Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
RE: GIGANTIC WASTE OF MONEY
26 June 2003
This is yet another superficial costume drama bent on sensationalizing Siamese/Thai history and politics. After seeing the 'main' character introduced, I assumed it would be at least a passable character study of a pivotal/dynamic historical Thai figure (Suriyothai). However, the story is barely about Suriyothai - it's more about the evil queen and her witchy grandmother who want to restore the rival dynasty. The conflict with Burma is hardly a good supporting subplot. The acting is passable, but the actor playing Suriyothai doesn't have the emotional range to add more depth to an already awful character. The dialogue is trite and too straightforward. The highlights are basically in the direction, editing, and cinematography. The film also has a lot of needlessly gory shots which could've been cut - way too much bloodshed. The child king's execution was handled fairly well, but the others' deaths are too graphic.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beautiful Photography - That's All Folks!
2 March 2002
I went to see the L.A. premiere of this film, in which the director and screenwriter (sic) attended. While looking through the tasteful, elegant, and researched program - I couldn't wait for the theater to darken: A film about 19th Century European Art/Music! Also, I was awaiting the biography of Ms. Mahler.

Afterward, I couldn't believe some people had the gall to get up and commend this film. Although the film is about enlightened artists, this film is so bourgeois - and we never understand the female lead as she bounces from one bed to the next. The film is sumptuous-looking, and the production values are high - but this does not a good film make. The biggest culprit is the superficial and boring screenplay: There is just no depth in either the lead character, or her relationships with others. Barring feminist politics, the script just doesn't have it in the drama department. It's as if someone said, "Gee, if we make a film about Gustav Mahler's trampy wife, and put all these famous artists in it - that'll make a good film!".

Beresford was obviously gathering a mere paycheck, and Levy probably has friends in high places (what else has she written?!).
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Contra Pearl Harbor
26 May 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe I'm wasting my limited, precious time on writing a review for this film – but I was just so incensed from watching it that I had to go back to my PC and deliver the goods! Like many people, I was attracted to the trailer, and also I'm a war-monger. And when Hollywood dumps a lot of dollars into a big war picture, I'll be Johnny-on-the-Spot. In light of this, I took my fellow-war-monger friend with me – expecting at least a competent picture. And, after both watching `Enemy at the Gates' – we were hungry for a better war picture, and had one since `The Thin Red Line'. However, more often than not, we were turning to each other and rolling our eyes during `Pearl Harbor'. Spoiler Alert First of all, Randall Wallace has a lot of explaining to do. I liked `Braveheart' – which was a passable film with a competent script – but `Pearl Harbor's script is just LOUSY. After beginning with the clichéd love triangle, complete with the over-used But-I-Thought-You-Were-Dead angle – the script offers us a lot of superficial characters with trite and laughable lines. As I glanced at my watch (for the umpteenth) time to see how much longer I would have to suffer through this major letdown, a whole hour went by focusing on the trite love triangle – with no setup regarding the Japanese. When the Japanese finally make their appearance, they are portrayed as robotic and stereotyped. What's more, the writer didn't bother to personalize or dramatize the attack/plan from the Japanese perspective. Cuba Gooding Jr. plays the token politically-correct black guy who may be a cook, but get him in the boxing ring and look out – as if we really care by this point. Echoing another viewer's comments, this character is redundant – he's just there for the minorities in the audience.

The story really should've ended at Pearl. But wait, there's more! The Doolittle Raid on Tokyo. The only good thing about this part was that it killed off one of the leads. I don't know how many people were laughing when Alec Baldwin was giving his pep talk to the pilots in the ready room – but it was more than one, myself included. Baldwin cannot play a gruff, tough military man – he's just too sensitive and urbane, and his performance came off as too campy and laughable. As far as the acting goes, most of the veteran actors are good, and I'm talking about Voight and the like. The leads are another story. The two pilots Rafe and Danny are just good old boy southerners who are patriotic and loving the same woman – but that's ABOUT IT. We barely get to know these characters. FDR had more character development than these hayseeds. Kate Beckinsale (FOX!) was passable, but she suffers the same fate as every other actor in the movie: She just doesn't have the LINES. I don't want to sound chauvinistic, but there were SO MANY scenes with the nurses – it almost came off like a chick flick. I wouldn't have minded it so much, but the writer didn't develop these women, nor give them any flaws, dreams, fears, ANYTHING: It was all, `Tee-hee, tee-hee, did you see that cute pilot staring at me?'. Jesus! I was almost CHOKING from all the close-ups in `Pearl'. Now, where is the pony in all this s***? His name is: SFX. The aerial sequences and the attack on the Seventh Fleet are quite amazing – thanks to the folks at ILM. Unfortunately, we had to sit through two hours of forgettable cinema to get to them. And I thought `Enemy at the Gates' was a mediocre film!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed