My 2 word review: Seriously Whimsical.
I found the characters to be archetypes, not very fleshed out, but what's good about it is that PT Anderson has finally figured out the meaning of "economy" and cuts right to the essence of these archetypes for the characters in the film. No longer does Anderson feel the need to fill in all the gory character details that either lead to a meandering narrative, or turns characters into unsympathetic ones.
In P-DL, Anderson has found a way to cut to the emotion of the given moment of when love blooms against all odds to bring Barry and Leena together. Each of these 2 characters takes chances in finding love in spite of their psychological patterns and ruts, all for the slim hope of finding that one person, right or wrong, to share in each other's lives.
Throughout the first half of the film, Anderson even sets up a reaction that he wisely sidesteps because it shows the maturation of Barry by not "going there".
There are many visuals in the film that will creep into your subconscious once you see it, and you can see some good directorial choices at work here.
Also, Anderson has fun putting a camera in shots where reflections might give the camera away, but it never does.
All in all, it's a rather odd film, but you come away with the feeling that the emotional content given off by the characters are true and honest, even f they aren't very well fleshed out in terms of heavy characterizations.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Road to Perdition
I thought it was slow in parts, low key, and then the 2nd act has this bit of out of place levity, and then it goes somber again. I thought the pacing wasn't as good as it could have been. The performances were okay, Newman got the most mileage out of what he was given. Tom Hanks' character was too underwritten and just flat out unhuman to care about (even as he hopes to prevent his son from following the same path as him). The story was too predictable (even with style and panache, I was so far ahead of the film, it did bore me due to the pacing).
I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B-.
I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B-.
Scooby Doo
I had a good time with "Scooby Doo". All of the principal actors nailed their parts well enough to make me forget they were actors, but just characters inspired from the zany cartoon.
Matthew Lilliard does an amazing impression of Kasey Kasem doing Shaggy.
Linda Cardellini was good as Thelma (though I didn't quite remember Thelma as having such a large rack in the cartoons ). Sarah Michelle Geller and Freddie Prinze Jr. were actually the weaker players in this film, but not distractingly so.
Now the CGI Scooby Doo was actually pretty entertaining to watch, the mannerisms and the vocal patterns were spot on, and it was good to see him treated in a good fashion in his big screen debut. The only problem with the CGI was that Scooby tended to be a bit on the bright side in the light rendering aspect of the CGI in use (the shading was off in terms of light sources), which made Scooby sort of stick out in some of his scenes, but once you get into the film, and are just enjoying Scooby's interaction with the rest of the cast, and his facial/body expressions (which are a hoot IMHO), those objections quickly fade away.
The plot was a standard plot, but it was serviceable, and will easily lend itself to future sequels because this film will be a hit, and it will have legs at the box office because it's fast-paced, and the characters are pretty much like the characters from the cartoon, and Scooby's pretty funny
in the film. There's a good "joyous" vibe to this film that will put a smile on your face.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Matthew Lilliard does an amazing impression of Kasey Kasem doing Shaggy.
Linda Cardellini was good as Thelma (though I didn't quite remember Thelma as having such a large rack in the cartoons ). Sarah Michelle Geller and Freddie Prinze Jr. were actually the weaker players in this film, but not distractingly so.
Now the CGI Scooby Doo was actually pretty entertaining to watch, the mannerisms and the vocal patterns were spot on, and it was good to see him treated in a good fashion in his big screen debut. The only problem with the CGI was that Scooby tended to be a bit on the bright side in the light rendering aspect of the CGI in use (the shading was off in terms of light sources), which made Scooby sort of stick out in some of his scenes, but once you get into the film, and are just enjoying Scooby's interaction with the rest of the cast, and his facial/body expressions (which are a hoot IMHO), those objections quickly fade away.
The plot was a standard plot, but it was serviceable, and will easily lend itself to future sequels because this film will be a hit, and it will have legs at the box office because it's fast-paced, and the characters are pretty much like the characters from the cartoon, and Scooby's pretty funny
in the film. There's a good "joyous" vibe to this film that will put a smile on your face.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Knockaround Guys
My one word review: Anemic.
There's a reason why this film stayed on the shelf for 2 year: it's a so-so movie.
I'd be charitable if I gave it more than 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
There's a reason why this film stayed on the shelf for 2 year: it's a so-so movie.
I'd be charitable if I gave it more than 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
Signs
I thought "Signs" was okay, but I was not fulfilled by the resolution (I "get it" I just didn't like it). There are some good funny bits, some jumpy bits, the actor is pretty good, the kids are cute/precocious, but the whole does not exceed the sum of the parts. It's okay, worth a matinee, but I feel it was one of Shyamalan's weaker efforts.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Minority Report
Minority Report
I had problems with this film, and thus don't rate it as high as many of the critics.
This drove me nuts: (spoilers ahead)
Once Tom Cruise's character, John Anderton, sees the precrime of him shooting Leo, why doesn't he find a way to incapacitate himself for the next 36 hours so he can't possibly kill anyone? Would that not prove that he can't be the murderer? He went to the trouble to get new eyes, he was scott free for the most part after that. He just had to lay low for 36 hours.
Anyone with half a brain would have realized how to beat the pre-cogs premonitions with inside knowledge. I kept thinking of the the pre-cogs as the geese laying the red eggs. To me it was comical to see the elaborate little plastic spiral-like tunnels for the red balls to roll out.
This is what pissed me off about this film, and what makes the rest of the film seem too predictable and dull.
The futuristic touches of the film are pretty cool, though, and the scene with Hinemen in her greenhouse was sort of entertaining.
One more thing: I'm getting tired of the washed out "cinematic" look of Spielberg films. I don't think it worked as well in MR as it did in A.I.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
I had problems with this film, and thus don't rate it as high as many of the critics.
This drove me nuts: (spoilers ahead)
Once Tom Cruise's character, John Anderton, sees the precrime of him shooting Leo, why doesn't he find a way to incapacitate himself for the next 36 hours so he can't possibly kill anyone? Would that not prove that he can't be the murderer? He went to the trouble to get new eyes, he was scott free for the most part after that. He just had to lay low for 36 hours.
Anyone with half a brain would have realized how to beat the pre-cogs premonitions with inside knowledge. I kept thinking of the the pre-cogs as the geese laying the red eggs. To me it was comical to see the elaborate little plastic spiral-like tunnels for the red balls to roll out.
This is what pissed me off about this film, and what makes the rest of the film seem too predictable and dull.
The futuristic touches of the film are pretty cool, though, and the scene with Hinemen in her greenhouse was sort of entertaining.
One more thing: I'm getting tired of the washed out "cinematic" look of Spielberg films. I don't think it worked as well in MR as it did in A.I.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
Spider-Man
Spider-Man
My bias: I'm a life-long comic book fan/reader.
I had this shit-eating grin on my face for most of the time I was watching Spider-Man. Sam Raimi nailed the atmosphere of the comic undertones well. The CGI was good (some of it might have made me wish I had some dramamine on hand), though it could have been a little tighter, but none of it disappointed me. Showing Spidey's point of view as he was swinging through the Big Apple was a nice touch, as was the sheer exhilaration of such power and freedom Peter came to possess, though at a high personal cost.
The casting was pretty much ideal with the exception of Harry Osborne (James Franco), who was a little bit over-powered by the rest of the cast in the acting chops department. Loved the chemistry between Tobey and Kirsten, they click. Willem Dafoe did a good job with the duality aspect of the role of Norman Osborne. Even the revamped Green Goblin exo-suit made sense in the context of the film.
The origin story not only followed much of the comic book story, but was able to inject 3-dimensionality into the story from a 2-dimension source material.
The action sequences could have been a little tenser, but Raimi never over-plays the super-slow-mo action hand that many other films fall into the trap of doing for the sake of being cool, no, Raimi goes for almost real-time decision making in Spidey's battle with GG, and the action had both impact and inertia. The physics of the action scenes were never to the point of you were rolling your eyes at the action (a la Blade II, just a recent example).
I thought Peter's and MJ's declaration of their attraction bordered the "You make me want to be a better man" speech out of "As Good As It Gets".
The pacing of the film never sagged, and that says a lot for a 2 hour film. Any slow parts immediately led to a payoff for the audience.
And the ending offers a nice opening/setup to a sequel down the road, plus, it's entirely possible the writers can do the Gwen Stacy story in a sequel as well.
I give this film a grade of "A" for Amazing, or 4 out of 4 stars. Loved it.
My bias: I'm a life-long comic book fan/reader.
I had this shit-eating grin on my face for most of the time I was watching Spider-Man. Sam Raimi nailed the atmosphere of the comic undertones well. The CGI was good (some of it might have made me wish I had some dramamine on hand), though it could have been a little tighter, but none of it disappointed me. Showing Spidey's point of view as he was swinging through the Big Apple was a nice touch, as was the sheer exhilaration of such power and freedom Peter came to possess, though at a high personal cost.
The casting was pretty much ideal with the exception of Harry Osborne (James Franco), who was a little bit over-powered by the rest of the cast in the acting chops department. Loved the chemistry between Tobey and Kirsten, they click. Willem Dafoe did a good job with the duality aspect of the role of Norman Osborne. Even the revamped Green Goblin exo-suit made sense in the context of the film.
The origin story not only followed much of the comic book story, but was able to inject 3-dimensionality into the story from a 2-dimension source material.
The action sequences could have been a little tenser, but Raimi never over-plays the super-slow-mo action hand that many other films fall into the trap of doing for the sake of being cool, no, Raimi goes for almost real-time decision making in Spidey's battle with GG, and the action had both impact and inertia. The physics of the action scenes were never to the point of you were rolling your eyes at the action (a la Blade II, just a recent example).
I thought Peter's and MJ's declaration of their attraction bordered the "You make me want to be a better man" speech out of "As Good As It Gets".
The pacing of the film never sagged, and that says a lot for a 2 hour film. Any slow parts immediately led to a payoff for the audience.
And the ending offers a nice opening/setup to a sequel down the road, plus, it's entirely possible the writers can do the Gwen Stacy story in a sequel as well.
I give this film a grade of "A" for Amazing, or 4 out of 4 stars. Loved it.
Heist
Heist
I thought this was an average film, nothing great, nothing horribly bad about it.
Maybe I was disappointed with how stupid the gang from Devito's side were depicted in this film.
I found the dialog to be nondescript. I didn't find much of any of the banter all that clever. Character motivations were one note, and not really that convincing to me.
Gene Hackman and Delroy Lindo give their perfunctionary good performances, but Rebecca Pidgeon, as always, bugged me with her deadpan delivery of her husband's dialog. Devito played his character so devoid of humanity, it was just creepy and pathetic at times.
I give it a grade of C or 2 stars.
I thought this was an average film, nothing great, nothing horribly bad about it.
Maybe I was disappointed with how stupid the gang from Devito's side were depicted in this film.
I found the dialog to be nondescript. I didn't find much of any of the banter all that clever. Character motivations were one note, and not really that convincing to me.
Gene Hackman and Delroy Lindo give their perfunctionary good performances, but Rebecca Pidgeon, as always, bugged me with her deadpan delivery of her husband's dialog. Devito played his character so devoid of humanity, it was just creepy and pathetic at times.
I give it a grade of C or 2 stars.
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (Episode II)
Attack of the Clones
The 1st hours drags. I found Hayden Christensen's acting to be awkward and painful and unnatural. I could not root for him at all, even when beset by tragedy (which was handled so clusily by the script and the convenient timing of it all and sheer lack of logical progression within the story, plus the casual shierking of his Jedi duties made me roll my eyes. The writing for Anakin's character is perfunctionary, not relevatory, a mistake that Lucas and Hale make in this film. Sure, the fans know the backstory, but actually seeing it unfold was unimpressive in my eyes to the script and timeline.
I did like what they did with Padme's character in that she does become a fighter within the framework of the story, which will lead her to a prominent position in the leadership of the rebel forces in the next film. Obiwan's "James Bond" secret agent sidestory as he discovers the truth of the clones is remarkably goofy and implausible (but you just go with it to get to the meat of the story). He did not did a good job with grounding the foundation of Anakin into the order of the Jedi, perhaps they are right, Anakin was too old, too wild to become a Jedi, a mistake that will cost the Republic.
Mace Windu was more or less wasted in this film, I know no more of him than I did from the 1st film. Yoda was a revelation in the second half. Jar Jar was understated, but his speech pattern is still pretty painful to listen to (but I miss the more exhuberant Jar Jar from the first film). The main villian introduced is Count Dooku, flat out horrible name for a villain. Everytime his name was spoken I mentally inserted "Dookie" and had to laugh. Dooku as a character/villain was a force to be reckon with, though.
The 2nd hour had more action, and tons more CGI and explosions, but I didn't get the urgency of the situation at hand, the tension was never ratcheted up a few notches in the various confrontations and battles within the conflict. I think the problem is knowing who will live and who will die leads to the inability to provide the dramatic tension within the 2nd hour to make it
memorable.
I don't think there's that one great moment in this film, it plays a bit too even, a bit too safe, without a truly awesome turning point.
I thought the music was too intrusive in the film in many spots.
I did enjoy the interplay of R2D2 and C3P0 (did they meet in Episode I?). C3P0 is quite funny in the 2nd hour during the battle.
I give the film a grade of B- or 2.75 stars out of 4.
The 1st hours drags. I found Hayden Christensen's acting to be awkward and painful and unnatural. I could not root for him at all, even when beset by tragedy (which was handled so clusily by the script and the convenient timing of it all and sheer lack of logical progression within the story, plus the casual shierking of his Jedi duties made me roll my eyes. The writing for Anakin's character is perfunctionary, not relevatory, a mistake that Lucas and Hale make in this film. Sure, the fans know the backstory, but actually seeing it unfold was unimpressive in my eyes to the script and timeline.
I did like what they did with Padme's character in that she does become a fighter within the framework of the story, which will lead her to a prominent position in the leadership of the rebel forces in the next film. Obiwan's "James Bond" secret agent sidestory as he discovers the truth of the clones is remarkably goofy and implausible (but you just go with it to get to the meat of the story). He did not did a good job with grounding the foundation of Anakin into the order of the Jedi, perhaps they are right, Anakin was too old, too wild to become a Jedi, a mistake that will cost the Republic.
Mace Windu was more or less wasted in this film, I know no more of him than I did from the 1st film. Yoda was a revelation in the second half. Jar Jar was understated, but his speech pattern is still pretty painful to listen to (but I miss the more exhuberant Jar Jar from the first film). The main villian introduced is Count Dooku, flat out horrible name for a villain. Everytime his name was spoken I mentally inserted "Dookie" and had to laugh. Dooku as a character/villain was a force to be reckon with, though.
The 2nd hour had more action, and tons more CGI and explosions, but I didn't get the urgency of the situation at hand, the tension was never ratcheted up a few notches in the various confrontations and battles within the conflict. I think the problem is knowing who will live and who will die leads to the inability to provide the dramatic tension within the 2nd hour to make it
memorable.
I don't think there's that one great moment in this film, it plays a bit too even, a bit too safe, without a truly awesome turning point.
I thought the music was too intrusive in the film in many spots.
I did enjoy the interplay of R2D2 and C3P0 (did they meet in Episode I?). C3P0 is quite funny in the 2nd hour during the battle.
I give the film a grade of B- or 2.75 stars out of 4.
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
Hmm...I've never read the books.
I really wanted to LOVE this film, but I came away with a gentle fondness for it instead.
For me, pacing is something that a great film gets right, and I didn't think the pacing was right in this film. Perhaps it was the source material, perhaps it was the director's choice. Either way, I found the film to drag in more just just a few spots, and some of the wonderment of the locales left me restless after a while.
Don't get me wrong, I think set design, and the landscape of the journey that we are shown was very well done, there was some really imaginative CGI work on full display on the screen.
I had some problems with the lack of tension and urgency in the film. It was languid when it might have been better if it were a little more manic.
Another thing that bothered me, probably more than someone who's read the books, was the character development. The main problem is having 9 characters in the FOTR, it's a difficult job to imbue life into all of them, while also pushing the story along. Such is the limitation of cinema versus a book. And you add in all the characters that they meet along the way, and
it gets pretty confusing to know who's on Frodo's side, and who's got another agenda.
Also, there just too many male characters crying in this film! I found myself not really connecting with any of the characters in this film. I felt like a cousin twice removed from the interactions between the characters.
While the achievement in cinema is something that'll set the standard for fantasy films, I will be one of the lone dissenters and give this film a lowly 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Hmm...I've never read the books.
I really wanted to LOVE this film, but I came away with a gentle fondness for it instead.
For me, pacing is something that a great film gets right, and I didn't think the pacing was right in this film. Perhaps it was the source material, perhaps it was the director's choice. Either way, I found the film to drag in more just just a few spots, and some of the wonderment of the locales left me restless after a while.
Don't get me wrong, I think set design, and the landscape of the journey that we are shown was very well done, there was some really imaginative CGI work on full display on the screen.
I had some problems with the lack of tension and urgency in the film. It was languid when it might have been better if it were a little more manic.
Another thing that bothered me, probably more than someone who's read the books, was the character development. The main problem is having 9 characters in the FOTR, it's a difficult job to imbue life into all of them, while also pushing the story along. Such is the limitation of cinema versus a book. And you add in all the characters that they meet along the way, and
it gets pretty confusing to know who's on Frodo's side, and who's got another agenda.
Also, there just too many male characters crying in this film! I found myself not really connecting with any of the characters in this film. I felt like a cousin twice removed from the interactions between the characters.
While the achievement in cinema is something that'll set the standard for fantasy films, I will be one of the lone dissenters and give this film a lowly 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
A Plethora of Movie Reviews
I think it's time to just collect all my movie reviews from the past 7-8 years, and post them here. So I'm going to post 4-5 reviews when I feel like it, and it'll start with movies from roughly 2002 and work its way to current day movies. I wasn't able to find my reviews of films earlier than that post online, so it's all I have. Of course, my feelings of some films have changed over the years, but it's been interesting to read over my initial thoughts and feelings of films shortly after viewing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)