'a a lot to like about this movie and I understand why it has
received so much attention at various film festivals. Basically, it's
about a group of dysfunctional people who try to work together to put
on a play. The main problem with the film is that sometimes the plot is
lost in the clouds of their dysfunction. In other words, dysfunction
sometimes takes center stage. On the other hand, it has some thoughtful
dialogue much of which revolves around what it means to be successful.
What is the true measure of success or of living a successful life? Is
it that many people like you? Is it that you are praised by critics? Or
is it something more ethereal, such as being loved by people we value?
These and other darker, existential questions are addressed by the
movie with varying degrees of success.
Although predominantly a drama there are a number of darkly (and not so darkly) humorous moments. The clash of generations, the vapid and transient nature of modern measures of fame, interpersonal relationships, and the clash of fragile egos all supply ammunition for comic relief. Towards the end of the film, people begin to appear more as symbols than as real people, which is not necessarily bad. Much in the entertainment industry is criticized and ridiculed, such as the arrogance of critics who think they can control this world with their reviews. In an attempt to show their power, they will value personal motives over the true artistic merit of a work. It seems like the writers and producers of Birdman are taking their own satiric revenge at times.
The acting throughout the film is tight and flawless. I would not be disappointed if the actors or the film win academy awards. The film addresses some big questions, which makes it more thoughtful than most films and, considering the modern zest for easily approachable box office films (something this film criticizes), may limit its appreciation by some movie-goers.
Keaton's character occasionally lapses into inner dialogues and fantasies which, though interesting in their own right, interrupt the flow of the film at times. There were also moments when I thought the film was trying too hard to appeal to modern expectations or to younger audiences, perhaps as a box office ploy. This was too bad because I thought that the film had a retro feel to it overall. That said, these shortcomings were minor.
In the end, I found it an entertaining and amusing film. So if you want a movie that's meatier than most of what's out there today, you should not be disappointed in watching Birdman.
For the sake of film criticism, I will pretend that I watched the film
without the political maelstrom that has raised it to a level of
interest that it would otherwise never have attained.
This is the typical mass produced, lowbrow, comedy that Hollywood cranks out to appeal to 15-year-old boys. There are a few slapstick laughs in the tradition of the Three Stooges that break the monotony. I would not elevate the film to the level of a satire as that would imply that there was some intelligent thought behind it. There is not. All the humor, both physical and verbal, is completely obvious. It will not go down in history as one of the great comedies, which is probably what upset Kim Jung Un the most.
The attempts to make political observations are all based on time-worn points (people are starving, Kim is not a god). The sections that imply Kim has psychological problems may be more irritating to the regime. Most of the attempted humor deals with Kim fighting his homophobia and dealing with a father who gave him little support.
There is no need to comment on the acting as there really is none. No one will win an Oscar nomination here. The story is predictable: You can guess what will happen before you begin watching it. It's the kind of film you watch to see a few gags and, maybe, get a few laughs. They will be very few, indeed, unless you are 15 or under. However, knowing the media attention that this film has received, it is unlikely a poor review will stop anyone from watching it. Just remember, I warned you.
The only thing wrong with this movie was that it had actors in it. Had
this been shown without them, we would be treated to some beautifully
arranged scenes and scenery. As it is, however, we see the rodent-like
Timothy Spall grunting lifelessly along with no particular purpose for
2.5 hours. Even when he speaks, his dialect is so incomprehensible that
the Americans I watched it with thought he was speaking Dutch. Indeed,
if you are American, you will most definitely need English subtitles.
But then again, the characters really had nothing important to say
anyway, so why bother. It is one of those movies that you know the main
character is eventually going to die, and you hope it happens as soon
as possible, preferably, before you do.
Mike Leigh has made some great films, but this certainly isn't one of them. The problem for me is that Turner is one of my favorite artists. I had hoped to get some insights into his character. What I got were vignettes: short, loosely connected historic anecdotes pasted clumsily together in a hopeless effort to make a film. I really had little idea of what motivated Turner or why any women would have the least interest in him.
So if you want to spend 2.5 hours looking at some beautifully reconstructed scenes depicting life in the early 19th Century and see some of Turner's works, this might be for you. However, if you want to watch a movie, you'll have to go somewhere else.
Well, that was a waste of time, and I won't spend any more time than necessary writing a review of this poorly written, poorly produced, and poorly acted movie. My first question is: What ever happened to clever humor? Every so-called joke is sex-based. People cannot even have a conversation unless it is based on something sexual (Oh, sorry, there is also some bathroom humor to break the monotony). These are 12-year-olds in thirty-year-old bodies. For some reason that defies all explanation, girls are attracted to these losers...but, then again, likes often attract likes. What's worse is that, towards the end, the director has the audacity to expect us to suddenly take this nonsense seriously. But, by this time, the only thing the viewers are taking seriously is a suicide attempt. I watched this so you don't have to. Don't waste your time on this one. Work on your compost pile. It will be far more enjoyable.
The cynic in me can understand why some people may not like this film.
There are just too many unbelievable coincidences. Besides, Josh
Brolin's character is too much of a Christ figure. He seems to save
everyone who comes into contact with him. But, despite all his positive
qualities, he is ultimately crucified, disappears, and then is
resurrected. And can romance really survive such an ordeal? Yet,
putting cynicism aside, I have to say that I found the film enjoyable
and even inspiring. The acting was good throughout. Normally, I have an
aversion to child actors. They are either irritatingly cute or
smart-mouthed. However, I must say that Gattlin Griffith did not
produce this reaction in me. I think he played it pretty straight and
was quite believable. Kate Winslet seems to have an affinity for these
psychologically-damaged women roles and pulls it off as usual. Josh
Brolin is steady.
At some point in any film, you have to suspend what you know about the real world, the evils of life, and the conniving ways of the people in it and trust in the possibility that there may be some good left in this battered world. You can choose either way to look at this film but I would suggest watching it without cynicism to see its real merits because, even in real life, good sometimes triumphs over evil.
I don't know who classified this as a romantic comedy. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Because of this classification, I almost didn't
bother watching it at all. A comedy about sex addiction? I figured it
would be an excuse to loosely tie together sex scenes, as was done in
'Wolf of Wall Street'. I really didn't want to go through that charade
again. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
Okay, that said, there are a few non-explicit sex scenes that I certainly wouldn't want my 11-year-old son to watch. But these scenes are not gratuitous as they were in 'Wolf' and there really were not that many. The story came first, and the actors bought into it. Good work by all concerned. I worried somewhat when I heard that Pink (Alecia Moore)was in it, but she held up well and did not distract us with poor acting as some other pop stars have done (like Rihanna in 'Battleship').
The relationships between the people are the most captivating aspect of the film. All of the characters have their own specific problems to deal with. All of them struggle and all of them need help. In short, the relationships are real and believable. This film deserves to get more attention than it has.
Is it a date movie? Well, only if you and your date like more psychological films? Is there romance? Yes, but not in the tradition of most romcoms. If you find these two features as positive attributes of a good film, then, by all means, watch 'Thank You For Sharing'.
If you don't like what you see within the first 15 minutes of this
film, turn it off or leave the theater, because that's what you will
see repeated over and over again for the next three hours. Okay, I get
it. There are people who will do anything for money and who are morally
bankrupt. This is Hollywood meets soft porn when soft porn has already
been killed off by one-click-accessible porn. I'm not a puritan. This
is just an objective fact. We live in the Age of Pornography. I,
therefore, don't understand why Scorsese thinks this is the 'shocking'
lens he should use to educate us on the evils of Wall Street greed and
excess, unless he hopes to drag in the teenage boy audience, in which
case, it simply amounts to pandering. In the end, I felt that it was
Scorsese himself who was morally bankrupt. I think it is time for him
to reassess his career. No great film was ever made so by pandering to
base instincts. Great films stand on the strength of fundamental truths
about human nature that leave the viewer leaving the theater uplifted,
inspired, or awakened to elements of human nature in some way. This
does not mean all movies have to have happy endings. The knowledge one
takes from a good film can force one to reassess their values or ideas
and this can be a difficult experience. But there is nothing
fundamentally challenging about this film. Even if you try to think of
it as a sort of documentary, it falls flat.
Now, what about the acting? There is no doubt that Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor. However, I haven't been impressed by many of his recent efforts (i.e. Gatsby). In this film his character is one dimensional from beginning to end. There is no character development and no real opportunities for him to show his acting range. The same can be said for all the other actors, but given such an insipid script, what can you expect? After a couple of hours of watching Scorsese trying to educate us on the evils of wealth, I just wanted the film to end. He seemed to have an ax to grind in the tradition of other ax-grinders like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. The last hour was simply an ordeal. Scenes seemed randomly cut and pasted together. Although I can't say there were not some interesting scenes within the film, they only served as sad reminders of Scorsese's wasted talent.
It makes no sense at all to me why this film is rated so highly. Maybe there are a number of people who were surprised to learn that excessive wealth can lead to bad behavior. All I learned is to be careful of giving too much credence to the ratings of any Scorsese film.
This is a tight movie. The acting is tight, the story is tight, and the
direction is tight. There are no loose ends, nothing unnecessary, and
no lapses in acting. In short, this is as close to a perfectly made
movie as I've seen for some time. I would suspect a number of Academy
Award nominations to come from this film. I would especially note
Christian Bale and Jennifer Lawrence's performances, but all of the
acting is outstanding down to the lowest member of the supporting cast.
I would be very surprised if David O. Russell is not nominated for best
director. Best picture? Well, so far, I've seen nothing better. Even
the music that adds to the late 1970's/80's atmosphere is well-chosen.
Since the story is so tightly put together, you really don't want to go out to feed the dog or you're likely to miss some fine point that will leave you wondering what's going on when you return. The story itself is not demanding but the motivation behind the characters' actions requires some build up. The relationships are strange but believable.
Don't expect a serious drama. Yes, it has its serious elements but there is ample humor here, though it is admittedly somewhat offbeat humor. Nonetheless, I guarantee you will get some good laughs.
So, why not give it ten stars? That's more of a subjective point. My scale is absolute, meaning that a ten star movie has to have qualities that put it well beyond other films. Will it endure? Will people consider it a classic 20 years from now? Could you watch it multiple times without getting bored, even when you know the ending? Does it have philosophical depth that illuminates principles beyond the film itself? Actually, I did watch this a second time. I wanted to look more closely at the interactions between the characters. It held up on the second viewing. I appreciated the acting even more than I did on the first viewing. In 20 years, I may even upgrade my rating to ten stars, but, for now, let me just say that this is one you should watch.
|Page 1 of 6:||     |