Reviews

51 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A solid, well-directed old school musical drama with magnificent Meryl Streep, great music, and good message
14 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"Music of the Heart" is based on a true story of Roberta Guaspari – a gifted violin teacher and a passionate founder of "Opus 118 Harlem School of Music" private non-profit organization. Opus 118 was initially created to save the famous violin program created and led by Guaspari from the looming government budget cuts but later expanded its vision to serve public school students of low income by engaging them in the field of musical education.

As you might guess, despite of or, perhaps, thanks to being based on a true story, the movie is quite inspirational, very stereotypical, and thus predictable – a gifted, passionate, innovative teacher, struggling in personal life, a wise school principle deciding to give her a chance, skeptical colleagues, difficult at first kids from low-income families, challenges to overcome, and, of course, traditional Hollywood happy end – this time in the form of a triumphant all-star concert at Carnegie Hall.

And yet there is something in "Music of the Heart" that elevates it from the comfortable, formulaic, cookie-cutter industrial mediocrity to the noble and mysterious realm of art. And moreover, there is also something that transforms a seemingly undistinguished happy ending story from the closing decade of the last century into a bitter tale, quite relevant more than 20 years after it first appeared on big screen.

From the art perspective, one cannot help but notice something obvious – the great Meryl Streep in her nuanced Oscar- nominated performance as Roberta Guaspari. If I were a cinema scholar, I could have covered many pages with a lengthy dissertation on the ultimate professional heights that Meryl Streep so naturally reaches when portraying her characters. But since I am not a scholar, all I could say is this – you must see this acting magic with your own eyes; very few actors have ever been able to even approach that level of mastery.

The distant second but still very important factor that compensates for the deficiencies of the story is the direction of Wes Craven, a classic music lover and a former English professor, who, however, is mostly famous for his influential horror movies (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream). The impressive work on "Music of the Heart" proved that the directing talent of Wes Craven is far more versatile than the one required from a typical horror movie director. My personal opinion is that Wes Craven continuing to explore movie genres other than horror is something that would benefit both the director and cinema in general.

I should also mention the solid supporting performances of Angela Bassett as the school principal Janet Williams, Aidan Quinn as Roberta's classmate and romantic interest Brian Turner, and Cloris Leachman as Roberta's mother Assunta Guaspari.

I also cannot but mention the wonderful music component of the movie that includes some great pieces written for violin (e.g. Bach's concerto in D minor for Two Violins), the impressive original music score by Mason Daring with its crown jewel - an Oscar-nominated song "Music of the Heart" and last, but not least - the famous concert scene at Carnegie Hall with the legendary violinists Mark O'Connor, Issac Stern, and Itzhak Perlman joining the movie crew.

Besides the Meryl Streep s staggering performance, solid directing, and great music, there is something else that makes the movie from the late 1990s relevant today. I do not think, however, that it was intentional on the part of the movie creators; it looks more like an unintended consequence of their attempt to add traditional family values to the movie mix.

One of these values is commitment – commitment to spouse, commitment to children, commitment to students, friends, coworkers, and finally – commitment to your higher calling to help those that need you. Being committed? It is so nineties (if not fifties). Nowadays we are so self-absorbed, so preoccupied with self-fulfillment (quickly morphing into self-indulgence), self-actualization and other "self-" words, that being committed to something or somebody other than oneself or making sacrifices for somebody else's benefit seems to be quickly becoming a rarity, an exception from the common rule.

I do not think that it is important whether the commitment theme in the movie was intentional or not. For me it is enough that it reflects a timeless truth, the truth that appears to have been mostly condemned to oblivion these days, when everything seems to be relative, subjective, and conditional even such naturally unconditional thing as commitment.

Moreover, nowadays it looks like it is almost fashionable to be uncommitted to anything – to explore things, to try things, to selfishly jump from one thing to another, to avoid attachments that slow you down on your chosen path and hurt your self-fulfillment perspectives.

Those who fall victim of that trend I could only refer to the famous saying of the French icon Jean Cocteau: "Art produces ugly things which frequently become more beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things that always become ugly with time."

The power of his saying lies in the fact that it applies to life just as it applies to art: taking life lightly and following fashion in its important matters equals flirting with disaster.

Perhaps, the main lesson of the movie is that becoming a great musician or a famous music teacher, acquiring major titles or achieving professional goals, in other words - investing exclusively into your precious self is not something that would fill your heart with music, your life with harmony, and your existence with higher purpose.

The path to the true "music of the heart" leads in the opposite direction – to investing in others, cultivating awareness, empathy and compassion, and being committed, faithful, and unselfish in your relationships, both professional and personal.

www.knowyourmovie.com
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Flawed, but visually stunning interpretation of the classic masterpiece with great soundtrack
16 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
On the outside the 2013 adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" looks like a beautifully crafted exclusive jewelry box. The quality of the content, however, is not consistent with that of the exterior: inside the box is not a tiny priceless natural diamond, but a huge, tasteless, cheaply- looking cubic zirconia.

That does not mean, however, that Luhrmann's latest movie is not a pleasure to watch. I would even venture to say that "The Great Gatsby" can be considered a must see movie, mostly because of its lavish, visually stunning cinematography, if not because of the poor interpretation of the classic story, the interpretation that lacks both depth and substance.

Indeed, "The Great Gatsby" is visually breathtaking in almost literal sense. There are many moments in the movie that make you hold your breath and leave you utterly overwhelmed by the piercing richness of the miraculously powerful visual feast.

"The Great Gatsby" features quite impressive camera work. In some scenes it almost feels like the camera somehow gets attached to your heart and cleverly tricks it into beating faster - with excitement or in anticipation.

Another strong suit of the movie is its amazing soundtrack (Craig Armstrong) that masterfully, with the remarkable precision captures the twists and turns of the novel's delicate mood. While some people were not impressed with the hip hop mix of the original soundtrack, I found it to be in the surprising harmony with both the distinguished literary source and the visual magnificence of its 2013 cinematic adaptation.

Unfortunately, Baz Luhrmann's vision, so delightfully original in regards with the exterior details, suffers a noticeable setback when it has to deal with more serious matters, like the delicate substance of the novel, with all its depth and complexity.

That is precisely the area where the 2013 adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" lets us down, suffering from all kinds of issues: the misunderstood and misinterpreted main characters, the poor character development in general, the dragging story sprinkled with wrong accents, the added unnecessary scenes that are not in the novel, and finally the missing important scenes that actually are in the novel.

Being excessively focused on the love triangle between Jay Gatsby, Tom Buchanan, and Daisy Buchanan, the 2013 adaptation fails to give proper attention to the several strategically important plot lines, including the relationship between Nick Carraway and Daisy's close friend (and pathological liar) Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki) or the failed marriage of George and Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher).

In addition, the movie falls into a trap of excessively romanticizing Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan and thus misrepresenting their complex relationship by portraying it as a formulaic tragic love story.

It essentially tells us a tear-jerking story about a pair of cute lovebirds who naively dream of impossible only to be tragically separated by the cruel fate. A high human tragedy from the novel has been reduced to a vulgar love tragedy in the movie.

There is also a certain disconnect between the narrative that strongly hints at all the Gatsby's illegal activities, unscrupulous business dealings, and shady connections and the inspired sugary image that we see on the screen.

Charmingly passionate and overly sensitive, Romeo-like Leonardo DiCaprio's Gatsby from the 2013 movie in no way looks like a shrewd trusted associate of sleazy Meyer Wolfsheim and a prominent member of his notorious gang.

This inability to create a believable character seems to be caused more by the Baz Luhrmann's faulty vision than by the DiCaprio's acting, which was generally acceptable.

The same is true for Carey Mulligan whose simplistic, one-dimensional Daisy Buchanan seemed to be more a failed director's concept than a failed acting project.

While both the 1974 movie and the 2013 movie portray Daisy Buchanan as a delicate flower, in the 1974 interpretation the magnificent Mia Farrow is quick to expose these peculiar, barely hidden thorns, the dangerously poisonous thorns that quite naturally pierce poor Gatsby's heart and lead to his inevitable demise.

The 2013 version, on the other hand, misses the opportunity to shatter the silly romantic heroine image until it becomes too late. As the movie fails to properly introduce Daisy's dark side in a timely manner, the transition from the sweet little honey to the strikingly shallow, uncaring, selfish person, a person who "…smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into 'her' money or 'her' vast carelessness" loses most of its punch and credibility.

With the main characters in the Baz Luhrmann's movie being not that impressive, the supporting cast does better overall, although not without some regrettable blunders.

One of the biggest disappointments was an absolute miscasting that completely ruined one of the characters, so intriguing in the novel. Amitabh Bachchan was way off target in his performance, and generally did not seem to be a good choice for the role of Meyer Wolfsheim. Whatever Mr. Bachchan was portraying in the movie hardly bore any resemblance to the notorious character who first "fixed" the World's Series in 1919 and then came up with that neat little idea of opening numerous drug stores that were very busy selling some useful "prescription drugs" during the Prohibition years.

Joel Edgerton, on the other hand, turned out to be a great Tom Buchanan. I have yet to find a single moment in the movie where Mr. Edgerton's refined performance was even slightly off base.

Another solid acting work in "The Great Gatsby" unexpectedly came from Tobey Maguire whose nuanced performance as Nick Carraway was a pleasant surprise indeed. By creating such memorable character Mr. Maguire proved that he is capable of something more than being a shabby Spider-Man from the primitive superhero franchise for teenagers.

In conclusion, despite the movie's serious flaws, I would still recommend watching "The Great Gatsby", mostly because of its fantastic exterior that deserves to be seen, enjoyed, and appreciated, major shortcomings above notwithstanding.

www.knowyourmovie.com
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Just another mediocre action movie with an annoyingly silly plot...
12 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Why Hollywood keeps producing such mediocre movies as "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" is a question with an easy answer – because it sells. About a month after the release, the movie has already collected at the box office more than twice of its relatively large $130 million production budget.

Why crowds keep watching these mediocre movies is another easy question. Sadly, people have always preferred crude low farce and street circus to high forms of art. It has not changed in thousands of years and is unlikely to change in the future.

And yet I cannot help but wondering, why not to spend a very small token of these mighty $130 million on hiring a solid director and decent screenplay writer? I guess that the answer would be "Why bother if "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" became a box office hit even with Jon M. Chu at the shaky helm and with Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick at the squeaky typewriter?

Jon M. Chu is notoriously famous for his 2011 documentary "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never" that received a whooping 1.7 out of 10 rating on IMDb.

The record of Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick is equally "impressive" and consists of writing for some obscure TV shows as well as for a zombie movie.

It almost looks like the notorious zombie theme was still on the screenwriters' minds when they started working on "G.I. Joe: Retaliation". Their expedition to the abandoned movie dumpsters in the desperate search for some nicely rotten leftovers reminded me the behavior of raccoons swiftly going through the smelly garbage in the dead of the night.

Needless to say, liberally fertilizing with the cheap second hand movie trash from the dumpster - worn-out masks, rusty samurai swords, dirty military trucks, and damp explosive arsenals - did not make the already shallow story of "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" any better.

A good action movie does not have to have a clever plot, but still needs a decent, solidly built structure without unforgivable shortcomings. Unfortunately, the story in "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" not only manages to be painfully predictable, extraordinary silly and hopelessly incoherent at the same time, but it also makes less and less sense as the movie progresses.

A good action movie does not have to have powerful character development, but it still has to have likable (or repulsive in case of a villain), charismatic, reasonably believable characters and not the one- dimensional, paper-thin stooges that look like they were borrowed from some disastrous toddler cartoon.

A good action movie needs to have some well-blended exciting action sequences that keep adrenalin pumping and help maintaining the viewers' interest, and not a random sequence of disappointingly short, painfully unoriginal, sloppily executed, loosely connected, disjointed scenes that constitute the action component in "G.I. Joe: Retaliation".

A good action movie does not have to tackle the complex issues of human existence in a powerful way, but it still needs to maintain at least a minimal level of genuineness in portraying most basic human feelings, emotions, and values.

Whenever "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" touches any significant matters of life, whether family, friendship, love, honor, or military bond the movie comes across as so shamelessly superficial that it leaves the viewer in uncomfortable disgust.

The acting in "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" was mostly on a par with its story and directing. Seemingly left without meaningful guidance from the director to deal with their fundamentally fake characters, industrious actors Dwayne Johnson (Roadblock) and Channing Tatum (Duke) heavily relied on their charisma with the mostly unsatisfactory results.

The only exception was the performance of the versatile Welsh actor Jonathan Pryce whose President (as well as the impostor Zartan) were the only two believable characters in the movie grossly outnumbered by the multitude of the pitiful lifeless puppets, played by the rest of the acting crew.

Another exception, but of a different kind, was Bruce Willis whose comic performance in the small role of the veteran General Joe Colton was quite enjoyable, but only because of its grotesque and the signature self-irony that Bruce Willis is so good at.

Overall, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" is one of those mediocre, derivative movies that can be easily ignored without any regrets or second thoughts. In fact, I think you would do yourself a favor if you do not see the movie and save the time for doing something more meaningful and less insulting to both intellect and good taste.

www.knowyourmovie.com
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An exquisitely elegant exercise in nothing ...
6 April 2013
Interestingly enough, it is rather hard to find those capable of being objective towards Wes Anderson. A small but vocal elitist minority is usually unreservedly ecstatic about his movies while the silent majority either has not heard much about them or has readily dismissed them as another pretentiously artistic nonsense.

Among many things I find appealing about "Moonrise Kingdom" is its overall exquisiteness and elegance – from the impeccable style, to the delicate taste, to the perfection in every small detail.

In addition, after watching the movie it becomes pretty obvious that Wes Anderson is a man of a sophisticated taste and a great erudition. I cannot help but admire a director capable of seamlessly and entertainingly wowing into the fabric of the movie references to Benjamin Britten, Henry Purcell as well as to all the four groups of orchestra instruments.

And yet, despite all these indisputable fine qualities, "Moonrise Kingdom" lacks something critically important, something that turns it into an exquisitely elegant exercise in nothing instead of a great movie.

I had spent a long time trying to find a good definition for that elusive quality that I believed "Moonrise Kingdom" was lacking until I stumbled upon a great quotation by Edgar Allan Poe: "Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality."

Not only "Moonrise Kingdom" is not grounded in the reality, but it is also purposely disconnected from it and decidedly artificial. The imaginary world of "Moonrise Kingdom" barely scratches the surface of the vastly complex problems it deceptively pretends to tackle - .

Because of that, despite all its admirable perfection, "Moonrise Kingdom" still remains an empty, shallow, and ultimately fruitless, although enjoyable movie.

And, of course, when I mention shallowness I am not referring to the kind of outrageously glaring shallowness a-la formulaic "Super 8" (J.J. Abrams) and some other movies directed or produced by Steven Spielberg himself or by his multiple followers and epigones.

The shallowness of "Moonrise Kingdom" is quite subtler. With all the enjoyment this beautifully splendid film brings, its lack of internal purpose and full-blooded connection to reality leaves us unsatisfied and disappointed at the end, or, as Edgar Allan Poe wrote, "fails to impress our mind".

If the admittedly rich content of the movie were somehow distilled to reveal its critical substance, to uncover its heart, all that we would find would be superficial niceties like great shots, beautiful scenery, smooth and smart but lifeless dialogues, imaginative scene sets, but nothing more substantial than that – no real story, no real purpose, nothing that would touch our heart or engage our mind.

I already foresee some objections indicating that Wes Anderson is some sort of a uniquely creative genius with an unconventional vision that should not be a subject to common judgment.

I am wondering, however, what a true value of that supposedly unique vision is if the only fruit it bears is a well-disguised nothing in a colorful packaging so enticing for the small group of the divorced from reality intellectuals.

There are many great directors with a unique vision. Their masterpieces are complex, multidimensional, and inexpressibly deep interpretations of the real world around us.

Their movies provoke in us agonizing thoughts, make us strongly empathize with the characters, and ultimately leave us horrified by the yawning chasm of the human existence, miraculously grasped by a genius.

"Moonrise Kingdom" does not possess any of that. Its exceptionally well though-out, brilliantly directed story with beautiful music unfortunately represents a mere shell for an improbable and superficial fairy tale.

What the movie can pride itself on, however, is the all-star cast featuring Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton and Bruce Willis in an uncharacteristic, but surprisingly good performance.

Among the other noteworthy performances in the film are the cute teenage "lovebirds" Sam Shakusky played by Jared Gilman and Suzy Bishop played by Kara Hayward Their believable acting and good screen chemistry seem to be vastly superior to those of the overall unconvincing duo (Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz) from the Martin Scorsese's bland "Hugo".

"Moonrise Kingdom" is a perfectly made, charming niche movie meant to be slowly savored by the relatively small group of genre enthusiasts. What prevents it from becoming a truly great movie is being not moving enough to speak to our hearts and not thought-provoking enough to occupy our minds.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mama (I) (2013)
6/10
An unimpressive, unsuccessful attempt to expand a three minute long video clip into a hundred minute long horror movie
17 March 2013
The recipe for a good horror movie is as easy to formulate as it is difficult to implement. Roughly speaking, a good horror movie needs to be a) at least somewhat original with a hint of depth; b) at least somewhat coherent without a too-strong artificial flavor; c) at least somewhat scary, but not in a cheap way.

Unfortunately, "Mama" produced by none other than Guillermo del Toro miserably failed in all the three categories. Nevertheless, being a failure from a pure cinematic perspective did not prevent the first-time director Andrés Muschietti s movie from becoming a box office darling: with the production budget of only $15.000.000, "Mama" collected an impressively hefty $118,434,000 worldwide.

A few years ago, Andrés Muschietti had already made a very short three minute long video clip also called "Mama" that was released in Spain in 2009.

It looks like the amateurish short video had generated enough interest in big professional cinema to secure for Andrés Muschietti a golden opportunity of making it into a full-length movie.

The original clip is available on YouTube and while somewhat cute (in a horror movie sense) it strikes me as not containing much substance to build upon.

Judging by the quality of the final product, generating buzz about a three minute long video turned out to be much easier task than actually expanding it into a hundred minute long movie.

The story (Andrés and Babara Muschietti) ends up being so hopelessly unoriginal that it is not even trying to pretend the opposite. It is extremely formulaic and almost exclusively consists of genre clichés. Those waiting for any unpredictable twist or turn of the story end up bitterly disappointed at the end.

Even with all its predictability, "Mama" still somehow manages to remain generally incoherent and (especially, closer to the end) full of obviously contrived coincidences. For example, why was a certain character so stubbornly and shortsightedly trying to visit a scary, menacing location in the middle of a dark gloomy night when he could have easily waited until morning? There is no good explanation for that except the ill wish of the story writers.

As if all of the above was not already upsetting enough, "Mama" generously throws another curve ball to its unsuspecting viewers - the quintessentially cheap kindergarten level scares. These "when somebody jumps out of the corner or from behind your back and nastily screams "Boo"" kind of scares are not what we expect to see in a decent horror movie.

I have to say that my expectations of "Mama" in that area were already reasonably low. I, for example, was not expecting from it anything even remotely comparable to the famous "Mystery Man" scene – a little masterpiece from David Lynch's "Lost Highway" where a potent combination of the subtle makeup, the background sound, and the mind-bending dialog creates a thrilling creepiness of enormous power.

And still, even with the expectations as low as they were, "Mama" somehow managed to disappoint.

It became one more flop in the mixed record of Guillermo del Toro who is generally considered an authority in producing and directing horror movies. What had started with the great "The Devil's Backbone", the powerful "Pan's Labyrinth", and the ultimate masterpiece - "The Orphanage" has regrettably morphed into the simply laughable "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" and the utterly mediocre "Mama".

The acting in "Mama" was only so-so, with the three notable exceptions.

The memorable characters created by the wonderful child actors Megan Charpentier and Isabelle Nélisse were one of the very few redeeming qualities of the movie. The casting in that respect in my opinion seemed to be superior to that of "Hugo" where the wooden screen duo of Asa Butterfield, and Chloë Grace Moretz looked bland, lacked chemistry, and in general left an artificial aftertaste.

Nominated for two Oscars in two consecutive years ("Zero Dark Thirty" (2013), "The Help" (2012)) Jessica Chastain is undoubtedly one of the best actors of her generation and possibly (only time will tell) of all time. In addition, it looks like she might be one of the very few actors who always shine no matter what, even if they play in a weak movie like "Mama".

While "Mama" 's thin plot does not leave much room for character development, Jessica Chastain somehow manages to go beyond what the clichéd story dictates and adds quite a bit of depth and strong, believable emotion to the otherwise undistinguished character.

The visual effects in "Mama" are mostly solid, more or less imaginative, and even subtle when necessary, but overall they are not breathtaking enough to have any serious independent value. And without an independent value they simply become an unfortunate hostage of the poorly written and implemented movie they are featured in.

In addition, due to certain questionable decisions made in that area, some of the effects in "Mama" look almost too smooth, cartoonish, and fairytale-like to be truly scary. As a result, in some sense they even seem to be inferior to the very basic, but genuine effects from the low budget original video from YouTube.

Overall, "Mama" could have become so much better than what it ended up being! An emotionally involving tragedy, a haunting mystery, a strong trio of lead actors, solid special effects – all those valuable ingredients were essentially wasted on the silly, incoherent, and overall unsatisfying story.

In my opinion, the only reason to watch "Mama" would be enjoying one more great performance of Jessica Chastain. Otherwise, the movie could be safely avoided.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anna Karenina (I) (2012)
7/10
Bearable, original at times, but overall unremarkable interpretation of the Tolstoy's classic novel ...
14 January 2013
The 2012 movie "Anna Karenina" featuring world famous stars Keira Knightley and Jude Law is yet another adaptation of the classic novel with the same name completed by Leo Tolstoy in 1877.

The first question that I asked myself even before seeing the movie in the theatre was "Why do we need one more adaptation of "Anna Karenina" when so many worthy interpretations of the timeless novel are readily available to satisfy our curiosity?"

Between all the numerous big screen efforts as well as multiple British, Russian, and even Cuban TV series, radio dramas, ballets, musicals, and ten operas (!), has there been anything truly new and original left to say about the tragic life of the mysterious Anna Karenina and all those profoundly unlucky individuals who had a terrible misfortune of being close to her - her husband, her lover, and her children?

The trailer for 2012 movie does not take "no" for an answer and boldly announces an intriguing "bold new vision" that the 2012 "Anna Karenina" apparently contains.

After seeing the movie it still remains a mystery to me what kind of "bold new vision" the trailer was exactly referring to. Or was it just another deceiving marketing gimmick? It was probably the latter, since a truly visionary movie has no need to explicitly spell it out in a large font in a trailer.

It is not that the 2012 "Anna Karenina" is a bad movie. In fact, it is more than bearable and even contains a small number of interesting accents as well as certain notable scenes, some of which are rarely included in the big screen adaptations.

Nevertheless, the overall amount of the groundbreaking material that the 2012 "Anna Karenina" offers to our attention is not even remotely enough to justify yet another attempt to bring the Tolstoy's novel to the big screen. In addition, the movie features some questionable cost-cutting production decisions that only aggravate the overall lack of authenticity quite noticeable in the 2012 version.

Summing it up, contrary to the promises made in a trailer, what was good in the 2012 movie was not bold or new, and what was bold or new was not so good.

The acting in the movie, while overall acceptable, was again not strong enough to warrant creating one more "Anna Karenina" big screen adaptation.

To those who admired Keira Knightley's performance as Anna Karenina I would simply suggest comparing it with some truly remarkable performances from the past.

Why is that when I watch Vivien Leigh as Anna Karenina, I completely believe that she is a Russian aristocrat and a member of the highest society circle and the Keira Knightley's acting strikes me as completely inauthentic?

Obviously, Vivien Leigh with her aristocratic upbringing and noble beauty was a natural choice for the role. I do not think that one needs to be a high aristocrat to notice something equally obvious - Keira Knightley's performance, while admittedly stylish, does not have anything even remotely aristocratic in it.

When her Anna exchanges glances with her love interest, Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), they look more like two unsophisticated youngsters lustfully winking at each other in a bar, than refined members of two grand aristocratic families taken aback by the forbidden but irresistibly luring feelings towards each other dangerously quickly arising in their hearts.

On the positive side, the 2012 movie avoided a regrettable mistake made in many of the "Anna Karenina" adaptations – furnishing the Count Vronksy character with a deeper, more sophisticated, more mature, and overall more attractive personality that he actually possesses in the Tolstoy's novel.

Jude Law's performance as Anna's unloved and ultimately deceived husband is a mixed bag. On one hand, his acting is one of the best in the movie. On the other hand, if you compare his Karenin with the earlier interpretations by Nikolai Gritsenko (1967), Ralph Richardson (1948), Paul Skolfield (1985), or Basil Rathbone (1935), the outcome in my opinion will be not in favor of Jude Law whose performance would be suddenly perceived as lacking both depth and substance.

Despite being mostly critical in my review, I still find myself happy that the 2012 "Anna Karenina" actually happened and received a considerable publicity.

The main reason for my favorable disposition towards the 2012 "Anna Karenina" is my conviction that in the search for a true value of this movie we should look outside of the high art dimension and focus more on its utilitarian role - an important cultural role the movie could play by unobtrusively educating the younger generations of moviegoers.

Let us be reasonable - with all the easily digestible nonsensical popcorn blockbusters written by illiterate but prolific Hollywood mediocrities, who from the Millennial generation in their right mind would decide to watch the black and white 1935 "Anna Karenina" with Greta Garbo not to mention the 1967 Russian version, even if the English subtitles for it are readily available on YouTube?

However, if you widely announce a new adaption with an intriguing "bold new vision", add to the mix the world-famous stars like Keira Knightley and Jude Law and cleverly market the movie to the target audience, a chance that some Millennial or even someone from Generation X would become interested in the timeless story of poor Anna Karenina would suddenly jump from a hopeless absolute zero to a small, but statistically significant number.

In conclusion, while I cannot call the 2012 "Anna Karenina" a must-see movie, I still believe that watching it would be beneficial for most of us.

Those who have read the original Tolstoy's novel or have seen the earlier "Anna Karenina" interpretations would satisfy their understandable curiosity. Those who have no idea who Anna Karenina is and what the movie is all about, will get a rare opportunity to repair an educational gap in a quite entertaining way.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Argo (2012)
8/10
A must-see movie despite the historical inaccuracies and some story unevenness
4 December 2012
"Argo" is a solidly built, but not always historically accurate drama with the several interconnected plot lines of varying quality masterfully woven together by the little known until now screenwriter Chris Terrio and by Ben Affleck who directed the movie and was one of the producers.

The Oscar-rumored "Argo" is another successful step in the Mr. Affleck's transition from one of the most unrealized promising young Hollywood actors to one of the most prominent young Hollywood directors, previously known for the well-done "The Town" (2010) and "Gone Baby Gone" (2007).

While I like "Argo" a lot and even consider it a "must-see" movie, the uneven quality of its intertwined story lines as well as some relatively easy noticeable historical inaccuracies do not allow me to call this heartfelt movie a masterpiece.

The first plot line is based on the historical events of the Iranian revolution of 1979, from its beginning, to its progression, to its results. While flawlessly executed from the professional perspective and offering the highest level of authenticity in almost every small but expressive detail, the powerful emotional tale told in "Argo" is plagued with the avoidable historical inaccuracies and simplifications. As a result, the movie misses an opportunity to seriously and thoughtfully explore the tragic historical events. That somewhat reduces "Argo" to merely a high quality entertainment piece that just happens to utilize the real life tragedy to skillfully play on our raw emotions provoked by it.

The second and the core plot line in "Argo" focuses on the remarkable story of the six American embassy workers. It features the escape from the occupied by the militant crowds embassy building, the difficult time they spent trapped in the Canadian embassy without much hope, and of course the complex and risky rescue operation that even included a fictional movie production company setup in Hollywood.

Just as the story of the Iranian revolution, the hostage rescue story, while well-written, well-directed, and well-acted, regrettably contains some historical inaccuracies. In a nutshell, "Argo" over-emphasizes the role of CIA at the expense of the Canadian and British allies whose role is unfairly distorted and downplayed in the movie.

In addition to the avoidable distortions, the story contains some pretty much unavoidable "enhancements" that I do not count against "Argo": the added suspense elements absent in the real life story the movie is based on.

Spicing a thriller up with some artificially injected suspense is often a necessary evil as in many cases it is almost impossible to create a watchable, appealing to the audience thriller and keep it fully realistic.

In the story told in "Argo" everything happens at the last possible moment, everything routinely hangs by a thread, and everything requires a little miracle to move forward. The reality, of course, was a little more uneventful and a little less suspenseful.

Unfortunately, the two remaining story lines of "Argo" – the "government agencies" line and the "Hollywood cover up" line are far less authentic, far less original, and far more formulaic and "Hollywoodish" than the hostage rescue mission and the Iranian revolution stories.

Every time "Argo" attempts to reveal how the various government agencies worked together on the rescue mission details, the powerful original story yields to the one big, long cliché that has been shamelessly wandering from one movie to another for a long, long time.

The other quite unimpressive plot line was a secondary in nature story of the CIA operation getting a cover-up in Hollywood. While not bearing much significance in the movie, the "Hollywood cover-up" story has ironically become the most popular, the most well-known by general audience thanks to the movie marketing campaign effort.

It was painful to watch good actors Alan Arkin and John Goodman in this predictable, forced, and unauthentic low farce much more appropriate for a bad TV show than for a gritty political drama based on a true story.

In a striking contrast with the rest of the movie, this lightweight superficial story does not seem to make even a slightest attempt to seriously explore a captivating topic of the secret cooperation between Hollywood and CIA to save the lives of American citizens.

From the acting perspective, "Argo" is mostly a delight to watch.

The actors who played the hostages were believable in their memorable portrayal of the ordinary people experiencing an immense stress caused by the extraordinary, life-threatening circumstances.

Ben Affleck had a difficult task as well. In addition to directing the movie, he needed to be very careful in his performance as CIA agent Tony Mendez, "Argo's" main character. The key was to avoid the temptation of playing James Bond, Jason Born, or any other traditional action movie hero at all costs and instead, to portray an ordinary man with an extraordinary courage, honor, sense of responsibility, and unfailing love for the people who need help and protection.

Fortunately, Ben Affleck found all the right accents for his role. As a result, his decidedly restrained, unflashy, but nuanced and powerful performance was arguably the best acting work in the movie.

Bryan Cranston managed to overcome the limitations of his clichéd "boss" character and was good as usual in the supporting role of Jack O'Donnell, Tony Mendez's supervisor.

Another solid, memorable performance in the movie was by Victor Garber who intelligently played the role of Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor.

Overall, "Argo" once again proves that life is the best story teller. The movie is at its best when it remains close to the historical truth. The further it deviates from the truth, the more fictional elements it adds, the less satisfying, deep, and convincing it becomes.

Despite the historical inaccuracies and some story unevenness, "Argo" nevertheless remains a must see movie, and arguably one of the best movies of 2012.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An enjoyable traditional horror movie recommended for all fans of the genre...
14 November 2012
"The Woman in Black" is a tastefully executed, stylish, atmospheric Victorian English Gothic horror movie. Under the confident hand of the visionary director James Watkins ("Eden Lake") all the numerous little pieces of the complex movie puzzle were fittingly put together by the excellent production team with admirable delicate thoughtfulness and commendable precision.

The cleverly adapted by Jane Goldman ("Stardust", "X-Men: First Class") screenplay relies more on subtle cues than on sparingly and appropriately used cheap scares.

While being very enjoyable from a pure aesthetic perspective, "The Woman in Black" could nevertheless disappoint those looking for a deeper, more intellectually stimulating story. Unlike such masterpieces of the genre as "Se7en" or "Saw", the movie does not feature thought-provoking moral and ethical dilemmas. In other words, it is quite entertaining, but not deeply satisfying on the intellectual level.

With that notable exception, the movie is nearly perfect in almost every aspect and is a pleasure to watch thanks to the fine work of the movie crew, well-orchestrated by James Watkins.

There is a lot to appreciate in "The Woman in Black", including the cinematography by TimMaurice-Jones who worked with Guy Ritchie on "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch", and the production design by Kave Quinn, previously known for his memorable work on "Harry Brown" and "LayerCake".

The original music was written by a prolific movie composer Marco Beltrami, known for his work on tens of popular movies, including "3:10 to Yuma" (2007) and "The Hurt Locker" (2008) for which he received Academy Awards nominations.

The most memorable music piece in the movie is an elegantly slow, subtly hinting on deeply hidden but utterly inescapable tragedy and horror "The Woman in Black" theme, quite creepy in all of its deceptive fragility.

The creators of "The Woman in Black" put a lot of thought in utilizing both the music and the sound effects in a delicate fashion that preserves, emphasizes, and magnifies the horror element, rather than ruins it by preparing the viewers in advance to what is going to happen next on the screen. As a result, "The Woman in Black" grants us a unique luxury many other horror movies sadly deprive us of – being genuinely terrified when we least expect it.

Both the interesting work with light and the well thought-out color palette used in "The Woman in Black" deserve a separate mention in the review as well.

The whole movie crew, led by the director and the production designer, put a lot of heart, soul, and hard work into inventing all the small details featured in the film and carefully and skillfully combining them together to create a truly unique movie atmosphere.

There is not a single inauthentic moment in the "The Woman in Black" not a moment when a character or a detail seems to be out of place or out of style.

It is quite enjoyable to register all the small details sprinkled here and there throughout the movie, to guess their hidden meaning, to experience the associated emotions, to appreciate their thoughtfulness, to savor the perfection of their visual implementation.

It is fun to analyze all the various efficient techniques that the movie crew employs to gradually intensify horror, all the clever little diversions that they launch to muddle the plot and to introduce a measured amount of confusion into the movie watching experience.

The sensitive matters of life and death, love and loss are not taken lightly in "The Woman in Black" They are handled with care and with reverence and are depicted in a sympathetic, deeply touching manner.

In addition, "The Woman in Black" happens to be a genuinely emotional movie, with the emphasis on the word "genuinely". Authentically depicting human emotions on the screen appears to be one of the most difficult tasks in the movie industry.

Even subtle emotions can become significant and captivating when shown on the screen if everyone involved in their depiction - from the director, to the screenwriter, to, of course, the actors – knows what they are doing.

At the same time, even the strongest emotions can be perceived with indifferent yawns by the disconnected audience if the movie crew lacks professionalism and skill to properly show these emotions on the screen.

Of course, my review of "The Woman in Black" would be incomplete without a small, but important discussion about the acting in the movie. I do not think that anyone would argue with my high praise to the terrific acting duo of Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer (Mr. and Mrs. Daily) or with my accolades to all the other vivid and talented supporting characters, including the kid actors.

The performance of the "Harry Potter" star Daniel Radcliffe (Arthur Kipps, the main character) happens to be a far more controversial subject.

Even before watching "The Woman in Black" I heard many complaints from critics and general audience alike regarding Daniel Radcliffe playing Arthur.

After having seen the movie, I can say that apart from Daniel Radcliffe looking too young for the role of a widower with a four year old son and him occasionally bearing a painful resemblance to Harry Potter, I do not have any major complaints about the performance. It was not a great role, but generally a solid one, leaving us more or less hopeful regarding the Daniel Radcliffe s future acting career.

Despite some minor weaknesses and a lack of depth, "The Woman in Black" still remains a worthy and well-executed effort and simply an enjoyable traditional horror movie, recommended for all fans of the genre.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Raven (I) (2012)
6/10
This second-rate thriller might be recommended for John Cusack fans only...
4 November 2012
If I were asked to come up with a single word describing "The Raven", it would have been "underwhelming". This anemic second-rate movie is by no means what we expected from the Australian director James McTeigue whose 2005 debut – the stylish Sci-Fi action thriller "V for Vendetta" - was refreshingly interesting, emotionally touching and received well- deserved favorable reviews from critics and wide audience alike.

Sadly, unlike "V for Vendetta" "The Raven" is virtually indistinguishable from the multitude of the mediocre thrillers continuously produced by Hollywood. There is nothing in particular about this movie (except maybe the acting to some extent) that would set it apart from the rest of the pack.

The weakest component of this so-so thriller is its pitiful screenplay carelessly tossed together by the inexperienced newcomers Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare. The mystery thriller audience, being not too picky, perhaps could have forgiven most of the flaws plaguing "The Raven" - from the glaring plot holes, to the puzzling loose ends, to the failed character development attempts. Unfortunately for the movie, it contains a major defect that cannot be that easily overlooked: the alarming lack of logic combined with the shocking absence of psychological credibility. Things simply do not add up in "The Raven" both from logical and from psychological perspectives.

Not only the final scenes of "The Raven" where the dangerous secrets are revealed and the deep mysteries are resolved are regrettably anticlimactic, but they also leave us in a state of perplexed disappointment. Now, that we finally know "the truth", the more we think about it, the less credible it looks to us. The harder we try putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, the clearer we see that it does not have plausible solution. Moreover, we keep finding more and more fundamental flaws: logical inconsistencies, practical infeasibilities, and psychological impossibilities.

In addition to having major issues with the "mystery" part, "The Raven" also somewhat disappoints as a thriller. Simply put, the movie is not thrilling enough. It almost never reaches the level of suspense necessary to keep us "glued" to the screen. While "The Raven" prominently features reckless chases, spooky dark tunnels, mysterious strangers, secluded hiding places, and dangerous misty forests, all these genre clichés apparently do not work as designed and leave us mostly disengaged as a result. Some key ingredients necessary for boosting excitement and stirring up emotions appear to be hopelessly missing from these formulaic, unoriginal scenes.

The similar observation is applicable to the gruesome murders that the mysterious villain of the piece appears to be painstakingly copying from the Poe's stories. With all their shocking images and gory details, these crime scenes are not in the least impressive and are far more disgusting than terrifying. In fact, somehow the authors managed to make them almost boring, lacking clever and tasteful visual presentation as well as intriguing intellectual substance.

Another disappointing observation is related to the language used in the movie. I am not necessarily against certain language modernizations in the historical pieces, but these language adjustments should be unobtrusive enough to be appreciated by the audience. Avoiding language archaisms should be done in a tasteful manner; it benefits greatly from a careful, measured approach.

Unfortunately, "The Raven" does not demonstrate necessary caution in handling the delicate language adjustments. As a result, instead of flowing smoothly and blending nicely, the overly modernized language of the movie unexpectedly becomes a focus of the unwanted attention.

Of the very few decent scenes in the movie, most are funny ones, filled with warm irony and soft humor. One scene of that kind that comes to mind is the hilarious little show where Poe reads one of his famous melodramatic tear-jerking poems to the adoring female audience. Not surprisingly, the scenes where the timeless Poe's poetry and prose are recited from the screen are among the rare true highlights of the movie.

As I hinted before, the only reason why you might consider watching this otherwise quite ordinary thriller is the good acting. John Cusack gives a nuanced, atmospheric performance as the famous American author Edgar Allan Poe, even despite this well-known historical character being mercilessly deformed for "The Raven" by the shrewd gang of ignorant screenwriters.

Brendan Gleeson is solid and memorable as usual as Captain Hamilton, a disapproving father of Poe's love interest – Emily Hamilton, unconvincingly and colorlessly played by Alice Eve (She's Out of My League, 2010). In the movie, Emily is for various reasons out of Edgar's league, whereas on the acting field the disposition is the opposite: John Cusack is hopelessly out of Alice Eve s league. In addition, very little chemistry can be detected between the lovebirds, Edgar and Emily, which makes their love theme look strained and unconvincing.

Luke Evans, previously known mostly for his thoroughly mediocre so- called "Zeus" from the weak "Immortals" fares a little better and looks slightly more mature in "The Raven" but still does not impress. I am not sure whether it is a lack of experience, a limited range of acting abilities, or a poor work of the director, or a combination of the three, but Luke Evans visibly lacked sophistication and versatility while playing Detective Fields – the second most important character in the movie. His acting looked one-dimensional compared to the captivating, multi-faceted performances of John Cusack Brendan Gleeson and Kevin McNally (Maddux, the newspaper editor).

In conclusion, you might be much better off reading the classic poems and stories by Edgar Allan Poe than watching the unremarkable "The Raven" noteworthy only for its shameless exploit of the Poe's everlasting legacy.

The movie can be recommended for hardcore John Cusack fans only, since, unfortunately for Brendan Gleeson fans, there is not enough Brendan Gleeson in "The Raven" to justify watching the whole movie for the sake of his performance.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
6/10
A bad western with decent acting and an inferior remake
25 October 2012
The 2007 "3:10 to Yuma" is one of those movies loved by general audience and critics alike. I suspect it would be hard to convince anyone in the opposite – that the 2007 movie is a bad western and an inferior remake, but I will try.

The 2007 remake tries to impress at all costs, but despite (or maybe because) of that it ends up being a shallow disappointment. It is more concerned with being entertaining than with making the story concise and whole. The shocking extremes and the sharp contrasts make the movie showy, but disconnected from reality on many levels – from the questionable plot twists to the impossible in the real world characters.

As a result, instead of a serious, solid western the 2007 remake ends up being a flashy gimmick with a strong artificial aftertaste and a severe lack of insight into human nature. In addition, the 2007 "3:10 to Yuma" is so preoccupied with being witty, original, and shocking that it almost completely leaves humor out of the story

The original 1957 film, on the other hand, features some simple, but tasteful humor, appropriate for a western. It wins us over by genuinely and thoughtfully telling a simple, naturally and smoothly unfolding story. As a result, several important plot elements are better thought- out in the older movie than in its "younger" counterpart.

That definitely includes the final confrontation scene that wraps up the 1957 movie very elegantly without any significant damage to the believability. The 2007 version, on the other hand, has a disastrous ending that cancels out most of the groundwork that had been painstakingly laid throughout the movie.

Overall, unlike the original "3:10 to Yuma", the 2007 remake focuses more on the action and adventure elements and on the gun battles than on the battle of wits and wills between the ordinary rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and the gang leader Ben Wade (Russell Crowe).

In the 2007 version the characters of Ben Wade and his gang of outlaws are grotesquely overdone to the point of being a caricature, more appropriate for a horror or an action movie than for a western. According to the official movie description, they are "vicious gang of thieves and murderers". Ben Wade and his "outfit" are portrayed as ultimate villains - extremely disgusting, aggressively inhumane, scary monsters and heartless killing machines, full of horrific cruelty.

As of Ben Wade himself, in the 2007 remake he is portrayed as a confusing mess, an artistic and narcissistic Hamlet with a gun, a puzzling, artificially constructed hybrid of Hannibal Lecter and Prince Charming. This modern Frankenstein's monster, a product (or should I say a by-product?) of the rich imagination of the movie authors, absolutely does not belong to the simple world of American Old West.

He does not have much in common with anyone in the movie, including Dan Evans. Therefore, the unique bond slowly developing between Dan Evans and Ben Wade looks unconvincing and artificial in the 2007 movie. It is hard to believe that being so strikingly different from Dan Evans, Ben Wade suddenly starts to respectfully appreciate something about Dan, and even somewhat envy his humble life. In the key scene in the hotel room Ben Wade unconvincingly tries to negotiate with Dan by employing melodramatic childhood stories as well as a large dose of pseudo- intellectual philosophizing that the authors had recklessly put in his mouth.

In the 1957 version, Ben Wade with his down to earth, very human character is flesh and blood of American Old West. There is no unnecessary complexity or confusing mystery involved. Ben is a confident leader of the gang and definitely not a simpleton. At the same time, unlike his colleague from the remake, he does not show any weirdly peculiar miracles of cleverness and deceitfulness. He is flawed, but not hopeless.

Most importantly, Ben Wade has surprisingly a lot in common with Dan Evans and the rest of the small town folk. Even having gone different life paths, even having made different life choices, they all still remain children of American Frontier. They speak the same language, they are haunted by similar thoughts, and their value systems are more compatible than it seems at first. All of that makes the unlikely bond that develops between Dave Evans and Ben Wade in the original "3:10 to Yuma" both plausible and believable.

Ben Wade's arch-rival Dan Evans in the 2007 "3:10 to Yuma" for some reason is portrayed as the ultimate victim and the ultimate loser. He is a victim of the Civil War where he lost his leg, a victim of the bureaucratic indifference of the government, a victim of the hostile, powerful, wealthy neighbor who want so seize Dan's land and sell to the railroad, and even a victim of the weather conditions (drought). In addition, one of Dan's kids is seriously sick.

Unlike the extreme character from the 2007 remake, in the 1957 film Dan is just an ordinary, somewhat conservative and stubborn rancher whose life naturally happens to be hard. He courageously fought in the Civil War and was known as a sharp-shooter. He is loved and respected by his wife and his two healthy kids adore him.

I hope by now you see that the original 1957 "3:10 to Yuma" and the relatively recent 2007 "3:10 to Yuma" are two very different animals. Watching both films and then drawing your own conclusions is perhaps the best way to determine the "winner".

Here is what I think: the 2007 "3:10 to Yuma" is a watchable entertaining show with some good acting by Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol, and others. However, those after a true western experience might be far more satisfied by the solid 1957 classic.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looper (2012)
7/10
"Inception" For Dummies
16 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"Looper" is one of those a tad above average movies with intriguing and original concept, poorly developed into the uneven, unpolished, and confusing story.

Sadly, "Looper" could have become so much more than that if the writer- director Rian Johnson succeeded in developing the interesting, promising concept into a coherent, believable story.

Instead, "Looper" is a "mixed bag" with the few original, truly powerful moments diluted by the unnecessary, stereotypical, distasteful, hardly believable, unmotivated, or weakly implemented scenes.

In addition to lacking depth, "awe" factor, and good taste, "Looper", with all its mind-bending time travels and difficult moral dilemmas, is surprisingly not thought-provoking.

The artificially simplified reality of "Looper" is closer to a simulated reality of a computer game, than to the endlessly complex reality of human live. The movie deceptively pretends to be more than it actually is, to go deeper than it indeed goes, and as a result leaves the viewers underwhelmed and unsatisfied.

On a positive side, "Looper" has earned my respect by not having a cheesy Hollywood-style happy ending as opposed to somewhat similar "SourceCode".

Paying proper attention to the Joe's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) character development has definitely strengthened the story as well. Joe's transformation was happening subtly and gradually, as a result of trials and soul searching and because of that it felt realistic enough.

At the same time, we cannot but notice that the transformation Joe was going through should have affected his older version and perhaps should have made his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), more humane. That not happening somewhat undermined the very foundation of the movie.

Let me be clear: I realize that someone determined to find plot holes will probably find them in every movie on the face of the Earth. However, while some plot holes can be quickly forgiven, the others cannot be overlooked that easily.

As a good illustration, consider the life-changing event supposedly experienced by Old Joe. According to the movie, he, a cold-blooded killer and a hopeless drug addict at the time, fatefully meets a fascinating woman who somehow (!) falls in love with him. That relationship transforms Joe, cleanses him, cures his drug addiction, and overall makes him a new person. All that magic, I might add, happens in probably less than a minute of the screen time. We are basically told to simply accept it as a given.

Only couple minutes later, the supposedly "transformed" Old Joe methodically murders two innocent little kids and is close to slaughtering the third one. I do not even take into account those unfortunate adults who just happened to be in Old Joe's way during his horribly shocking killing spree.

As it turns out, one of the kids was destined to become the "Rainmaker" – a mysteriously powerful and bloodthirsty criminal boss, responsible for the deaths of many people including Old Joe's wife. Because of the time travel paradox, if Joe kills the "Rainmaker" as a kid, there will be no adult "Rainmaker" in the future and Old Joe's wife as well as many other people will still be alive.

To me, it is one or the other. Either the cold-hearted drug-addicted Old Joe was indeed transformed, cleansed and cured by his wonderful relationship with the mysterious woman (which already sounds suspiciously cheesy, but is still acceptable), or he was not transformed at all. If the former, his killing spree is completely implausible, if the latter the "love story" contradicts the rest of the movie and most of the Old Joe's actions lose their motivation.

The acting was generally good, but not great. Bruce Willis played his usual self quite comfortably and confidently. While his performance generally met our expectations, there was nothing truly significant about it.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was tasked with playing young Bruce Willis. The impersonation sort of worked, but not to the complete satisfaction, ending up being a little forced and unnatural. The overall impression was mixed: Joseph Gordon-Levitt was much more interesting in the scenes where he was not trying to pretend that he was a young Bruce Willis.

Emily Blunt was good in a quite stereotypical role of Sara – a "tough" chick, who of course just happens to be kind, loving, and sensitive inside. Sara is a strong, lonely woman desperately trying to redeem her dark past by singlehandedly raising Cid, her early developed but emotionally fragile son, on a remote farm in the middle of nowhere.

And that brings us to the true star of the movie - Pierce Gagnon who quite impressively played Cid. Surrounded by the far better known and far more experienced actors, Pierce Gagnon still managed to steal every scene he was in. Every second the young actor was on the screen, he was perfectly believable, both as a regular ten year old boy, and as a mysterious carrier of the supernatural telekinetic abilities.

A good actor Jeff Daniels was stuck with playing local criminal boss Abe - a badly written, clichéd character that does not do justice to his talent. Abe is one of those accessory, disposable characters, whose sole purpose is to serve as plot devices, supporting the clumsy story twists. To Jeff Daniels' credit, he manages to make the most of his obscure character and is fun to watch in the movie.

In conclusion, "Looper" is a typical case of a poor cinematic implementation of an interesting, but underdeveloped concept with unrealized potential. The movie can be recommended as one-time entertainment only – slightly above average, but overrated, shallow, sometimes distasteful, and overall easily forgettable.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What a frightful bore!
28 September 2012
While starting a review with a cliché might be considered a bad taste by some, I just cannot help myself: life is short and over one hundred and twenty precious minutes of it have been hopelessly lost, wasted away on the pathetic profanation of a movie called "Snow White and the Huntsman".

That frightful bore happens to be utterly mediocre in almost every respect, possibly except the special effects which are brief, scarce and not even remotely sufficient for a two-hour action and adventure movie.

The only memorable fact about the first-time director Rupert Sanders is his infamously scandalous affair with Kristen Stewart. Unfortunately, there is nothing even remotely memorable about his exceedingly weak directing of "Snow White and the Huntsman".

Having said that, it is not an easy task to decide what is more pathetic – Rupert Sanders's first time directing flop, or the dreary drag of a screenplay painfully labored by the first-time screenwriter Evan Daugherty.

It remains a profound mystery to me how the talented writers John Lee Hancock ("The Blind Side") and Hossein Amini ("Drive") got involved in this farce. I could only speculate that they were summoned by the nervous producers in a desperate attempt to rescue the story from the dire condition Evan Daugherty drove it into. Having a regrettable misfortune to fully experience the finished product, I could confidently say that the brave attempt of these worthy fellows miserably failed as the screenplay proved out to be unsalvageable.

The story suffers from the numerous defects prominently described on the first pages of basic screen writing schoolbooks for beginners: unnecessary plot lines leading nowhere, lengthy uneventful wanderings in all sorts of surroundings, boringly stereotyped dialogs and monologues, severe lack of character development, and incoherences of all kinds mercilessly polluting the flow of events, as meager as it already is.

Action lovers will be additionally disappointed with the very brief and rare, badly staged, unoriginal and unimpressive battles and fight scenes.

The outstanding mediocrity of "Snow White and the Huntsman" reaches its ugly climax in the very bad acting, caused in part by the weak directing of an inexperienced first-timer. Rupert Sanders clearly did not demonstrate enough professional skill in working with the actors. Most of them, from Kristen Stewart to Charlize Theron seemed to be hopelessly lost, left on their own to invent their roles, to fill them with substance.

People, who still remember Charlize Theron shining under the wise direction of visionary Ridley Scott in the well-crafted role of Meredith Vickers in "Prometheus", will be appalled by her confused, unsteady, seemingly unguided by the director performance as the evil queen Ravenna – one of the many badly written characters from "Snow White and the Huntsman".

Ravenna's featured transitions from the cold, calm, exercising self- control royalty, to the sinister angst-ridden witch overwhelmed by rage looked distastefully overdone, weird, and overall unconvincing. Instead of shocking us, striking us with horror, they would leave us in a disappointing puzzlement every time.

The main disappointment, however, was Kristen Stewart While she might be a natural fit for the role of the hanging out with vampires and werewolves teenage girl in "The Twilight Saga", she is an absolute miscasting for the quite different role of Snow White.

Snow White is supposed to be a royal youngster, a true princess, "the fairest of them all" - a girl with a kind, caring soul beautifully reflected in her thoughtful look, an agent of grace, nobility, innocence, and light. Such a character calls for a certain type, which Kristen Stewart has very little in common with.

All I saw looking at the Snow White played by Kristen Stewart was an inexperienced teenage actor with limited abilities. I saw someone, who was a wrong type for the role, who did not have a clue how to play the role and did not have a meaningful guidance from the director, who in turn did not have an original vision for the role.

As the story unfolded, the innocent young princess was supposed to overcome numerous challenges and discover her hidden strength, her inner self, her other side – a fearless, but tender warrior, a true heir to the throne, whose destiny was to unite the people, to destroy the evil and to bring peace and freedom to the land.

Needless to say, Kristen Stewart was as hopelessly unconvincing as the charismatic military leader, as she was as the noble princess.

While Chris Hemsworth the Huntsman, fared in his role a little better than Kristen Stewart did in hers, his one-dimensional performance once again highlighted his noticeable acting limitations.

Having heard some rumors about a sequel to "Snow White and the Huntsman" with Chris Hemsworth in the title role, I simply cannot imagine him, with the limited acting abilities and the lack of charisma, carrying the whole movie on his shoulders.

One of the rare colorful birds among the dull acting crew was Bob Hoskins as Muir, one of the dwarfs. Watching him playing his small role was like miraculously taking a breath of fresh air amid the suffocating whirl of bad acting offered by "Snow White and the Huntsman".

Interestingly enough, being such a bad movie, "Snow White and the Huntsman" managed to intrigue millions of people including yours truly. The deceptively marketed movie triumphantly lured many of us in the theaters and successfully tricked yet many others into renting itself.

Whatever it was - the well-made deceiving trailer or the cult aura that surrounds Kristen Stewart after the "The Twilight Saga" - it worked.

Nevertheless, I think these clever marketing tricks might not work that well for the sequel. I want to believe that we are capable of learning from our mistakes and therefore we will not swallow the same bait the second time.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A dark, unsettling, gripping drama, more relevant than we want to admit ...
19 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"The Ides of March" is not only a cynical and dark gripping political drama, but also a cheap and effective political IQ test. Anyone who is convinced that the movie somehow either promotes liberal values or exposes their fallacies does not make a cut as a thoughtful voter and can be easily deceived by the cunning politicians on both sides.

These people also fail to see the true beauty of "The Ides of March": despite being on the surface about Democratic primaries, the movie reflects the universal, eternal struggle that was, is, and will be applicable to pretty much any party in any society, even including the societies that do not hold free elections whatsoever. No elections does not mean no politics.

The insignificant details of course might be different, but the core, the tangled web of moral choices, ethical dilemmas and philosophical questions like "Does the end justify the means?" or "When to draw a line in the sand?" is always the same.

While "The Ides of March" very wisely does not give any ready answers to the uncomfortable and unfathomable questions of life, the overall atmosphere it creates is quite dark, pessimistic and believable at the same time.

The movie cleverly shows the corruption of the soul, the spiritual darkness that gradually overtake almost anyone involved in politics in any capacity – from intern, to political reporter, to speechwriter, to campaign manager, to congressman, to senator, to presidential candidate.

It all starts with naïve idealism and ends up with pragmatic cynicism. It starts with reluctant dirty lies for the sake of noble goals and ends with eager dirty lies simply for the sake of winning. It all starts with having certain set of moral principles and ethical boundaries and ends up with releasing the ownership of the principles, crashing the boundaries and embracing the universal "gray area" where pretty much anything is possible, acceptable, and justifiable, depending on the situation.

While such a transformation might lead to a momentary success, it comes at a steep price: something immensely more important, something of eternal value gets lost in the process. "The Ides of March" makes a compelling case that agonizing spiritual death is a very real danger for anyone who seriously plays politics.

While an actor in the political theatre is desperately trying to win the audience, the boundaries between his acting script and his real personality inevitably begin to blur. Professionally practicing the Orwellian double thinking and double speaking is a bad habit, a dangerous business, quite damaging to the human's delicate psyches.

If you were not sure, whether the smart and thought-provoking Oscar- nominated screenplay of "The Ides of March" (based on the award-winning Beau Willimon's play Farragut North) is good enough, I hope that my lengthy introduction above has cleared most of your doubts.

In addition, the movie is very well directed by George Clooney who has definitely gone a long way from being just another cute "ER" character, to earning the well-deserved reputation as one of the best actors of his generation and as a talented and promising director as well.

Nevertheless, even with the Oscar-nominated screenplay and strong directing, it is the acting that sets "The Ides of March" apart. Ryan Gosling gives a fine, nuanced, convincing performance as Stephen Meyers – the idealistic junior campaign manager for a Democratic presidential candidate and yet he is not a true star of the movie. The truly fantastic trio that occupies that honorable place are Philip Seymour Hoffman as Paul Zara - senior campaign manager and Stephen's boss, George Clooney as Mike Morris, presidential candidate for whom both Paul and Steven work, and Paul Giamatti – senior campaign manager for the rival presidential candidate.

I highly recommend watching the movie twice. Having learned all the intricacies of the plot at the first viewing, you would be able to better appreciate all the little acting miracles that the "grand trio" performs – looks, gestures, emotions hidden, emotions revealed.

The rest of the cast in "The Ides of March" is very good as well. I liked how Marisa Tomei played Ida – a nice and sweet on the surface political reporter who just happens to be an expert in cunningly worming her way into her victim's confidence and does not stop at anything, including blackmailing in her endless chase for sensational stories.

Evan Rachel Wood was believable as Molly Stearns – a twenty-year-old intern who in her young age has been already touched by the powerful decay constantly emitted by the unhealthy surroundings of the political campaign he works for.

Not to forget Jeffrey Wright, who was excellent in a small role of North Carolina Democratic Senator Franklin Thompson, a politician with the two very different sides. On the outside, Franklin Thompson is an energetic respectable senator, but on the inside, he is a seasoned and weary cynical prostitute, desperately trying to find the most generous buyer for his semi fresh, but still useful political goods.

One thing that I did not appreciate about the movie was its pervasive language that for sure could have been easily avoided without losing authenticity. On the other hand, however, the ugly profanity seemed to be in an odd harmony with the ugly inner worlds of the movie characters.

In conclusion, "The Ides of March" is not only a good movie but also a valuable lesson for all of us. It is not about mere politics, it is about life. The last thing that I want is to leave you with the impression that I look down on politicians and consider non-politicians like myself superior in any respect.

The hard truth is that dirty secrets, lies, intrigues, hypocrisy and power games are wide spread in our society. No person is immune and no social institute is exempt, whether it is school, or work, or church, or even your own family.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lawless (2012)
8/10
A rare colorful oasis in the depressing gray wasteland of the modern cinema
11 September 2012
Movies honestly attempting to tell a simple but touching story that reflects real life in all its complexity look like rare colorful oases in the depressing gray wasteland of the modern cinema. Movies like "Lawless" or David Lynch's "The Straight Story" manage to keep it all natural without adding any artificial ingredients: forced fake plot devices, made-up motivations, oversimplifications, oversophistications, perplexing experimentations and so forth.

The quite well written by Nick Cave ("The Proposition") screenplay for the film is based on "The Wettest County in the World" – a 2008 historical novel that in turn is based on a true story. Moreover, MattBondurant, the author of the novel, happens to be a grandchild of Jack Bondurant, one of the story's main characters.

Everyone directly or indirectly involved in creating "Lawless" – from Matt Bodurant to Nick Cave to the visionary director John Hillcoat ( "The Proposition", The Road) seemed to treat the source material thoughtfully and carefully. Due to their commendable diligence "Lawless" did not become one of those numerous fake "based on true story" movies notorious for their famously nasty artificial aftertaste.

"Lawless" is not trying to analyze, explain, convince, or entertain at all costs. It does not take sides and does not have any explicit or hidden agenda, whether noble or sinister. It just masterfully tells a simple story. Despite being set relatively far in the past, the movie still manages to be relevant, engaging, touching, and thought provoking because of its strong, full-blooded connection with the real life.

Some reviewers would vehemently disagree with that. They would argue that the movie lacks cohesion and authenticity because of the way it intricately combines the lyric, almost unbelievably idyllic scenes full of poetic tenderness with the sequences of the equally unbelievable excessively grotesque violence. The truth is that such is life: mysterious, unpredictable, at times shocking, and having plenty of room for often mystically intertwined melodrama, grotesque, and violence.

Granted I am not a historian, but I did not sense anything inauthentic in the way "Lawless" tells its admittedly grotesque and violent story. The movie does not savor the violence and does not dwell on it; it simply vividly and honestly reflects it as a fact of life.

The villain of the piece, the sleazy sadistic Special Agent Charlie Rakes impressively played by Guy Pearce is definitely grotesque, but is his character over the top? To me, the detestable federal agent Charlie Rakes is not less authentic than the noble federal agent Eliot Ness from "The Untouchables".

Instead of chasing the formidable, powerful and extremely hard to catch villains like Al Capone, Charlie Rakes focuses on a seemingly easy target – the Bondurant brothers – mere rural moonshiners Forrest (Tom Hardy, Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf). He eagerly unleashes a ruthless war on them, the war quite disproportionate to the magnitude of their crime.

It does not strike me as impossible or unbelievable that an individual who took that wicked path might possibly have had certain peculiar, sadistic in nature personality traits.

In addition, the Charlie Rakes' grotesque brutality nicely counterbalances the rural legend of the Bondurant brothers' "immortality". The brothers finally got a worthy archenemy to test the validity of their bold legend.

Yet other critics were noticed condescendingly smirking at the female movie characters - Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain), a dancer from Chicago and Forrest Bondurant's darling and Bertha Minnix (Mia Wasikowska), daughter of the local preacher and Jack Bondurant's sweetheart.

Not being able to find any faults in the Jessica Chastain's and Mia Wasikowska's superb performances, the critics venomously remarked that the gifted actresses were regrettably constrained by their formulaic characters - "love interests" of the respective Bondurant brothers.

Let me remind to these critics that the events of the movie take place in Prohibition era (almost a century ago) in the rural Franklin County,Virginia and represent the bloody ruthless confrontation between the local bootleggers and the federal special agent.

Now, let me ask the critics a question: "What role, other than the love interest, do you with your undoubtedly sophisticated minds see for the female characters in this movie?" Do you want them to zealously participate in the fistfights, knifing, and fire exchanges along with the men just like the CIA agent Evelyn Salt? That would be very authentic indeed! Alternatively, maybe you want to them to be more of Jane Austen or Charlotte Brontë types and happily rattle all these "Sense and Sensibility" or "Jane Eyre" lines? That would certainly be quite believable and appropriate for the movie!

That is not to say that "Lawless" does not have its faults. Its story could have been a little leaner, crispier and more focused. Some of the scenes, including the well-made scenes with the famous mobster Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman in a memorable performance) should probably have been edited out as overall insignificant and unnecessary.

Not without faults, "Lawless" nevertheless boasts solid screenplay, strong directing, a beautiful cinematography (Benoît Delhomme), excellent casting (Francine Maisler), memorable acting ( Tom Hardy, Jason Clarke, Shia LaBeouf, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska, Gary Oldman and the rest of the acting crew), and last but not least – excellent original music score (Nick Cave, Warren Ellis).

Most importantly, "Lawless" is an engaging, masterfully and honestly told story. It can be confidently recommended for those movie lovers who can well tolerate the very strong graphic violence the movie contains.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Artist (I) (2011)
8/10
‎"The Artist" - far better than your average Hollywood mass-production, but lacks the important qualities of a true cinematic masterpiece...
29 August 2012
"The Artist" is one of those movies often misunderstood for different reasons by different groups of viewers.

One group that got "The Artist" wrong was those simple souls who honestly complained: "What? A silent movie about actors?? With a weird music and a silly story set in the ancient 1920s when people wore strange clothes and even did not have cool iPhones yet??? And just I missed my favorite TV show because of that so-called masterpiece????"

On the opposite side of the specter were those who ecstatically muttered something like "Wow! A silent movie about actors!! With a heavenly music and a charming story set in the Roaring Twenties when people wore beautiful dresses and those nasty iPhones were not yet invented!!! Oh, this is so much better than that primitive show that I quietly watch on TV every day in deep secret from all of my super-sophisticated esthetically advanced friends!!!!"

It took me a while to find a suiting metaphor for "The Artist", but eventually I came up with the "antique furniture". Many people enjoy antique furniture – wealthy collectors and curious museum exhibition attendees alike. Antique furniture is often a finest, elegant, unique work of an imaginative and resourceful artisan, a work full of style and harmony.

However, there is a clear distinction between a mere craftsman and a genuine artist, between the finest piece of antique furniture and a true masterpiece of art - a painting, a sculpture, a poem, a piece of music….

Back to those who misunderstood "The Artist" - the "antique furniture" metaphor turned out to be a helpful tool for better defining the two groups of viewers mentioned above. People in the first group were not even capable of noticing the tastefully refined, unique, and overall very impressive antique trinket. People in the second group did notice it, but mistook the exquisite, nicely made knick-knack for a piece of true art.

At the end, "The Artist" does for the slightly more sophisticated audience the very same thing that the endless cookie-cutter comedies and action movies mass-produced by Hollywood do for the slightly less sophisticated audience: it simply entertains, nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, "The Artist" admittedly entertains the target audience more elegantly, with impeccable style, in more refined and sophisticated ways than many other movies. It boasts strong, clever directing and exquisitely smart screenplay filled with sparkling humor ( Michel Hazanavicius), great acting ( Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, James Cromwell, John Goodman, Malcolm McDowell and others), and is quite distinguished in many other areas: from music (Ludovic Bource), to costumes (Mark Bridges), to art direction (Laurence Bennett, Robert Gould), to cinematography (Guillaume Schiffman).

Nevertheless, "The Artist" lacks something fundamentally important, something that made "SunsetBoulevard" (the famous 1950 movie with a similar premise - a former Hollywood silent movie star fading into obscurity) a masterpiece - the power, the depth, and that elusive magic of a true master work of art.

A great work of art mysteriously molds the content, the form, and the execution into an indescribable heavenly harmony beyond mere mortal's comprehension. While the creators of the "The Artist" can be commended for the superior execution, both the form and the content of the movie demonstrate certain regrettable weaknesses.

Neither fish nor flesh, the film ends up as a funny sentimental fairy tale - not hilarious enough for a great comedy, not serious enough for a great tragedy, and not deep enough for a great drama. It is entertaining but unmoving, elegant and stylish but superficial.

I liked the "The Artist", but I was far from falling in love with it. It was cute, unique, and charming but far from overpowering or irresistible.

Far better than your average Hollywood mass-production, "The Artist" can be a great entertainment for those able to appreciate the movie at its true value. It nevertheless lacks the important qualities that mark a true cinematic masterpiece.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Dark Knight Rises over the usual mediocrity of comic book-based blockbusters
20 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Let me be clear: "The Dark Knight Rises" is not among my most favorite Christopher Nolan's movies. I value his "Inception", "The Prestige", or "Memento" higher than any movie of the "Batman"trilogy.

Having said that and not being by any means a Hollywood history expert, I am still compelled to argue that it is probably impossible to find any comic book-based movie that even remotely approaches the quality and the scale of the Nolan's "Batman" series.

No matter what the public thinks, there are objective laws of the art of the cinema, laws that cannot be changed by any amount of the public opinion. By these highest standards, "The Dark Knight Rises" might very well be considered the best comic-book based movie ever to date. Any attempt to put it in the same league with the primitive, shallow, formulaic, and mediocre "The Avengers", "Thor", "Captain America: The First Avenger", "Spider-Man", or "Superman" is nothing more than laughable.

In "The Dark Knight Rises", drama and action almost perfectly supplement each other with the latter tastefully illustrating and animating the former. Sometimes it feels like the drama becomes a little constrained by the simplistic superhero movie format. In certain scenes, the movie gasps for more depth just as a drowning person gasps for more air. Even under these unfavorable conditions, even with these severe limitations, with his hands half-tied by the movie format Christopher Nolan was able to achieve surprisingly good results.

Unlike the many other comic book-based movies, "The Dark Knight Rises" has a coherent, reasonably thought provoking, with hints of depth story that features major plot twists, more than one dimension and also something quite rarely heard of in a superhero movie – a substantiated, valid, well-depicted character development. As the captivating story unfolds, at least three characters experience significant transformation – Bruce Wayne, Selina, and Alfred.

I hope it goes without saying that the acting in a comic book-based superhero movie cannot be too deep or nuanced - that is simply the nature of the beast. On the other hand, however, we still expect the acting to be professional, reasonably powerful, and convincing enough, in other words we expect it to be quite unlike the pitiful acting disaster that we have been cruelly subjected to enduring in many recent blockbusters.

"The Dark Knight Rises" provides us with an ample opportunity to enjoy several strong acting performances, the most significant of which are Anne Hathaway ( Selina), Christian Bale ( Bruce Wayne), and last (but not least) – Tom Hardy (Bane).

My personal favorite is Bane – the ultimate villain and the ultimate victim at the same time. Bane is deceptively calm, immensely charismatic, and very real. That explosive combination makes him far more frightening than all those supernatural fairy-tale monsters with very scary looks and a very weak link to reality.

Bane is a true Nolan's masterpiece, a result of the extremely complex effort that combined the clever script, the impressive acting, the costume design, the makeup, and even the sound effects into a dynamic multi-dimensional character of an unbelievable power. Not to mention that due to the imaginative major plot twists Bane keeps revealing new facets of his very complex character almost up to the very end of the movie.

To me that makes Bane a truly unique villain character, a character possibly superior to even Joker. While Joker was notoriously scheming and unpredictable, his motivations were pretty much transparent and obvious from the beginning. Bane on the other hand keeps his surprising secrets almost up to the movie climax. Only then we begin to see a tragic figure behind the ugly mask, only then we begin to understand what his deep motivations were, what stood behind his horrible choices and what ultimately led his tragic life to its logical end.

As I mentioned before, unlike most other movies of a similar genre notorious for their striking hollowness and thoughtlessness, "The Dark Knight Rises" is both thought provoking and thought conveying.

In my opinion, the first important thought that "The Dark Knight Rises" tries to convey to the public is that however corrupt and unjust a society order might be, anarchy ( Bane's bitter medicine) is never a good solution. The chaos of anarchy inevitably leads to far more blood, death, and suffering than the unjust social order that it replaces. The longer the anarchy continues, the dangerously closer the society approaches to its ultimate destruction and annihilation.

The second important thought is that society needs its anonymous heroes, heroes armed with true superpowers – love, caring, and compassion, heroes who will "learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause." (Isaiah 1:17). As Batman says in the movie: "A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a little boy's shoulders to let him know that the world hadn't ended."

Finally, "The Dark Knight Rises" makes people think about something that many of us fear to think about and therefore prefer not to dwell upon too long – so-called "American Dream". Is it still alive? Was it indeed created by the oppressors of generations, the rich, for the sole purpose of keeping people down with myths of opportunity as Bane boldly proclaims in the movie?

Nolan intentionally does not offer any ready answers, just prompts the viewers to take a fresh look at the familiar cliché and possibly re- evaluate its meaning and its role in the modern world so powerfully symbolized by the dark, unjust, corrupt, cruel, essentially hopeless and balancing on the verge of destruction sober reality of the Gotham city from "The Dark Knight Rises".

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystic Pizza (1988)
7/10
An enjoyable and funny coming of age story with a good message
6 August 2012
"There are forty kinds of lunacy but only one kind of common sense" - a proverb says. It appears that, similarly to modern politics, today's cinema tends to be polluted by aberrations of a certain kind - the aggressive, pervasive, and loud extremes representing a nasty insult to the common sense. Moreover, the once distinct line between the mainstream and the extreme appears to have blurred. Many mainstream movies can now be considered to be extreme in a certain sense while independent movies have grown so numerous, popular, well-organized, and influential that they managed to successfully form their own local "mainstream".

On one end of the specter reside many of the popular mainstream movies. Being predominately designed for the viewers with the mental capacity of a twelve year old and the moral awareness of Pinocchio before he became a boy, these are intellectual disasters and moral failures also lacking logic, vision, imagination, authenticity, good taste and all the remaining qualities of a decent movie.

On the other end, often obscure, pretentious, artificial, abstract, and whimsical, independent movies nowadays can be just as unsubstantial and inauthentic as most mainstream movies are.

"Mystic pizza" - not a perfect movie by any means - comes across as naturally enjoyable, funny, emotional, and captivating precisely because it deals with the real life issues familiar to most people. It resides in the real world on planet Earth and not in one of the superficial, artificially enhanced imaginary universes that serve homes to so many movies, both mainstream and independent.

Secondly, "Mystic pizza" is a rare case of a movie that offers a good message without being forceful, contentious, or didactic. Just by telling its simple but touching and engaging coming of age story of three likable girls with all the challenges that they face, choices that they make, and mistakes that they learn on, "Mystic pizza" manages to unobtrusively deliver a few simple life truths that appear to be easily discounted and overlooked by both mainstream and independent cinema.

I think it never hurts to be reminded of such timeless truths as "true love is inseparable from honesty, commitment, and sacrifice", "an affair is morally wrong, painful, and destructive", or "hard work brings you dignity that money cannot buy".

The three blue-collar girls from a small New England town of Mystic – genuine, hardworking, responsible, caring, strong and independent but overall respectful to their parents could serve as a positive role model for many modern teens.

Unfortunately, the girls from the movie also represent a stark contrast to the ever-increasing number of self-obsessed, lazy, spoiled, irresponsible, immature young adults, who appear to be unprepared for the real world challenges and somehow end up being both hopelessly dependent on their parents and disrespectful to them at the same time.

In 1989, "Mystic pizza" earned a well-deserved Independent Spirit award for the Best First Feature. The movie still remains among the best works of its writer Amy Holden Jones and its director Donald Petrie who have both gone mainstream since then.

Amy Holden Jones is now mostly known for the "Beethoven" franchise, whereas Donald Petrie seems to have been recently focusing on the quite lightweight, purely entertaining formulaic comedies like "Miss Congeniality", "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days", or "My Life in Ruins".

In addition to the good story and the solid directing, "Mystic pizza" offers almost perfect casting and generally strong acting, both ensemble and individual. The movie happens to be one of the first full-length features with Julia Roberts (Daisy Arujo). Right from the beginning, it becomes clear that Ms. Roberts has a remarkable talent – something that she successfully proved in many movies that followed.

Annabeth Gish and Lili Taylor were charming and convincing in the roles of the two other teen girls - Kat Arujo and Jojo. Vincent D'Onofrio delivered a strong supporting performance as Jojo's fiancé Bill - a simple (but not an ordinary) fisherman. Adam Storke was able to find all the right accents for the role of the carefree and easygoing rich kid Charles Gordon Windsor, Jr., Daisy's love interest. Joanna Merlin was perfect in a small role of Mrs. Arujo - Kat's and Daisy's wise hardworking mother.

Despite being rated "R" (mostly because of some language and sensuality), "Mystic pizza" seems to feature less questionable or offensive content than many of the more recent "PG-13" movies.

It is a good chick-flick and a good date movie. It is also one of those movies that might be worth watching together with your high school age kids as a good illustration to the difficult choices that they will soon (or might already) be facing, conflicting feelings that they will soon (or might already) be experiencing, and hard decisions that they will soon (or might already) be making.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An underrated, unappreciated monumental work of art
13 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The 1974 adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" is a true masterpiece, based on the excellent Francis Ford Coppola's screenplay and powerfully directed by Jack Clayton.

It well preserves the penetrating psychological insight, the unfathomable depth, the sparkling wit, and the painful bitterness of its distinguished literary source. If you add to the mix the Oscar winning music and costumes, the splendid art direction and cinematography, and the sophisticated, nuanced acting, it becomes clear that this is a worthy and a mighty adaptation of the novel that deserves a full attention of every serious movie enthusiast.

RobertRedford was excellent in the title role. His Jay Gatsby was not an ecstatic and sensitive Romeo, madly in love with his sweetheart, but a shrewd, secretive, and formidable shady business shark who just happens to be sentimentally obsessed with conquering a particular woman.

MiaFarrow was fascinating in the movie. The refined aristocratic charm was barely covering the deeper shallowness, selfishness, and ignorance of her Daisy Buchanan. At the same time, her Daisy was not simply a one- dimensional collection of character flaws, but a living, breathing beautiful woman overwhelmed by all sorts of feelings and emotions.

I also learned to appreciate the surprisingly original Bruce Dern's interpretation of the Tom Buchanan's character. His Tom Buchanan was less a villain and more a narrow-minded, morally corrupt, unscrupulous victim of his status and wealth.

What I especially liked about the movie's screenplay and directing happens to be the very same thing that greatly irritated many people who saw the film. Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Clayton had enough taste and vision to not to reduce "The Great Gatsby" to just a romantic melodrama with a tragic ending.

Their movie is not about love; it has almost no likable characters, possibly besides Nick Carraway in an excellent, thoughtful performance by Sam Waterston.

Moreover, I would risk making a controversial statement that despite all the various catchy love manifestations easily visible on the surface, none of the movie characters truly, sacrificially loves anyone other than himself.

It is obvious that Tom Buchanan does not love Myrtle Wilson – she is just one of his many little amorous adventures, although he is attached to Myrtle in his own, peculiar way.

It is a little less obvious but still pretty clear that Myrtle Wilson (in a convincing performance of Karen Black) does not love Tom Buchanan either. She is simply smitten with his wealth and high position in society and is very excited with the imaginary opportunities they open for her.

Had Daisy Buchanan ever loved Jay Gatsby? Her character is a perfect illustration to the famous saying of Oscar Wilde: "To love oneself is the beginning of a life-long romance." Throughout the movie Daisy and only Daisy the sole focus of all that she says, thinks, and feels. While she certainly experienced some sort of romantic feelings and attachments in her life, she never truly cared for anyone other than herself and was never inclined to sacrifice anything for anybody.

True love is inseparable from caring and sacrifice and it does not look like they ever existed in Daisy's cute and charming, but careless and self-centered universe. She was like a beautiful fragile-looking flower that first attracts poor unsuspecting insects and then sucks the lifeblood out of them until they are all dry and dead.

Some would insist that at least Jay Gatsby for sure loved Daisy Buchanan. After all, his all life was about reuniting with her; he cared so much about her and sacrificed a lot for her. However, contrary to general opinion I would argue that Jay Gatsby did not love Daisy.

Yes, he cared, he sacrificed, and he was mad – but not about Daisy. The object of Jay Gatsby's passion was not Daisy, but his own obsession with her - the unhealthy, destructive, and blind to the surrounding circumstances obsession born out of his own immense pride and selfishness. Jay Gatsby's obsession with Daisy eventually turned into the bloodthirsty idol who kept greedily and tirelessly accepting all his costly but useless sacrifices until it finally got a hold of the ultimate sacrifice – Jay Gatsby's own life.

Both the novel and the movie show very well that despite obsessively thinking about Daisy and collecting all the newspaper articles about her, Jay Gatsby did not really know her or understand her. At the end, as it turned out, he grossly misjudged Daisy's character and was clueless about what was going on in her heart and in her mind.

"The Great Gatsby" is not about romantic love and not about the conflict between the rich and the poor. It is also about something bigger than the failed American Dream.

At the heart of the tragedy that unfolds in "The Great Gatsby" are the fundamental, pervasive, naturally incurable human selfishness, pride, and greed that affect both the rich and the poor, crumpling and ruining their lives.

The 1974 "The Great Gatsby" is an underrated, unappreciated monumental work of art. I can only hope that the 2012 adaptation might become a worthy rival to its forty years older outstanding predecessor.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A worthy effort wasted on an unworthy cause..
3 July 2012
"Abraham Lincoln: VampireHunter" was strangely able to awake a peculiar mix of very different, conflicting emotions in me. Excitement and satisfaction on one side and sadness and discontent on the other kept me overwhelmed for a while. Eventually, the latter won and I had to face the hard truth that almost drove me into a rather painful melancholy.

There was no way around that. I had to admit to myself that "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is an elegant nonsense, a professionally made nullity, an exciting shallowness, a worthy effort for an unworthy cause.

Irrespective to its ultimate worth, the movie turned out to be well done professionally.

The script was adequate to the task. The story had a solid literary source in its foundation – the SethGrahame-Smith's mash-up novel with the same name. It even featured some character development - a rarity for a mainstream Hollywood movie nowadays.

The only truly silly and incredibly cheesy scene in the "Abraham Lincoln: VampireHunter" happened closer to the beginning of the movie and somehow even made it into the trailer. Fortunately, my fear that the rest of the film would continue along the same dangerously ludicrous lines turned out to be unfounded.

The interesting and provocative concept was implemented skillfully and effectively and the sensitive historical subject was treated carefully, in a graceful manner, with a good taste and a proper respect.

The directing, the casting and the acting in "Abraham Lincoln: VampireHunter" mostly did not disappoint.

Timur Bekmambetov was able to repeat both the professional and the box office success of his 2008 movie "Wanted" by producing and directing an above-average action flick that kept the audience excited and entertained until the very end.

Rufus Sewell was good as usual in the role of the chief vampire Adam, creating an original vivid character that nicely blended charisma, style, and self-irony. In my opinion, however, Sewell's Adam was not fascinating enough for an ancient demonic creature who was supposed to be a thousands years old ancestor of all vampires. I cannot help but thinking about the Bill Nighy's magnificent Viktor from the "Underworld" movie series whose immense charisma by far exceeded everything that Sewell's Adam could possibly offer.

A similar charge can be held against Dominic Cooper, whose Henry Sturgess was charming yet too lightweight for a mysterious stranger responsible for first saving Abraham Lincoln's life and then initiating him into the secret order of the powerful vampire hunters.

My personal favorite was Marton Csokas in the role of Jack Barts – a nasty, cunning, and ruthless vampire, responsible for the death of Abraham Lincoln's mother in the movie. Marton Csokas played his relatively small role masterfully, and, similarly to Sewell, employed a so appropriate strong touch of self-irony in his performance. The chase scene with Abraham Lincoln furiously pursuing Jack Barts to get his long-awaited and earned through much suffering revenge was arguably the best scene in the whole movie.

Overall, the fight scenes in the "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" were done very well. They were imaginative, original, colorful - far superior to the dull monotonous back and forth clashing in "The Avengers".

Portraying the 16th President of the United States was without a question the most difficult acting task in the movie. While the rest of the cast had much more freedom in impersonating their characters, the actor playing Abraham Lincoln for obvious reasons faced various constraints in order to remain true to the historical image. He, for example, could not afford the luxury of self-irony widely employed by the rest of the cast. Nevertheless, previously little known Benjamin Walker passed the tough acting test with flying colors and delivered a multifaceted, nuanced performance that powerfully reflected the character development. His Abraham Lincoln was both likable and believable at various stages of life – from youth to maturity.

A promising talent Mary Elizabeth Winstead, whom some of you might remember for her strong lead performance in "The Thing" was nearly perfect in "Abraham Lincoln: VampireHunter" as Mary Todd Lincoln. Her small but warm and touching role became a nice addition to the movie ensemble dominated by the violent male characters.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Erin Wasson whose unimpressive performance essentially ruined the potentially very interesting character of Vadona - the dangerous and sinister Adam's sister.

Finally, the solid original music score by Henry Jackman ("X-Men: First Class") was a first-class citizen in the movie, easily flowing from the lyric heights to the dramatic depths to the violent rage of the fights and chases.

Overall, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" decisively surpassed the far more popular "The Avengers" in almost every area, except maybe the special effects.

"The Avengers" was an unworthy effort wasted on an unworthy cause. The only true valuables spent in vain on "The Avengers" were time and money. There was no good script, or directing, or acting, or music to be sorry about.

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" on the other hand had many good, redeeming qualities including the script, the directing, the acting, the music, and the humor. For that very reason it is truly regrettable when such a worthy effort is wasted on such an unworthy, hollow, and disposable subject as "vampire hunting".

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Margin Call (2011)
7/10
An unevenly executed, but smart and talented speculation that is quite possibly fairly true to life ...
24 June 2012
"Margin Call" suffered the same fate as many good movies before and after it - being almost completely overlooked by the general public, busily preoccupied with the latest primitive cheesy popcorn blockbuster.

For those tired of painfully experiencing the fussing around cartoonish "Avengers", for those, exhausted from slowly suffering through the endless boring "Hunger games", "Margin Call" offers something different – flawed, very far from perfect, but still closer to the realm of art than your average Hollywood mass production.

The main character in "Margin Call" is not a person, but rather a very interesting and an intriguing social and cultural phenomenon: Wall Street. Wall Street is a well-established and valuable brand in popular culture. Not surprisingly therefore, over the years, Hollywood has made several noteworthy attempts to do what it does best: milk the "Wall Street" brand and turn it into a cash cow.

Fortunately, one of the best and unique qualities of the movie is its freshness, its peculiar, almost naive innocence, and sincerity, possibly explained by the fact that "Margin Call" is a debut work of its writer- director J.C. Chandor.

Not only does the movie not have any apparent hidden agenda, but it also does not look like its author was too much into a greedy moneymaking or a narcissistic awards gathering. Instead, J.C. Chandor was indeed attempting to focus on something truly important, to take an entertaining enough, but still long, hard, comprehensive and honest look at the various Wall Street characters in the times of crisis - from lowly financial analysts to powerful CEOs.

Was that attempt successful? Yes and no. On one hand, "Margin Call" is definitely an interesting movie that is worth checking out. It is for the most part entertaining, intriguing, suspenseful, and even gripping thriller with a meaningful subject.

On the other hand, however, the movie has several significant flaws, and the source of most of its flaws as it often happens is the same as the source of the most of its virtues – the writer-director being a relative novice in the profession and in Hollywood in particular.

The questionable editing additionally worsens the uneven writing and directing of "Margin Call". As a result, here and there the smart and original scenes randomly and unexpectedly alternate the ones that are clichéd, boring, unnecessary or lead nowhere.

Moreover, "Margin Call" bears a touch of an unnatural bookishness. One time it would clumsily put the author's reflections in a character's mouth, the other time it would explicitly reveal the deep motivations of a character or would make the characters expose their inner thoughts, yet other time it would feature some other intimate details that in a real life conversation would remain implied and unspoken.

Some of the characters in the movie seem to be less authentic than others. For example, the character of Sam Rogers – the head of trading - does not come across as a particularly realistic and coherent. The author noticeably tried to create something complex, deep and credible with such an underwhelming result that even Kevin Spacey was mostly helpless in reviving the stillborn image.

The smart story evidently attracted many good actors that star in the movie and yet it almost looked like due to a lack of experience the novice director failed to make all these stars work in harmony with each other, to create an integrated ensemble from a group of very talented but very different individuals with unique personalities.

As a result, we notice some discord, dissonance, lack of cohesion in the acting. My personal favorite is a reserved, but expressive and powerful performance of Simon Baker as a firm division head. Demi Moore was surprisingly good in the role of the chief risk management officer and Stanley Tucci was great as usual in the role of her subordinate.

I felt that venerable Jeremy Irons went slightly over the top in his showy and charismatic portrayal of John Tuld - the CEO of the respectable Wall Street firm. He ended up being almost more charismatic than the late Steve Jobs himself. Personally, I truly enjoyed the Jeremy Irons' captivating performance, but real life CEOs are probably more boring and much less fun to watch.

Zachary Quinto, in my opinion, was a miscasting for the role of a junior risk. He applied every effort to create a believable character, but all in vain. I could be wrong, but it almost looked like the movie subject turned out to be a little foreign to him and he ended up being somewhat lost in it.

I cannot help but mention something that irritated and upset me personally – the outrageous pervasive profanity. Some fragments of the film are better in that respect than the others, but at certain times, when "f-word" is spoken in almost every sentence "Margin Call" can become utterly disgusting and almost completely intolerable.

Being unfamiliar with the life, customs, and manners of Wall Street traders, I cannot say whether this aspect of the movie is true to life or not. However, even this is how they truly behave, filling so liberally the otherwise intelligent movie with such a strong profanity does not seem justifiable or acceptable to me.

Finally, even though J.C. Chandor undoubtedly has a significant knowledge of the subject and a genuine interest in it, it does not appear that he has ever actually worked in the field. Without being an insider, he could only mostly speculate regarding the feelings, views, motivations, and behaviors of the characters.

Therefore, while being based on a true story, "Margin Call" remains a speculation, albeit a smart and a talented one, and quite possibly fairly true to life. knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Prometheus (I) (2012)
9/10
An underrated, misunderstood masterpiece
16 June 2012
After reading all the mixed, often revealing discontent or puzzlement reviews, I did not expect much from "Prometheus". In fact, I was absolutely prepared to see an overloaded with special effects, weakly scripted, one-dimensional prequel to "Alien". Imagine how pleasantly I was surprised to find myself wrong about "Prometheus" after spending the two filled with almost pure delight hours watching this amazing movie!

Then, of course, I understood why so many moviegoers were complaining about the incompleteness, the poor story line, and all the other seemingly numerous and pervasive deficiencies of the film. The unsatisfied reviewers quite reasonably expected "Prometheus" to be what all the previous four "Alien" movies were - an energetic action horror flick, solely focusing on thrill and suspense.

While "Prometheus" definitely has some quite impressive action and horror elements in it, it is still neither a horror movie, nor an action movie. In fact, it is a poignant tale, a deep mystery, a multi-level parable, an underrated masterpiece created by a visionary director Ridley Scott. It is a bitter philosophical reflection that is almost too smart, too deep, too harsh, and too pessimistic for the core audience of the horror movie fans that grossly underestimated, misunderstood, and misjudged it.

Moreover, as the movie name somewhat implies, "Prometheus" is also a Sci-Fi myth, a modern reincarnation of the myths of the old. Its' intentionally basic, simple story lightly and entertainingly, but surely touches our very deep, partially subconscious biological memories, or maybe even our collective unconscious, the archetypes that are as old as we, humans, are.

That makes "Prometheus" quite thought provoking and open to numerous interpretations of varying depth and complexity. While the movie contains some unexplained details and loose ends, it is amazingly, perfectly complete, harmonious and concise, even with all its vagueness, unavoidable in a myth.

Most myths are usually both simple and vague at the same time. Think about the Commendatore's statue who escapes the hellish realm and suddenly appears at the door of Don Giovanni's house or about Zeus who allows Pandora to open the box that somehow contains the evils of the world.

As a myth and as a parable, "Prometheus" is to be perceived holistically and contextually. As a myth and as a parable it brings up the existential questions without easy answers - difficult questions both luring and inconvenient at the same time.

Sadly, the parable remained cryptic for many people who resorted to poking holes in the story and finding all sort of inconsistencies in it in order to justify their mindless rejection of the movie. Even worse, these very same people were ecstatic about the pitifully primitive script of "The Avengers" and considered it almost flawless.

While I have to admit that the story contained some regrettable and avoidable occasional clichés, in general "Prometheus" gets very close to what is called "perfection" in my book.

Even the harsh critics admit that the movie is visually stunning and has amazing photography, art direction, and special effects as well as "creature" effects. This is not the elaborate and expensive, but intellectually cheap, unimaginative and mechanical effects and visuals of "The Avengers"; this is a rare true art and a rare true symbolism, as seen in "Avatar" or "The Lord of the Rings".

I already mentioned the visionary directing. I never thought that I would say that, but "Prometheus" appears to be one of the best Ridley Scott's works. It very possibly surpasses most of what the famous director had created before, and might eventually join the legendary company of the original "Alien" as well as the famous "Blade Runner" or even overshadow them.

The casting in the movie was almost perfect, especially for the main characters. The acting was very impressive as well, and in some cases simply outstanding.

I disagree with the reviewers who for no apparent good reason found a lack of depth and expression in the Noomi Rapace's acting as well as with the reviewers who were not satisfied with the Michael Fassbender's haunting impersonation, or had some other, mostly unsubstantiated complaints. It was especially shocking to see all this negativism coming from the same people who were completely smitten with the virtually non- existent acting in "The Avengers".

In my opinion, Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender were simply brilliant as Elizabeth Shaw, the archaeologist and David, the mysterious android respectively. The performances of Charlize Theron (Meredith Vickers), Idris Elba (Janek, the ship captain), and Guy Pearce (Peter Weyland) were quite memorable and convincing as well. The supporting cast was generally solid and did their job well. Unfortunately, Logan Marshall- Green was less than spectacular as Charlie Holloway – a gifted archaeologist and an Elizabeth Shaw's love interest.

In conclusion, if what you are looking for is simply a well-made action horror flick without too much discourse or philosophizing, you might be better off re-watching the landmark Ridley Scott's "Alien" or its great sequel – "Aliens", masterfully made by James Cameron.

If, however, you are in the mood for a deeper and more symbolic conversation about the human nature, a thoughtful conversation skillfully spiced with the amazing visuals, action, suspense, and horror, "Prometheus" might be worth checking out for you.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
2 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Avengers (2012)
6/10
"The Avengers"'s New Clothes
5 June 2012
It so happened that "The Avengers" has quite naturally and comfortably occupied the box office throne. It almost effortlessly managed to get to the very top and join the selected company of such distinguished titans as "Avatar", "Titanic", "Harry Potter", "The Lord of the Rings", and "Pirates of the Caribbean".

In addition to the dazzling box office glory, "The Avengers" is enjoying an unprecedented public love of epic, almost unhealthy, flirting with obsession proportions.

Currently "The Avengers" confidently occupies the 39th position among the best movies of all time on IMDb – higher on the list than "Citizen Kane", "Alien", "American Beauty", "Vertigo", "The Green Mile", "Once Upon A Time in America","Amadeus","Some Like It Hot", or "Gone With The Wind".

The reviewers on Netflix are ecstatic and gush with admiration: "This was the best super hero movie ever! It had a great plot, and I enjoyed it incredibly!" "It has heart! It has humor" "Not a dull moment. The cast did an amazing job" "I loved this movie. It was fantastic" "This movie was amazing! All of the heroes were excellent" "The truth is that you can't scream enough praise for this movie"

…And in the middle of all this euphoric madness, in the midst of all this frenzied rage, in the epicenter of all this outrageous triumph of the mediocrity produced by the never staying idle, overworked Hollywood assembly lines, we can barely hear a few sane, sober voices saying in a childlike amazement "Wait a minute…The Emperor is naked!"

Yes, despite its colorful, glaring clothes mostly made of special effects, "The Avengers" is almost completely naked: there is no story, no good scenes or dialogs, no acting (because there is no substance), no core, no depth, no intrigue, no tension, no mystery, no heart, and, yes – no humor.

What is called humor in "The Avengers" does indeed have one positive component in it: there is no bathroom jokes so common in the modern comedies. No one is burping, vomiting, breaking winds, showing naked buttocks, doing any other indecencies or saying any other obscenities. Unfortunately, the humor in "The Avengers" has also a negative side: it is very primitive and quite unfunny.

The special effects in "The Avengers" are impressive, but chaotically purposeless, and not breathtaking or intelligent or deeply symbolic as in "Avatar" or "The Lord of the Rings".

The amounts of an exciting action in "The Avengers" are vast, and the density of the movie stars would make any blockbuster jealous. Nevertheless, those looking for anything more than a liberally seasoned with primitive humor collection of sloppily connected action sequences and special effects will be utterly disappointed.

However, judging by the box office success of "The Avengers", nothing else is at all needed... A bunch of the familiar from childhood pathetic cartoonish super heroes cheerfully kicking butts of a little less cartoonish, but still pathetic villains and almost effortlessly but incredibly heroically saving the world in their spare time is just enough to make most movie goers extremely happy.

There is nothing mysterious about this - after all, the most popular restaurant in the world is not a restaurant with the best food, or the most famous and skillful chef, or the nicest location, or the most elegant atmosphere, or the most exquisite wine list.

The Emperor of restaurants is McDonalds – a familiar from childhood good bargain with standard, very basic, not very healthy, but at the same time very addictive menu.

Those highly praising the story, the acting, and all the other non- existent components of "The Avengers" become like a patron, who after visiting a local McDonalds would suddenly blurt out something like "What an elegant atmosphere we enjoyed when we visited McDonalds last time! The waiters were so attentive! The menu was so intriguing! The food was of finest quality and don't forget about the location – the nicest in town!"

The hard truth is that whereas in my hypothetical example with McDonalds everyone understands that the patron talks nonsense, most of the moviegoers will not notice a striking discrepancy between the cheap, unimaginative fast food action they see on the screen and all the high praises that "The Avengers" receive…

Indeed, Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of one who has no sense.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The box office success does not make "The Hunger Games" less disappointing
13 April 2012
After I finished watching "The Hunger Games", it remained a profound mystery to me how such a mediocre movie could possibly have received so warm welcome from public and critics alike. That was something so surprising, so puzzling, and - let us face it – so annoying, that I decided to use the elimination technique to find out what exactly had made "The Hunger Games" so attractive to such a diverse audience.

It could not have possibly been the story – poorly written, shallow and strikingly unentertaining. While I have not read the book that served the basis for the movie, I am almost certain that the original story written by Suzanne Collins lost most of its depth, intrigue, and punch in the process of being adapted for the big screen.

As Samuel Goldwyn famously said, "We want a story that starts out with an earthquake and works its way up to a climax." "The Hunger Games" employs the opposite strategy - it starts quite lethargically and ends quite anticlimactically.

Specifically, the movie begins with the boring, barely watchable cliché that drags for quite some time until the main characters finally leave the coal-mining District 12 on the train that takes them the Capitol where the 74th Hunger Games take place. The travel on the train and the preparation for the games are a little livelier, mostly because of the excellent diverse set of the vivid supporting characters played by the battle-hardened, experienced acting crew (Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Toby Jones) fittingly joined by Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, and Lenny Kravitz.

The games themselves are suspenseful and engaging enough, but also a little dull, far from mind blowing. I am not even talking about such an extravagant luxury as character development: following the regrettable pattern from the preceding parts of the movie, the game scenes fail to demonstrate anything even remotely original or even slightly thought provoking.

The ending is almost unprofessionally weak and disappointing, especially taking into account that "The Hunger Games" is expected to have sequels. Not only there are no cliffhangers that would keep us wondering and almost no hints that would keep us intrigued, but there is also even no sense of completeness of the piece; the abrupt ending creates an impression of a semi-finished, half-done job.

If not the story, what could have possibly made "The Hunger Games" so dear to the hearts of the millions of the moviegoers? I doubt that it was special or visual effects, that happened to be mostly basic and unimaginative. If you do not believe me, simply try watching a movie with truly well done special effects ("The Lord of The Rings", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Inception", "Avatar", or even "Hugo") and then compare it with the undistinguished, unoriginal averageness of the effects in "The Hunger Games".

The directing, only slightly better than average, can easily be eliminated from list of the features that make the movie worth watching. It is not surprising therefore, that Gary Ross would not be directing the sequel of "The Hunger Games".

The acting on the other hand was mostly solid and convincing, although the poorly written story and dialogues did not leave the actors much room to express their talents. It was almost painful to watch the excellent performance of Jennifer Lawrence wasted on such an unworthy of her talent movie.

On the technical side, camera work and editing were quite unimpressive to say the least. Sometimes they were simply horrible. More than on one occasion the incessant wobbling of the camera combined with the frequent image flickering was physically painful to the eyes. At times, the picture on the screen was changing so rapidly that it made some scenes (including the final fight) hard to follow and almost confusing.

And yet, what is the secret of the popularity of "The Hunger Games"?

I think that the answer is simple and complicated at the same time. Of course, we should not write off the popularity of the book, the exceptionally well-done trailer, and the skillful and highly effective marketing campaign.

The main reason, however, seems to be that the movie tells a basic, convenient, easily digestible story, preying on the unfortunate misconceptions, toxic stereotypes, naïve illusions, and hidden desires that rack the fragile souls of the teenagers, young adults, and even older and supposedly wiser generations of moviegoers.

Sadly, instead of stimulating independent thinking, so important for teenagers and young adults, "The Hunger Games" readily conforms to their stereotypical expectations and eagerly indulges their primitive fantasies.

That is what happens when authors too literally follow the famous (faulty) principle declared long time ago by Samuel Goldwyn: "Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western Union."

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hugo (2011)
6/10
Superficially entertaining, one-dimensional, simplistic story with amazing cinematography
30 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I had high expectations for "Hugo" – the movie that earned eleven Oscar nominations and won five of them (mostly technical though), the movie praised by critics and public alike, and, last but not least, the movie directed by the legendary Martin Scorsese.

At the same time, I had my share of doubts. My intuition was persistently telling me that something might not be right about "Hugo". The underwhelming trailer, the story based on the recently published unconventional book for tweens "The Invention of Hugo Cabret", the very large budget combined with the poor box office performance – all these signs were subtly indicating that "Hugo" possibly might turn out to be a disappointment.

After having finally seen the movie, I could confirm that despite all the "Hugo"'s impressive strengths and solid redeeming qualities, disappointment was definitely the strongest of the mixed emotions that I felt during and after the viewing.

Definitely not a masterpiece and not among the best Martin Scorsese's works either, "Hugo" strangely resembled a slightly improved variation of a typical Steven Spielberg movie, only a little smarter, a little deeper, and a little sharper, but still mostly one-dimensional, simplistic, and almost irritably superficial. In addition, "Hugo" turned out to be a little slow, elitist, and bookish that did not bring any additional charm to its already struggling story (John Logan).

Yes, "Hugo" is a tale, but it is more a superficially entertaining, unoriginal tale a-la Spielberg than a visionary, thought provoking tale with a deep meaning. While emotional, touching, and cute on the surface, "Hugo" does not have enough substance and depth to make us feel genuine interest or true compassion.

The movie does quite poorly in comparison to some recent influential tales made into movies. While the wise "Charlotte's Web" successfully tackles the topics of life and death and true friendship, "Hugo" just barely scratches the surface of these subjects so important for children and adult audiences alike. While the mesmerizing, and captivating "Coraline" is full of thought-provoking dark symbolism, "Hugo" is glossy but bland, visually imaginative but substantially unoriginal. The movie looks like a perfectly assembled, but lifeless and uninspiring mechanism used to animate the story of life of the French pioneer filmmaker Georges Méliès.

It also does not help that throughout the movie we see almost no character development except maybe for one character, skillfully played by the amazing as usual Ben Kingsley. In addition, many of the characters in "Hugo" are one-dimensional stereotypes: a cute courting elderly couple, a wise enthusiastic professor, a gentle loving father, a hard drinking wretched uncle, and more.

It was sad to see the solid Martin Scorsese's directing as well as all the Oscar winning qualities of the movie: the beautiful cinematography (Robert Richardson), the worthy visual effects, and the outstanding art direction (Francesca Lo Schiavo, Dante Ferretti) wasted on the undeserving at the end story.

It was disappointing to watch the great Ben Kingsley and the rest of the talented, well-balanced cast desperately trying to breathe life into this mostly artificial gimmick.

Sacha Baron Coen proved once again, just as he did in "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" that he is a talented, unique gifted actor capable of a memorable, multifaceted performance as long as he plays in a well-directed decent movie and not in the sickening garbage that he usually stars in.

Ray Winstone and Emily Mortimer were convincing in their supporting roles. Jude Law had one small, but memorable scene. Christopher Lee was perfect as a mysterious librarian, although his whole character seemed to be one of the unnecessary additions to the already lengthy and slowly moving story.

Both children characters – the overly cute, but uncharismatic Asa Butterfield's Hugo and the pretty, but woodenly inexpressive Chloë Grace Moretz's Isabelle - were less than impressive.

Overall, despite all the hype, "Hugo" is definitely not a movie I would classify as a "must see". Professionally made nice looking entertainment - maybe, but not a significant achievement in the art of cinema.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Thing (I) (2011)
6/10
Watchable, but unoriginal, unimaginative, and overall inferior remake
21 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Here is the thing: "The Thing" claims to be a prequel to the famous 1982 John Carpenter's movie with the same name. In fact, however, a diligent, thorough, but unoriginal, unimaginative, and overall inferior remake that lacks visionary directing, good story, and impressive visual effects.

It is not surprising therefore, that in comparison to the classic 1982 movie with its high 8.2 rating on IMDb and the "fresh" 78% rating on "Rotten Tomatoes", the 2011 flick looks rather pathetic with its mediocre 6.3 and the "rotten" 36% respectively. Moreover, while the John Carpenter's movie celebrated a box office success, the new remake did quite poorly in that area by gathering only $27.5 million in the theatres worldwide -significantly less than its $38 million production budget.

Although "The Thing" is a watchable, engaging horror with enough suspense evenly spread throughout the movie, it still looks like an expectedly failed attempt to remake the classic without providing adequate means for that.

It turns out that the 2011 movie was a shortsighted effort of the two unfortunate producers, Marc Abraham and Eric Newman, who were determined to repeat a relative success of their previous remake – Dawn of the Dead (2004). Inspired by their successful first attempt, Abraham and Newman acquired a taste for producing remakes, started searching Hollywood libraries, and eventually set their choice on "The Thing". They even managed to convince a big Hollywood studio – "Universal" in the viability of the questionable (in hindsight) project.

Remaking or rebooting a well-known classic is always a risky undertaking that requires first-class effort, starting from finding a visionary director, whose talent is comparable to the talent of the director of the original movie. It also requires a good screenwriter, capable of creating a having an independent value, distinctive script, comparable to the original. A solid acting and imaginative high quality special effects (if applicable) are a must as well.

Out of all these requirements, the 2011 remake satisfies only one: decent acting. It is especially true for Mary Elizabeth Winstead who delivers an outstanding performance as paleontologist Kate Lloyd, who quickly becomes an informal leader of the facing an imminent danger Antarctica colony. The rest of the not widely known cast does a solid job supporting the strong female lead. I would specifically like to mention Ulrich Thomsen, who managed to create an interesting, memorable character (Dr. Sander Halvorson) despite having a very limited screen time at his disposal.

Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s directing was professional but quite ordinary, not even remotely comparable to the uniquely styled John Carpenter's directing. The script (Eric Heisserer), although engaging, was light on mystery and intrigue and too predictable even for a remake and even more so for a prequel. It predominantly dwelled on cheap scares and failed to continuously maintain an adequate level of creepiness. In addition, the subplot related to the alien space ship, was somewhat vague, confusing, and leading nowhere. It is possible, that the authors were planning to utilize it in the sequel, but taking into account how poorly "The Thing" did in the theatres, the sequel is not very likely to happen.

Finally, it is hard to underestimate the importance of the visual effects in an alien creature horror flick like "The Thing". Unfortunately, what we saw in the 2011 movie was less than inspiring. Not only the special effects lacked inventiveness and imagination, but they also seemed to be somewhat unbalanced: excessive up to the point of being unnatural even for an alien horror movie in some scenes, and scarce, derivative, and underdeveloped in the other scenes. The movie's over-reliance on the digital effects for creating the monsters was aggravated by the lack of attention to the smaller surrounding details, extremely important for making the monsters look believable and creepy.

Overall, 2011 "The Thing" can definitely serve as a decent one-time thoughtless entertainment for a horror movie fan, but it is hardly useful for anything more than that.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed