Reviews written by registered user
|33 reviews in total|
can make this a movie enjoyable to watch. It's good; not without it flaws, but good. It needs patience, as it's quiet and slow-building. It delivers its first punch around the one hour mark. Then the second about 20 minutes later...then you're in the ropes (to borrow a metaphor from the movie). It's well acted... but that's all that's well about it. Directing, editing and script are the reason this is a passable but not 'good' movie. As with any old-fashioned whodunnit movie, it's all about attention to detail. And in hindsight, the trailer is pretty clever....especially the last line. Won't give away any spoilers, but the very first clue is in the trailer.
This is no 'typical' Eli Roth fare. It builds slow (we're even warned about that in the beginning; both Roth and Evan like building up the anticipation). There's a lot said with images, not dialogue. Like any good film should do. Lots of subtext there - for those who can read it. It's contained. Minimalist. Almost restrained, for Roth. Twisted, dark comedy and underneath that, brilliant, biting satire. Roth and Lopez don't spare anything or anyone. And because of that, reading the audience's reaction in reviews and tweets is about as entertaining as the movie itself. It seems to have hit a few sore spots ;) Also, this movie features what is probably Keanu Reeves' best performance so far. He finally lets loose. So unrestrained, it's beautiful to watch.
It wasn't exactly a surprise, though. To paraphrase a character from
the movie, I knew he had it in him. But knowing and actually seeing are
two different things. The movie has an old school feel to it - and yet
not. It builds slowly, maybe too slowly for most people's taste.
Slowly, subtly, steadily; like the bass line of a Foo Fighters song.
Like a lazy snake that uncoils in the sun. Like Chi in meditation. It
picks up its pace only after 40 minutes or so. But until then, the
audience is given plenty of details, hints and reference to work with -
if so inclined. And when things do start happening, it's beautiful to
watch. Yes, it does have a few stiff and/or formulaic moments but given
the genre and it being a directorial debut, this was inevitable ;)
Also, in spite of the genre and the references/homages to other
movies,Reeves' directing style is original.He might have been inspired
by the masters, but he doesn't borrow from any of them. Like Tiger,
Reeves created his own style: ironic,realistic, minimalist, sharp,
punctual, complex,subtle, multi-layered. Although being promoted as a
'kung-fu movie', Man of Tai Chi is much more than that. It's a
meditation on many aspects and trappings of today's life. But none of
them are spelled out in neon letters; it's up to the audience to
recognize them. All in all, it's like... a Chinese menu: there's
something in it for everyone, but some of the dishes are not everyone's
If there's one thing the movie fan in me wanted more of, it's real interaction between Reeves' and Karen Mok's characters. I would have wanted to see the sparks fly ;) But the more I think about it, the more I realize that by not including that element, the team made the right artistic decision which served the story, not the sheer entertainment factor. And that's a bold thing to do.
Well done, Mr.Reeves. very well done. Looking forward to the next one :)
an almost unexpected surprise in today's world focused only on feel-good movies. a multi-layered little gem. a story about loneliness, disappointment, pain, despair, and ways to cope with all that. a story about human connection and lack thereof. a story about games of power, seduction and domination. a meditation on how people behave in front and behind a camera. And the camera becomes a fourth character; a silent witness that's central to the plot; a fourth player that changes the rules of the game. it's a story about finding hope - or not. no,it's not everyone's cup of tea. yes, it will make most viewers uncomfortable. but those who have patience with this movie will be rewarded with a story that sticks with them for days. it's haunting. as long as such movies can still be made, there's still hope. it means the moviemakingmagic is still alive.
this film is. It's about marking a turning point in the history of
cinema and raising awareness about it. Yes, it's a subject that's been
discussed and bitched about for what, 10 years now, ever since Lucas
proclaimed that film is dead. But maybe for the first time it brings
all the opposite opinions together. Side by side. (Loved the editing -
it was just like watching a tennis match) And for people like myself,
'civilian' moviegoers who while watching a movie often found themselves
forgetting about the popcorn and instead wondering 'how it's made?',
this film is like Christmas in June :) I mean, I've read a bit about
film making; I've come across some of the terms and looked up their
definition; I knew what a DP does; I've scratched a bit the surface of
the whole wide world of movie making. But to have the main processes
explained clearly, precisely and in a language I could understand, all
this in a one-and-a-half hour film, was like... like attending film
school but without the (almost always compulsory) elitism and snobbery
And watching the documentary at a film festival was a special experience per se. It was shown in a small old-fashioned theater, with creaking seats and wood floors and velvet curtains and no air conditioning; and old theater where once I used to go watch old cinematheque movies in black-and-white. There was a bitter-sweet irony about it. The audience was formed mainly by film festival guests and film students; people with technical background in movie making, and a few lost souls like myself, who just wanted to watch the documentary we read so much about. And it was a joy to see them react to the technical jokes; to hear a few of them hoot when on the screen someone was talking about the operator and the DP losing their god-like status on the set, or to hear them snicker when Cameron rhetorically asks Reeves 'you've been on a few sets in your life, haven't you?'
It's a film about nostalgia and inevitability, with a very light note of sadness.
But this was just the first date, and I'm quite taken with the film, so I'd really like to get to know it better. You know, take it on a second date, then a third. I'll take it to the movies, the old-fashioned way ;) I'll wine it, dine it, maybe even take it on the obligatory weekend to Paris. It could be the beginning of a long lasting relationship. So, when is the DVD gonna be released ? ;) :)
Watched Sofia's 'Somewhere'. Loved it. Loved everything about it: the
sarcasm of the Foos' 'Hero' playing in the background of the opening
scene; the press conference scene; the white mask; and especially the
minimalism of it. The way Sofia uses her camera as a detached, silent
witness. The way she observes everything, without judging, without
blinking, just like Cleo does.
'Somewhere' is Lost in Translation without the glitz and cliché's and the star treatment that made the Academy pay attention; without the 'classic' plot development; without any attempt at humor, except the involuntary moments. It's Lost in Translation all grown-up.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Finally managed to watch 'The Hurt Locker'. And I say finally because I
had to watch it in two 'sessions'. Taking a break of two days between
the first hour and the second. Can't explain why. Maybe it was just too
much. Too much of what? Sheer film, I suppose. There's something
haunting and intense about Bigelow's minimalism - as opposed to
you-know-who's pretentiousness and grandeur and megalomania. With
Bigelow it's all about details. The bullet shell. The wind blowing the
dirt. The hungry, dirty, three-legged cats. The Iraqi boys speaking rap
slang. And then there's the mix of shaky camera images,
documentary-style, and the 'classic film' shots... I also liked the way
Ms.Bigelow teased us, bringing in Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes only to
kill them 5 minutes after... ;) XD
There's probably a lot more to be said about this film, but I can't do it. Can't write about films I really like. Can't find my words. That's why I'll never be a film critic ( thank gods !)
Haven't watched the other nominees for 'best movie' , except for 'Avatar' and 'Inglorious Basterds', but I dare say that for once I happen to agree with the Academy.
And for those who said this film won the awards it did because it sort of glorifies war - opposed to what Cameron's extravaganza did ; WATCH both films, then think again. Most of Bigelow's films are about a certain part of the human psyche. About the need for the adrenaline fix. The way I see it, that's what 'The Hurt Locker' is about, not war per se.
Just watched Legion (2010) It starts like Terminator. It ends like
Terminator, Sarah Connor's bandanna included. And maybe even the guns
in the back of the car. Several scenes cry out Matrix reference, but
hey, it's almost a must. Besides, Matrix fan here, so I guess this
could be a biased perception. The first half of the movie looks like an
imitation of 'Constantine'. Francis Lawrence and his director of
photography ( one Philippe Rousellot) should be proud. I guess. Heck,
even Connie's lighter makes a cameo appearance in this film ! Then it's
all a messed-up mix of various references. Matrix, The Seventh Sign
(1988) Jet Li movies, you name it. Okay, I know it's a post-post-modern
world out there. But there's a fine line between ( close) references or
homage and heavy borrowing. And when I hear lines like " Why do you
continue to fight? When you know all hope is lost?" and the hero's
answer is 'Fuck you", my mind stops and then in a split second pulls
out of the archive the 'Oh! In two hundred years we've gone from "I
regret but I have one life to give for my country" to "Fuck you!"?
I'm glad Neo isn't alive anymore to hear this. :(
And the above reaction/analysis could mean several things. One is that I should stop watching movies in Keanu Reeves movies terms. ( Although it's hard to see how this could be done, as, to quote a friend, I've got Connie engraved on my brain cells. ) . The other, far more disturbing , is that I've fallen into the (amateur) film critic's mind set. Which is something I promised myself ever since listening to the film critics' commentary to the Matrix movies ( shrewd, the Wachowskis are ) - to never let happen. Begone, Satan !
Stop. Replay. The movie, I mean.
and I still see all the above. But I like the idea of Michael being the rebellious one. To quote my friend ( again), "Gabriel is the decision maker, Michael the warrior.[ ] decision makers learn not to second guess themselves - warriors just carry out the judgments [ ] which means that the warrior can take a moment to think it over - and second guess.." I wish the moviemaker would have played with this idea more. Instead, we're given action scenes over action scenes and just a "You gave him what he asked. I gave him what he needed" line. And Michael's little chat with Jeep in the still of the night. But I wanted more talk and less fighting. More food for thought and less action scenes. In the same time, a comment on these pages says : "Jet Li movies have a lot more "kung fu". In fact, so does The Matrix, and that also has gun-fu." (KentaroK) I had to smile. Oh well, can't please everyone
Add to all the above the annoying, 'in-your-ears' too obvious score.
The film had potential. Too bad the angels got to it first.
*The first duty of a movie is to entertain.* someone said on a blog's
commentary section. and by all gods, Cameron's Avatar does that. pity
it stops there
It's a 3D special effects extravaganza. It's a movie written and directed by James Cameron, post-Titanic. 'nuff said.
But the characters are sketchy, the lines are clicheistic, and the only one who saves the day, in more ways than one, is Sam Worthington. ( Ribisi is great too, but his part is more of a cameo than a real part ) Strip away the effects and the score and the beautiful CGI scenery of Pandora, and there isn't much to the story. At least not what I ask of a 'good' movie. It's entrancing to watch in 3D on the big screen, yes. But when it ends, I yawned and stretched and felt the need for a coffee. And that was all. Didn't make me want to take a deep breath and reconsider the reality around me. Didn't make me want to buy a ticket for the next show, just to see it again. Didn't make me almost miss a traffic light. Other movie(s) did that. Not this one.
"He's designed it to bring people back to the cinema. [ ] Jim has always said to me that he wants to bring people back to the movies, and he's a smart enough man for that to be tactical." Worthington said about Avatar. Yes, the movie does that. It's a return to the glorious Hwood kind of movies. It does bring people back to the theater. But I'm missing that 'something' ... the 'splinter' the first two Terminator movies left in my mind... Roger Ebert likes it, the Academy will like it but it leaves me wanting more. More what ? Dunno. Maybe real quality storytelling over astonishing cinematography?
Okay, Cameron lured people back to the movies. Now it's time that someone uses this opportunity and gives them also some food for thought. Not only great visuals and popcorn.
I'm watching the movie and I think 'darn, this guy (Snyder) really has
an eye for translating graphic novels onto the screen ! he just makes
the drawn panels come to life... ... and then I think better about it
and realize I'm somehow disappointed. What he did with 300 and Watchmen
was to film the drawings, frame by frame... guess I wanted more than
that. guess I wanted a re-telling of the story, not just a
translation... But it works. it catches the essence of the comics.
Maybe Moore should watch the movie. Don't know what he'd think of it,
but he should at least watch it.
And the sound editing is just brilliant!
oh, and people, get over the use of the "Hallelujah" song, it was a joke ;) :))
|Page 1 of 4:||   |