drjimmycooper Reviews

Munich (2005)

Impressive film-making, but superficial and heavy-handed

[5/10 · 11 December 2005]

I saw this movie at a screening and I'm very mixed about it. In a way, it was kind of bad, and yet also admirable...

It was great to be seeing a big budget film tackle political subject matter. And the film takes great care to present a balanced point of view: there is a strong effort to humanize many of the characters, Arab and Israeli.

But I felt hit over the head with the film's "unbiased" message of peace. Once again, Spielberg buries potentially interesting & adult subject matter with his slick film-making skills and his heavy-handed, "soul of a child" sensibility.

There are some great things here. The acting is pretty great. Eric Bana gives a fine, understated performance. Daniel Craig is magnetic, and several of the supporting actors are excellent and surprisingly authentic, notably Michael Lonsdale.

The production design, sets and cinematography all work together superbly to re-create the early '70s. There aren't many films lately which can truly evoke a specific period. Munich does it almost flawlessly. I really felt transported by the sets, costumes and lighting, it was if I were watching some 30-year old French thriller. The only thing that gave it away were the smooth, dynamic camera moves, many of which, by the way, involved extremely complicated choreography.

There is a visceral excitement to some of the film. YES, it's extremely violent, but a good portion of it is devoted to the suspense and thrill of international spycraft, always a crowd-pleasing subject.

But, as the characters carry out their harrowing missions, the film starts to feel hollow. Considering the fascinating nature of the subject matter, it feels like there's too much slick film-making in place of ideas and/or character development.

There's some good dialogue here and there, but several times, I felt the actors were explaining too much, as if the filmmakers didn't trust the audience to "get it." Once these realizations set in, the film starts to feel way too long...

When the film, later, clumsily reaches for meaning and character depth, it feels forced and too late. Though Bana is very good, the script doesn't give him enough to flesh out his character. There is one scene in particular which is SO OUTRAGEOUSLY BAD, it doesn't even seem like the same movie.

Ultimately, there's no real emotional tug here, and one gets the sense that the same story could have been told more effectively in a shorter film which focused more on the main characters.

But, yet, the film did affect me, mostly for the way it convincingly transported me, through its look and some visual sequences, into its world, evoking thoughts and memories of historical events and the state of our world today.

The Constant Gardener (2005)

good intentions, but a preachy, maudlin mess

[4/10 · 14 August 2005]

I think the director and the script were a bad match.

The dynamic shooting style that he so brilliantly applied to City of God feels inappropriate in service of this rather conventional, overlong, dialogue-driven international thriller.

Extreme camera angles and moves are favored over acting and interpersonal drama. These are great actors, but they've been better in other movies. I don't think the director is quite up to the task of directing a mature, "adult" film.

And the script is a bit of a mess as well. Too much preachy, naive & on-the-nose dialogue. And the dialogue is doing too much of the dramatic heavy lifting: too much of the crucial action is off-screen or merely referred to in dialogue instead of SHOWN On screen! It felt like a rough draft of what could have been a much better script.

Fiennes' character is not very well defined, so when the movie shifts from being her story to his, we're not attached enough to him to care.

And there is no real suspense or mystery to his journey: we already pretty much know everything there is to reveal.

This leads to an insufferably boring and overlong second half.

So much talent here, but mismatches and an underdeveloped script sink it.

Don't buy the self-important ads, this one doesn't deliver.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Great action & suspense - mediocre acting, story and ending

[28 June 2005]

The special effects are great. The horror of mass death and devastation is powerfully rendered and there are some incredibly suspenseful moments. Spielberg is still better at this than his imitators.

But Cruise is miscast, and even though the film tries hard to build a credible family conflict, it just doesn't draw you in. Dakota Fanning is good, however, I don't think she overacted at all.

There's not much variation from scene to scene: The same basic "running & hiding from the tripods" scenario plays out in a few different ways, and there's just the faintest trace of character development.

The ending feels abrupt & the story incomplete. Probably because the defeat of the aliens and the family conflict are not truly integrated.

Still, it's not a bad movie.

Broken Flowers (2005)

Wonderfully unique and charming (but perhaps too spare)

[8/10 · 4 June 2005]

I just saw this at a press screening. It's very smart, well-made and entertaining, directed with sure-handed control, full of quirky, funny moments and superb acting. The film pretty much avoids clichés, although it does rely a bit on the familiar "Aren't Middle-Americans quirky?" idea for its humor. But Jarmusch never goes too far with this, his restraint keeping the film propelled from beginning to end.

The only weakness for me is rooted in the film's strength: I feel like there's not quite enough here.

Murray's character is beleaguered and despondent, Murray plays him with perfect subtlety. This is fun and fascinating to watch; I found myself hanging onto every little expression on Murray's face. But, the combination of his passive, muted performance and the spare storytelling left me wanting more. It just doesn't have as much impact as I feel it could have. So, yes, it's wonderful minimalism, but perhaps a bit too slight of a movie to have any lasting resonance.

Bill Murray has added another very good performance to his career, and Jim Jarmusch has made another compact little gem (unlike some of his more recent films). Unique and entertaining. Definitely worth seeing.

Cinderella Man (2005)

Great acting! - but it's a cheesy, formulaic movie

[5/10 · 27 May 2005]

I just saw this movie and I'm pretty mixed. The acting was great: Russell Crowe and Paul Giamatti are outstanding in their roles. Giamatti just about steals the whole movie, he is beyond great. Unfortunately, Zellweger's role was weakly-written and though she does an okay job, she doesn't come off nearly as well.

The movie, on the other hand, is really simple and sappy. At first, it seemed like Ron Howard was going to make a truly great movie. There's real restraint and elegance for a while. But then he goes for the big, broad, sappy choices and the whole thing turns to mush. One of my biggest problems was that the script doesn't develop a truly interesting conflict. The ideas are there, but they're not developed in an interesting way.

Overall, it feels trite, maudlin and overblown. Like most Ron Howard movies, it's a competently-made, softened-up version of better movies. There's definitely some suspense, and, yes, the fight scenes are compelling. But by the end, I wasn't very moved. I guess people will feel a big emotional payoff, but it didn't work on me (and I'm usually a big sap).

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Terrible

[2/10 · 25 May 2005]

I saw this movie at a press screening and thought it was terrible. So much of this movie is unbelievable, I don't know where to start, including Pitt and Jolie in their parts. I guess they looked great, but chemistry? It's all superficial and forced.

The script is a mess. You never get a sense of who these two people or their motivations are. We never get to know them, so when the story gets going and people start trying to kill each other, it feels pointless. I like violence when it's properly motivated, but because the story is so badly laid out, the violence here feels superfluous and ugly. The film is smug and thinks it's really funny to have the characters make jokes as they kill people, as if it's some kind of clever action comedy. These lame comedy moments make the film feel worse than empty: it feels evil. There is a truly disgusting moment of violence between Pitt and Jolie as they beat each other up.

The only thing I liked was Vince Vaughn, who was hilarious in a supporting role. It was as if he were in a completely different movie. Somebody needs to give him a lead role.

The Longest Yard (2005)

it's trade-off: less character development, more laughs

[6/10 · 25 May 2005]

I went to this film thinking it was going to suck. I was a big fan of the original. Loved it as a kid, although I know it's not a great film or anything.

I was surprised at how fun the remake was, although it is a superficial kind of fun. The original had better casting and stronger character development. Reynolds and Eddie Albert are so wonderful in their roles, Sandler and the new warden are pretty damn lame in comparison. And the original spent more time building the characters, so that by the end, the film really resonated in a way the remake does not.

BUT, the remake is a fun & energetic piece of pop entertainment. It goes much more for broad comedy and pretty much succeeds. It's not super- hilarious, but it's funny enough and much funnier than the original. Although Sandler is wrong for the part, he's likable enough. Chris Rock is funny, as are some of the others. And the overall brisk pace keeps the whole thing afloat.

Yes, it's a disposable movie. It lacks the dark undercurrents that made the first one so good. It even seems to self-consciously acknowledge that it will never stand outside the shadow of Burt Reynolds. No, it doesn't have as much substance, but it has its own childish charm.