What if someone drew a magnificent picture of you in all your glorious self at the height of your beauty? What if that painting captured your fascination and you wished to forever resemble its beauty that is yourself at that moment? What if your greatest wish was to live forever with that beauty at all cost? That is what this film is about. It hauntingly brings to life Oscar Wilde's tale of young man who becomes obsessed with keeping his vanity and following the heartless advice of his newest charming friend. Hurd Hatfield is simply marvelous as the main character who finds out the cruel reality that a seemingly simple wish can have upon the very soul. He is Dorian Gray man bereft of soul, but forever young in feature and innocent in face. He is surrounded by a sublime cast including the ever aristocratic George Sanders, Lord Henry Wotton, who leaves an indelible mark on the philosophy of the tortured soul that is to become Gray. As well there is the kind hearted artist of the portrait and perhaps closest friend of Gray, Basil Hallward played by a calming Lowell Gilmore. On the other side of the spectrum are the women of Gray's life, the loves of his life, the tragic Sibyl, perhaps Gray's first great love played by a particularly young and beautiful Angela Lansbury with a nice soft voice, and entranced Gladys Hallward, played by a ever charming Donna Reed, who swears eternal love to Gray from childhood, a crush that can't be destroyed by age, literally. The film is greatly well paced with its only shortcomings originating from the convention of some of the haunting score itself. A gem of a film, directed by Albert Lewin that has the right touch of color to its morbid affair.
Reviews
40 Reviews
The Dark Knight
(2008)
Where do I begin?
18 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Where do I begin? The film was hyped ever since reviews started filtering out about Heath Ledger's final performance. The film, as well as his performance, has been lauded. I was slightly skeptical, but still highly anticipating film and my expectations were very high. Well they were met and exceeded. I have to agree with those reviews comparing it to The Empire Strikes Back. It is that equivalent to the superhero genre. The overtones are darker than Batman Begins, which was a great stepping-stone for this incredible and epic storytelling of two masterful nemeses for Batman, The Joker and Two-Face. However, the film did not get lost in the dark and still holds a great sense of humor to alleviate much of the pain of the film.
To begin with, Batman is having troubles carrying over from the first film. The narrows was lost and he is still trying to collect the criminals who escaped including Scarecrow / Jonathan Crane in small cameo appearance, which really was only weak point of the film. For a villain given so much story time in the first film, it felt disappointing to see him carelessly tossed aside here as he was at the end of Begins. I digress on that, matter though as it is overall a minor disappointment. As he is finishing business with Scarecrow it also shown, that Batman has inspired others to follow him in his "vigilante" activities. He is not pleased at this. It is not what he intended when he donned the mask. However, the vigilantes inspired by him are not the real beef.
The Joker and first the mob is the first beef. Batman and Lieutenant James Gordon are cracking down on the mob hard forcing them to launder their money to one man. Pounding them into a corner, this proves most deadly for a city already having major problems. Into this deadly net waltz the ultimate in chaos theory. The Joker, a mad hatter and the anti-thesis of Batman, who not only follows not rules, but also has no qualms about doing what Batman will not, kill and kill without remorse. He is a mad man and sadistic and still one the enigma he is from the comics, something that Jack Nicholson had ruined for him back in 1989. Unlike him, Heath Ledger is aloud to play the role savagely and therefore, cannot be compared to Nicholson's lighter Joker. He is unto a class all his own in the Batman universe. Anarchy and madness that is what Ledger plays Joker as and deftly too, as advertised a complete screwball whose actions have no rhythm and no bounds. He is the showman of the film, but overblown. Still one cannot help but laugh with him as the film goes up to the point when he kills.
While Joker plays the villain of the film, the film offers three main lead heroes whom through the course of the film are tested to their limits by the Joker bound by none. There is the incorruptible Batman, the stalwart James Gordon, and the newcomer District Attorney Harvey Dent. All played just as well as Ledger's Joker making the film are a fantastic film to watch as the four men butt heads. Individually they do it with the Joker as well as together. It is the heart and soul of the film. The three heroes most especially Harvey Dent represent the goodness of Gotham. That is something that is tried to the edge by the Joker. It is through the performances of Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, and Aaron Eckhart that the film flourishes dramatically.
Extraneously on the side, there is the love triangle between Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes, and Harvey Dent, but only alongside the main one of the heart of the city and the triangle of Batman, Gordon, and Dent. Above all Gotham is what must survive and that is what Joker makes at stake as much as Ra's al Ghul did in Begins. Therefore, the love story takes a back seat, but it is not overlooked in the 2 hours and 40 minutes that the film runs. It covers a lot of ground with lots of twists and turns and it does not miss a beat and way to tie up a loose end, save for Cillian Murphy's ever suffering Scarecrow.
The technical makeup of the film is equally as stunning as the film story and makes it astounding strong in all respects. Add to that the perfect melding of countless comics and portrayals in the performances here and the film falls into place as the pinnacle the Batman film series has to offer to date.
To begin with, Batman is having troubles carrying over from the first film. The narrows was lost and he is still trying to collect the criminals who escaped including Scarecrow / Jonathan Crane in small cameo appearance, which really was only weak point of the film. For a villain given so much story time in the first film, it felt disappointing to see him carelessly tossed aside here as he was at the end of Begins. I digress on that, matter though as it is overall a minor disappointment. As he is finishing business with Scarecrow it also shown, that Batman has inspired others to follow him in his "vigilante" activities. He is not pleased at this. It is not what he intended when he donned the mask. However, the vigilantes inspired by him are not the real beef.
The Joker and first the mob is the first beef. Batman and Lieutenant James Gordon are cracking down on the mob hard forcing them to launder their money to one man. Pounding them into a corner, this proves most deadly for a city already having major problems. Into this deadly net waltz the ultimate in chaos theory. The Joker, a mad hatter and the anti-thesis of Batman, who not only follows not rules, but also has no qualms about doing what Batman will not, kill and kill without remorse. He is a mad man and sadistic and still one the enigma he is from the comics, something that Jack Nicholson had ruined for him back in 1989. Unlike him, Heath Ledger is aloud to play the role savagely and therefore, cannot be compared to Nicholson's lighter Joker. He is unto a class all his own in the Batman universe. Anarchy and madness that is what Ledger plays Joker as and deftly too, as advertised a complete screwball whose actions have no rhythm and no bounds. He is the showman of the film, but overblown. Still one cannot help but laugh with him as the film goes up to the point when he kills.
While Joker plays the villain of the film, the film offers three main lead heroes whom through the course of the film are tested to their limits by the Joker bound by none. There is the incorruptible Batman, the stalwart James Gordon, and the newcomer District Attorney Harvey Dent. All played just as well as Ledger's Joker making the film are a fantastic film to watch as the four men butt heads. Individually they do it with the Joker as well as together. It is the heart and soul of the film. The three heroes most especially Harvey Dent represent the goodness of Gotham. That is something that is tried to the edge by the Joker. It is through the performances of Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, and Aaron Eckhart that the film flourishes dramatically.
Extraneously on the side, there is the love triangle between Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes, and Harvey Dent, but only alongside the main one of the heart of the city and the triangle of Batman, Gordon, and Dent. Above all Gotham is what must survive and that is what Joker makes at stake as much as Ra's al Ghul did in Begins. Therefore, the love story takes a back seat, but it is not overlooked in the 2 hours and 40 minutes that the film runs. It covers a lot of ground with lots of twists and turns and it does not miss a beat and way to tie up a loose end, save for Cillian Murphy's ever suffering Scarecrow.
The technical makeup of the film is equally as stunning as the film story and makes it astounding strong in all respects. Add to that the perfect melding of countless comics and portrayals in the performances here and the film falls into place as the pinnacle the Batman film series has to offer to date.
Strangers on a Train
(1951)
A Thrilling Hitchcock Masterpiece
11 July 2008
Alfred Hitchcock is a genius of a filmmaker whose every film has a daring vision to it even if they are not all as satisfying or as complete as another. This is one of his best about obsession and chance meetings. The title pretty much sums up the plot, which goes that two men meet on a train, by chance, and one of them hatches a plan for murder. It would solve both their problems and be the perfect murder since there would be no motive. Problem is that one is not as obsessed with killing as the other and is in his "right mind" although in a Hitchcock film that is kind of an iffy term as everyone is not quite in their right mind at all times. But it more evident in the man who sets things in motion, Bruno Anthony. Bruno is played with great precision by Robert Walker as a man almost completely unstable, but yet with a great mind about him which makes him highly dangerous as he can mask his insanity very well. Point of most Hitchcock films is what murder is perfect. Everyone gets their just desserts this film has a thrilling way of getting to its conclusion. The triumph of this film, which sets it apart from other fun or intriguing Hitchcock films for me is the everyman aspect of having these near no names star in this film aptly named Strangers on a Train. There is also the fascinating cinematography job done by Robert Burkes, that catches chilling angles of murder and other scenes, which heighten the tension of the film perfectly. It's the logicalness of it all that is intrigues me the most though as Bruno's reasoning seems so sound, quite a twisted character in a Hitchcock masterpiece.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
(2008)
A Visual Delight as Advertised
11 July 2008
As advertised a visual wonder with the usual wry and a bit whimsical humor to it like the first film. This is one of those comic book adaptations where my only association is through the film, but that is alright. Guillermo Del Toro has a passion for making great entertainment and this is no exception be it that it is a bit wink wink and corny near the beginning with the animatric action and stiff Hellboy, as young boy, look. There is a lot that reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth in here, but I think it is the addition of the latest addition to the team, Johann Kraus, that makes it worthwhile, a good foil at times to Hellboy, the loose cannon. As usual Abe is a great side kick and friend to Hellboy. Their beer drinking scene was tops with the humor. All around this is film to enjoy for its fantastic visuals as well as the wry humor and action. The area it suffers the most in though is the villain department. The villain is not as menacing as the last one and it comes back to the theme of where does Hellboy belong, with these magical creatures, with the humans, in hell watching the world burn? I look forward to the third film though which is implied in the ending from this film.
WALL·E
(2008)
Great Love Story Disappointing Side Story
27 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Usually Pixar wow's me with its story as well as it characters, but the latest tale from the people at Pixar has been a major disappointment in the story department. It is a run of the mill love story with a dystopia setting where man has been driven off earth because they trashed it. A very environmentalist viewpoint which is disappointingly simple for Pixar and in the class of Happy Feet as far as I am concerned with is a death knell normally for me, but it rises above the previous films problems by having a keenly interesting and investing main character in Wall-E. It is the love story that makes this film tick.
The ads focused on Wall-E and hyped the film in that respect the film flourishes. Wall-E is given great meticulous character and detail by the artists. He is the most lovable of all the characters because he is unpolished and has the most nuisances of any character in the film be it human or robotic. He gained his character from being stuck on earth on eternal cleanup. Having only one single companion, an interestingly lovable cockroach, yeah that is a feat unto itself. He cherishes this companionship, but still yearns for something closer and more relatable for himself as he watched Hello Dolly to death. It is the opening exposition about Wall-E that gives the film solid momentum to get through the rest of the rough story as Eva comes down to search for life on the earth, which Wall-E has previously discovered. Her directive takes over from there and then it is simple struggle between machine and character, which is disappointingly uninteresting in itself, but for Wall-E and his determination of pleasing and loving Eva, the film would be a failure.
Eva herself is almost the anti-thesis of Wall-E a pristine new robot with nary a scratch or piece of dust on her design. She is slowly but surely broken down by Wall-E's careful persistence. The love story is beautiful between the robots and surprisingly well design as opposed to the rest of the story with the obese humans and their regimented and sheltered life on an eternal cruise. That part of the story is shockingly overt which Pixar is usually good at avoiding.
The film is great in its references to classic pop culture references with its films and songs. For that and Wall-E and his love story the film flourishes and is one of the best I have seen, but the side story involving the humans and the restart on earth or disappointing simple and blatant. Thus this latest venture from the people at Pixar specifically director Andrew Stanton and co-writer Pete Docter is a mixed bag.
The ads focused on Wall-E and hyped the film in that respect the film flourishes. Wall-E is given great meticulous character and detail by the artists. He is the most lovable of all the characters because he is unpolished and has the most nuisances of any character in the film be it human or robotic. He gained his character from being stuck on earth on eternal cleanup. Having only one single companion, an interestingly lovable cockroach, yeah that is a feat unto itself. He cherishes this companionship, but still yearns for something closer and more relatable for himself as he watched Hello Dolly to death. It is the opening exposition about Wall-E that gives the film solid momentum to get through the rest of the rough story as Eva comes down to search for life on the earth, which Wall-E has previously discovered. Her directive takes over from there and then it is simple struggle between machine and character, which is disappointingly uninteresting in itself, but for Wall-E and his determination of pleasing and loving Eva, the film would be a failure.
Eva herself is almost the anti-thesis of Wall-E a pristine new robot with nary a scratch or piece of dust on her design. She is slowly but surely broken down by Wall-E's careful persistence. The love story is beautiful between the robots and surprisingly well design as opposed to the rest of the story with the obese humans and their regimented and sheltered life on an eternal cruise. That part of the story is shockingly overt which Pixar is usually good at avoiding.
The film is great in its references to classic pop culture references with its films and songs. For that and Wall-E and his love story the film flourishes and is one of the best I have seen, but the side story involving the humans and the restart on earth or disappointing simple and blatant. Thus this latest venture from the people at Pixar specifically director Andrew Stanton and co-writer Pete Docter is a mixed bag.
Schindler's List
(1993)
Hope through the Death
22 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that. *That's* cruel!" Hope, that is the key to getting through this powerhouse film from Steven Spielberg. He holds not bar on showing the violence surrounding the Holocaust and in that he could have gotten bogged down in despair, but he keeps the pacing a flurry like his most frantic works and creates well-defined character who despite being horrifying to degree, especially Ralph Fiennes' Amon Goeth, offer some glimmer of humanity.
The time is 1940's and the war is gripping Europe and in Poland the beginning of the Holocaust has occurred as the Jews are herded into a Ghetto to live a very limited life for time. Into this time of despair and exploitation comes a showman of sorts, Oskar Schindler who sees an opportunity to make a fortune from the misfortune of the Jews. He first builds a rapport with high officials in the Nazi army, knowing later he will need their support. Next he offers the Jews with something left their option to having hope of some life after the war. He does this with the help of a Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern who becomes both his conscience and his friend. As Schindler is building a well off business off of cheap Jewish labor, SS officer Amon Goeth comes in to jump start the process of concentration camps for the Jews and it is he how heads up the Liquidation of the Ghetto.
The film chronicles the whole journey of all the characters from the start of the Holocaust all the way to the end of the war and it does it expansively and personally taking note of many excruciating situations most often leading up to death. The film is held together by a fantastic timing by Spielberg which mixes grief with hope and death with life. Add to this some of the best performances of the modern age from Liam Neeson as a towering Oskar Schindler, Ralph Fiennes as the odious and delirious Amon Goeth, and Ben Kingsley as the conscience of Schindler, Itzhak Stern, and you have one of the most powerful movies ever made.
Liam Neeson performance is great because it has such a great transformation that he expresses brilliantly and almost brings you to tears by the end. He starts out as an indifferent business man, a profiteer intent on making his fortune. But he ends up getting very close to his works and thus gaining a heart which is broken by the end of the film by the horrors he witnesses. On the other hand, Ralph Fiennes performance offers different strain of powerful as he pulls the string of the evil character as he shows a sadistic taste for killing from the start. When he first arrives in the film he is approached by a Jewish Architect who informs him that they need to rebuild a building because the foundation is not right. He takes a second to look over what she tells him and then and tells his officers to shoot her. Even though her advice he does heed, having them rebuild it after shooting her in the head, he says he could not tolerate dissent. It is terrifying performance as he hides his love for a Jewish maid by repeatedly beating her. Finally Ben Kingsley performance offers the purest of the performances as Kingsley plays the straight arrow, the man ever with the heart from the beginning to the end showing an ever willingness to do what he can to make life easier for his people. He is Schindler's conscience in forcing him to see the hope his enterprise is effecting for the Jews.
The film is shot in a stark grain of black and white thus tempering some of the violence, but it is still extremely potent as the cinematography gets into the faces of the people showing their etched emotions as well as the horrifying deaths of so many. Streets filled with bodies and ash ridden streets.
This stands as one of the most emotionally draining films ever created and is technically outstanding from the powerfully moving cinematography to the softly straining score by John Williams and the towering performances.
The time is 1940's and the war is gripping Europe and in Poland the beginning of the Holocaust has occurred as the Jews are herded into a Ghetto to live a very limited life for time. Into this time of despair and exploitation comes a showman of sorts, Oskar Schindler who sees an opportunity to make a fortune from the misfortune of the Jews. He first builds a rapport with high officials in the Nazi army, knowing later he will need their support. Next he offers the Jews with something left their option to having hope of some life after the war. He does this with the help of a Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern who becomes both his conscience and his friend. As Schindler is building a well off business off of cheap Jewish labor, SS officer Amon Goeth comes in to jump start the process of concentration camps for the Jews and it is he how heads up the Liquidation of the Ghetto.
The film chronicles the whole journey of all the characters from the start of the Holocaust all the way to the end of the war and it does it expansively and personally taking note of many excruciating situations most often leading up to death. The film is held together by a fantastic timing by Spielberg which mixes grief with hope and death with life. Add to this some of the best performances of the modern age from Liam Neeson as a towering Oskar Schindler, Ralph Fiennes as the odious and delirious Amon Goeth, and Ben Kingsley as the conscience of Schindler, Itzhak Stern, and you have one of the most powerful movies ever made.
Liam Neeson performance is great because it has such a great transformation that he expresses brilliantly and almost brings you to tears by the end. He starts out as an indifferent business man, a profiteer intent on making his fortune. But he ends up getting very close to his works and thus gaining a heart which is broken by the end of the film by the horrors he witnesses. On the other hand, Ralph Fiennes performance offers different strain of powerful as he pulls the string of the evil character as he shows a sadistic taste for killing from the start. When he first arrives in the film he is approached by a Jewish Architect who informs him that they need to rebuild a building because the foundation is not right. He takes a second to look over what she tells him and then and tells his officers to shoot her. Even though her advice he does heed, having them rebuild it after shooting her in the head, he says he could not tolerate dissent. It is terrifying performance as he hides his love for a Jewish maid by repeatedly beating her. Finally Ben Kingsley performance offers the purest of the performances as Kingsley plays the straight arrow, the man ever with the heart from the beginning to the end showing an ever willingness to do what he can to make life easier for his people. He is Schindler's conscience in forcing him to see the hope his enterprise is effecting for the Jews.
The film is shot in a stark grain of black and white thus tempering some of the violence, but it is still extremely potent as the cinematography gets into the faces of the people showing their etched emotions as well as the horrifying deaths of so many. Streets filled with bodies and ash ridden streets.
This stands as one of the most emotionally draining films ever created and is technically outstanding from the powerfully moving cinematography to the softly straining score by John Williams and the towering performances.
Throne of Blood
(1957)
Kurosawa does not disappoint in this bloody adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth
21 June 2008
Kurosawa does not disappoint in this bloody adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth. The set pieces are large and exquisite as well as having large suits of armor on Taketori Washizu for large portions of the film. Washizu is the main character, Macbeth, and played brilliant by the ever energetic Toshiro Mifune. He plays the character brilliantly as he falls from his strong willed self into a man crazed with his own destiny and the prophecy of evil ghosts. Equally as good is Lady Asaji Washizu, played by Isuzu Yamada, who takes more initiative in her husband's advancement than he does at first.
The film takes a bit to get going as the main character is not even seen for the opening portion of the film, but once advancements in his position start happening it builds up speed to the bloody conclusion. It truly is a throne of blood by the end of the film.
The film takes a bit to get going as the main character is not even seen for the opening portion of the film, but once advancements in his position start happening it builds up speed to the bloody conclusion. It truly is a throne of blood by the end of the film.
A Good Old-Fashioned Adventure Film in the Vein of the Previous Films
22 May 2008
This delivers in spades what any Indiana Jones film should, a lot of action and adventure. It is not as original as the first film nor as grotesque as the second film not to mention the corniness involved in that film. I guess the third film might be an apt comparison except it does not include the normal batch of villains and includes no father figure like Sean Connery played. Instead, the new ingredient of this film and its running fuel is a much older Indy and a fun ensemble of new and old characters. Chief among the returning cast members is lovable Marion, Indy's first love in the first film Raiders. Technically, she is not the first I guess although I am not sure about the time-frame of the fiasco that happened before Raiders. Anyways, the point is that is great to have a great strong female cast member opposite Indy in this film, which adds lots of fun to the film with their fun banter.
Chief among the new cast members are Cate Blanchett as the Russian psychic foe who is every bit as tough, smart, and determined not to mention a bit thick in the head as most of Indy's previous foes. Blanchett over plays her role perfectly and makes for a fun villain who we do not mind getting the obligatory gruesome demise. On the side of the good, there is also a very big new comer in Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams a greaser at the start who morphs into something much more. He makes up some of the more agile required stunts as a student of Indy to some degree. It offers a lot more opportunity for action than in previous films as Indy does not have to do everything.
Ray Winstone in this film gets an interesting job as well as Mac, Indy's sidekick at the outset of the film, but then he morphs into somewhat of an enigma as to where his loyalties lie. He offers some of the robustness missed in Sallah's absence as well as providing some more overplayed scenes like Blanchett. In the department of old friends, Winstone is joined by John Hurt, as Professor Oxley, and Jim Broadbent, as Dean Charles Stanforth. John Hurt's role is much larger than Broadbent's as Oxley actually joins in the adventure although he is half crazed for the majority of the film muttering in a trance. It is overall a nice grouping making the film more of an ensemble piece than most of the previous Indiana Jones films, which are primarily Indiana Jones' show.
This brings up things for circle to the main character played by stalwart Harrison Ford, Dr. Henry Jones Jr. Ford is as ever perfect in the role, but he is definitely showing his age in this film with the white hair and wrinkled skin and slower movement. Therefore, it appears more as if he is passing the torch to LaBeouf through much of the film, but never feeling quite certain about letting go of his cherished pastime of being shot up and beat up by the bad guys. Going on outrageous adventures and finding outlandish and supernatural artifacts. As such, it makes for an intriguing film, as it is not know until a good way through what is the relationship and where these characters are going to end up.
The film is good old-fashioned adventure film in the vein of the previous films, but I sincerely hope this is the final film because there is a point to which you carry the legend and mythos of a character like Indiana Jones and this film carries a fine line with that legend. Even so, if you just do not want to over think the film and enjoy it with all its overblown action especially LaBeouf flying through the trees with the monkeys, you should enjoy a great thrilling adventure which is what was advertised. Although I did miss one other item, an outstanding new score to add to John Williams other memorable scores from the series including the Main Theme from Raider, The March of the Slave Children from the Temple of Doom, and the Scherzo for Motorcycle and Orchestra from the Last Crusade. I could not remember a great underlying score to this film other than the main theme motif played regularly throughout.
Chief among the new cast members are Cate Blanchett as the Russian psychic foe who is every bit as tough, smart, and determined not to mention a bit thick in the head as most of Indy's previous foes. Blanchett over plays her role perfectly and makes for a fun villain who we do not mind getting the obligatory gruesome demise. On the side of the good, there is also a very big new comer in Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams a greaser at the start who morphs into something much more. He makes up some of the more agile required stunts as a student of Indy to some degree. It offers a lot more opportunity for action than in previous films as Indy does not have to do everything.
Ray Winstone in this film gets an interesting job as well as Mac, Indy's sidekick at the outset of the film, but then he morphs into somewhat of an enigma as to where his loyalties lie. He offers some of the robustness missed in Sallah's absence as well as providing some more overplayed scenes like Blanchett. In the department of old friends, Winstone is joined by John Hurt, as Professor Oxley, and Jim Broadbent, as Dean Charles Stanforth. John Hurt's role is much larger than Broadbent's as Oxley actually joins in the adventure although he is half crazed for the majority of the film muttering in a trance. It is overall a nice grouping making the film more of an ensemble piece than most of the previous Indiana Jones films, which are primarily Indiana Jones' show.
This brings up things for circle to the main character played by stalwart Harrison Ford, Dr. Henry Jones Jr. Ford is as ever perfect in the role, but he is definitely showing his age in this film with the white hair and wrinkled skin and slower movement. Therefore, it appears more as if he is passing the torch to LaBeouf through much of the film, but never feeling quite certain about letting go of his cherished pastime of being shot up and beat up by the bad guys. Going on outrageous adventures and finding outlandish and supernatural artifacts. As such, it makes for an intriguing film, as it is not know until a good way through what is the relationship and where these characters are going to end up.
The film is good old-fashioned adventure film in the vein of the previous films, but I sincerely hope this is the final film because there is a point to which you carry the legend and mythos of a character like Indiana Jones and this film carries a fine line with that legend. Even so, if you just do not want to over think the film and enjoy it with all its overblown action especially LaBeouf flying through the trees with the monkeys, you should enjoy a great thrilling adventure which is what was advertised. Although I did miss one other item, an outstanding new score to add to John Williams other memorable scores from the series including the Main Theme from Raider, The March of the Slave Children from the Temple of Doom, and the Scherzo for Motorcycle and Orchestra from the Last Crusade. I could not remember a great underlying score to this film other than the main theme motif played regularly throughout.
A Fun But Quite Changed Version of the Story
20 May 2008
Andrew Adamson's latest adaptation of C. S. Lewis' Narnia trilogy is a fun but quite changed version of the story. The main characters are a little bit older than in the previous film and new-comer Ben Barnes is much older than his counter-part as written in the novel. Thus the dynamic of this tale is greatly different than the novel by virtue of the change of one of the main characters alone. There is more friction between Prince Caspian, Barnes' character, and High King Peter, William Moseley in slightly better portrayal this time around, as each try and lead the troops. There is also an added romance between this "dashing" looking Prince and Susan. Not so welcome changes to book purists, but they do allow for more action and perhaps the director got tired of working with kids who knows. Personally it's a change I can live with given the simplicity of the story in the novel and the flavor of the first film which was a bit too kiddish. This film is darker and does not waste time jumping into its tale which is both a plus and minus as not exposition is given for Caspian's character or his teacher which makes it appear a bit rushed. On the plus side is the action occurs much sooner.
Speaking of action though, I felt the film tried too much to incorporate action just for the sake of action with all these changes to the plot not really furthering all that much, but just adding fluff for a longer running time. On top of that some of the climax action sequences were unnecessarily slowed down at certain points for "dramatic" effect which did not add anything. They felt cheesy. Mostly I am referring to the fight between Peter and Miraz. I do not know how it could have been better, but it felt awkward. Still the action in this film overall was better than in the previous film and due in large part because of the improved sword play of the Peter and Edmund.
The story itself is nice and clean like the first film which makes for a good fantasy film with a beautiful setting. The children are back in the magical land they discovered in the first film and brought back by Caspian to help him win back his thrown for himself and the forgotten inhabitants of Narnia who have been invaded by a foreign force, humans called Telmarines. The children find Narnia once again in poor state like the first time they arrived last time, but this time they have history to call upon to their aid and again they have to learn the lesson of faith. There is also an underlying theme of mercy being good which was good.
The characters like in the book were quite colorful with the standouts being Reepicheep, the mouse who is swashbuckling bundle of courage and honor, Trumpkin, a dwarf with little faith and a bit of a pessimist but strong to the end, and, of course, Prince Caspian. Each character was pretty well fleshed out as they needed to be for this film, some for those familiar with the books will know there will be time for more expounding of character later. Aslan too makes a timely appearance leading to some of the more amazing sequences of the film as in the most visual stunning of the film.
The special effects were also nice and crisp not a very telling increase over the first film, but there seemed to be bigger set pieces with bigger effects required. Standout sequences for me included the water spirit like Triton and the trees coming to life.
All in all the film was good continuation of the series although there are a few major changes that did not sit well with me, I was pretty much pleasantly surprised on the whole with the enjoy ability factor of the film. And it did have a nice story with a good message as expected from a C. S. Lewis novel adaptation no matter how watered down it becomes. The children have improved from the first film and the action was more intense as well leading for an all around good experience, but the film fails to top the predecessor in story values and strength so in all I would say it achieved a nice success out of one of the weaker and shorter books of the series.
Speaking of action though, I felt the film tried too much to incorporate action just for the sake of action with all these changes to the plot not really furthering all that much, but just adding fluff for a longer running time. On top of that some of the climax action sequences were unnecessarily slowed down at certain points for "dramatic" effect which did not add anything. They felt cheesy. Mostly I am referring to the fight between Peter and Miraz. I do not know how it could have been better, but it felt awkward. Still the action in this film overall was better than in the previous film and due in large part because of the improved sword play of the Peter and Edmund.
The story itself is nice and clean like the first film which makes for a good fantasy film with a beautiful setting. The children are back in the magical land they discovered in the first film and brought back by Caspian to help him win back his thrown for himself and the forgotten inhabitants of Narnia who have been invaded by a foreign force, humans called Telmarines. The children find Narnia once again in poor state like the first time they arrived last time, but this time they have history to call upon to their aid and again they have to learn the lesson of faith. There is also an underlying theme of mercy being good which was good.
The characters like in the book were quite colorful with the standouts being Reepicheep, the mouse who is swashbuckling bundle of courage and honor, Trumpkin, a dwarf with little faith and a bit of a pessimist but strong to the end, and, of course, Prince Caspian. Each character was pretty well fleshed out as they needed to be for this film, some for those familiar with the books will know there will be time for more expounding of character later. Aslan too makes a timely appearance leading to some of the more amazing sequences of the film as in the most visual stunning of the film.
The special effects were also nice and crisp not a very telling increase over the first film, but there seemed to be bigger set pieces with bigger effects required. Standout sequences for me included the water spirit like Triton and the trees coming to life.
All in all the film was good continuation of the series although there are a few major changes that did not sit well with me, I was pretty much pleasantly surprised on the whole with the enjoy ability factor of the film. And it did have a nice story with a good message as expected from a C. S. Lewis novel adaptation no matter how watered down it becomes. The children have improved from the first film and the action was more intense as well leading for an all around good experience, but the film fails to top the predecessor in story values and strength so in all I would say it achieved a nice success out of one of the weaker and shorter books of the series.
Predator
(1987)
An Adrenaline Pumped and Testorerone Driven Action Film
10 May 2008
Arnold Schwarzenegger is Dutch, the ultimate soldier, and Kevin Peter Hall is the Predator, the ultimate hunter species in the universe. This film is the result of these two fighting machines meeting up in the middle of the dense jungle of Central America. It is adrenaline pumped and full of testosterone driven action and simple characters. I mean that in a good way. There is not much doubt about the plot. It is a simple mission of extraction for the government with the usual red tape of it being something else, but what makes the film unique is the addition of the curve ball of the alien being who is invisible and slowly stalking and picking off each of the highly advanced commando unit.
It is here that the film has it's greatest strength as Arnold, at the peak of physical prowess goes up against the biggest and among the ugliest aliens you have seen. To have to highly powerful characters go at it fantastic for the film as it gets the most action as possible out of these two large hunters. The Predator relies on stealth for the majority of the film which give it the advantage for the ¾ of the film, but when Arnold is on his own and figures out the Predators weakness the roles are reversed for a bit of the ¼ part of the film where the playing field is evened.
John McTiernan does a great job balancing the views as he creates some suspense for the first half by not showing the creature itself but his silhouette in the jungle foliage behind its cloak of invisibility. He even shows quite a few shots from the point of view of the Predator who seemingly only sees in infrared which gets even worse when he takes off his mask toward the end.
The film is an action packed thrill ride, which has plenty of action and plenty of one liners from the ever marble mouthed Arnold who can say the line, "Get to the chopper!" like no other. None of the sequels can match this film for its action or even storyline as Predator 2 has a weaker hero and seemingly weaker Predator.
It is here that the film has it's greatest strength as Arnold, at the peak of physical prowess goes up against the biggest and among the ugliest aliens you have seen. To have to highly powerful characters go at it fantastic for the film as it gets the most action as possible out of these two large hunters. The Predator relies on stealth for the majority of the film which give it the advantage for the ¾ of the film, but when Arnold is on his own and figures out the Predators weakness the roles are reversed for a bit of the ¼ part of the film where the playing field is evened.
John McTiernan does a great job balancing the views as he creates some suspense for the first half by not showing the creature itself but his silhouette in the jungle foliage behind its cloak of invisibility. He even shows quite a few shots from the point of view of the Predator who seemingly only sees in infrared which gets even worse when he takes off his mask toward the end.
The film is an action packed thrill ride, which has plenty of action and plenty of one liners from the ever marble mouthed Arnold who can say the line, "Get to the chopper!" like no other. None of the sequels can match this film for its action or even storyline as Predator 2 has a weaker hero and seemingly weaker Predator.
The Incredibles
(2004)
Fantastic Animated Family of Supers
9 May 2008
Pixar managed to lead the pack of 3D animated films early and each of their films I found to be quite original and fun, but this infusion of superheroes with their incredible talent for tweaking stories ever so well has remained my far and away favorite. This is how in my mind the great Fantastic Four should have been transferred to the screen instead of the shallow film we got awhile back. The Incredibles deals with family issues and quarreling in a way that gets through to both adults and children it is wonderful. Being a student of animation myself I found this film to be an incredible achievement with its ability to use human like forms and animate them so well. Brad Bird who not only directed this, but provided the incredibly hilarious voice for Edna Mode created a wonderful family of supers that we can love and feel for their rather different problems. It was also wonderful to here that jazzy smooth score by Michael Giacchino.
Speed Racer
(2008)
Nothing to it but fun filled mindless adventure with a clear-cut value scale
9 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
All these colors, racing across the screen and pervading into my retinas, it is almost the equivalent of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey except without the classical music and the ambiguous plot. The Wachowski Brothers, creators of the visually stunning Matrix film and the equally as slick V for Vendetta action / terrorist fest give the audience a shower of colors in this adaptation of the famed cartoon. Everything is quite simple, that is never in question and anyone going in for a complex story is sorely mislead. This is a tongue and cheek homage of sorts to the corny animated cartoon series. Go in for an enjoyable ride of slick racing action and dazzling effects and very bright colors and you will not be very disappointed as the film delivers several excitement-filled races, which are never in question.
That is the whole thing of going in watching this, go for the fun of it not some deep story with complex villains. It is clear-cut even from the design what is good, what is bad, and the musical cues are dead give a-ways. Emil Hirsch plays the one-minded hero of the film Speed Racer and does a nice straight arrow job of it in contrast to his great performance in Into the Wild where he plays a free spirit. Here he plays the loyal and justice driven son. On the other side of the spectrum is Roger Allam who plays nefarious Royalton who is the big company owner who would sell his soul to keep winning and fixing the big races of the film. These two especially Allam ham up their scenes along the corny dialog to display their divergent natures Allam as the definition of evil and Hirsch as the innocent and driven hero, but that is completely all right given the material. I did not go in expecting a serious film, but fun filled corny adventure.
The films most attractive feature, of course, is the extremely saturated coloring, which gives a very surreal nature to the film and makes everything blur in a rainbow effect. This works especially well as reality and imagination are blended throughout the film. It makes the film feel corny and outrageous through and through which never leaves in doubt the tone meant for the film. So my advice for those who would go see this highly enjoyable flick is leave your analytical mind behind because there is not much to this tale. Nothing to it but fun filled mindless adventure with a clear-cut value scale.
That is the whole thing of going in watching this, go for the fun of it not some deep story with complex villains. It is clear-cut even from the design what is good, what is bad, and the musical cues are dead give a-ways. Emil Hirsch plays the one-minded hero of the film Speed Racer and does a nice straight arrow job of it in contrast to his great performance in Into the Wild where he plays a free spirit. Here he plays the loyal and justice driven son. On the other side of the spectrum is Roger Allam who plays nefarious Royalton who is the big company owner who would sell his soul to keep winning and fixing the big races of the film. These two especially Allam ham up their scenes along the corny dialog to display their divergent natures Allam as the definition of evil and Hirsch as the innocent and driven hero, but that is completely all right given the material. I did not go in expecting a serious film, but fun filled corny adventure.
The films most attractive feature, of course, is the extremely saturated coloring, which gives a very surreal nature to the film and makes everything blur in a rainbow effect. This works especially well as reality and imagination are blended throughout the film. It makes the film feel corny and outrageous through and through which never leaves in doubt the tone meant for the film. So my advice for those who would go see this highly enjoyable flick is leave your analytical mind behind because there is not much to this tale. Nothing to it but fun filled mindless adventure with a clear-cut value scale.
Paths of Glory
(1957)
Despite 51 Years This Film Stills Holds Up
2 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
War films are a Hollywood staple starting somewhere back when All Quiet on the Western front gained prominence for being a great adaptation of the famed novel by Erich Maria Remarque. This 1957 film continued that great tradition with another look at the insanity aroused by war. In this instance it explores the insanity that can be aroused within an armies own ranks and the blind obsessions and principles of some individuals. Kubrick is never one for pulling punches in his films and with a classic star at his disposal in Kirk Douglas; he goes for the jugular of the issue. The humanity of the issue and corruptness, but the great aspect of the film is that it never loses site of the fact that everyone can make mistakes and that humanity of everyone in the army is necessary.
The backdrop of this film is based in fact. A certain General George Broulard, played with his usual air by Adolphe Menjou, comes to another commanding officer whom he manipulates into ordering a suicide run on the enemies' position. General Paul Mireau, played with a particularly hateful attitude by George Macready, then carries down the orders to his brilliant Colonel Dax, Kirk Douglas. Mireau in turns forces Dax to ready his men for the insane attack run. This is the setting, what follows of course is the utter failure of the attack and the anger of the superiors especially Mireau. Mireau wants to kill some hundred troops as an example of the men's cowardice, because during the attack he sees about roughly half of Dax's troops refusing to advance out of the trenches.
The film's strength is not in the message so much as the human face Kubrick gives the soldiers zeroing first on a moment of true cowardice committed by Lieutenant Roget. The Lieutenant is ordered to go on a reconnaissance mission the night before the attack by Dax, and, whether out of fear of going into No Man's Land or just a bad drinking problem, he gets drunk before going out with two of his men. As the trio goes out, he makes rash decisions, splitting up the party and fleeing at the first signs of trouble in the process letting fly a grenade that kills one of his men. The other man on the mission stays behind to see this and makes it back alive. This seemingly smaller story inside the big story is key though I think because it shows the humanity of the issue. What gives the commanding General up in his safe booth the authority to call his men cowards? He cannot possibly have a feel for the issues of the moment as Colonel Dax does in seeing his men bottled up in the trenches because they will be slaughtered upon going over the top.
The last third of the film is devoted to the court-martial of three of Dax's men over the issue of cowardice because Dax has managed through his form weight of being a premier lawyer to get the Generals to agree to settle for just three men's life at steak instead of the hundred originally discussed to show an example. The three men in question are either chosen by the commanding officers by random of because they are generally in disfavor as is Corporal Philippe Paris, the man who witnessed Roget's cowardice. Each falls apart as the date of their never in question execution approaches.
I will not reveal much more about the plot and the ending, but I will say that this film stands as a stellar war film dealing with great issues of warfare and the horrors it creates. The performances are gripping and the story gives a fair tone to the whole issue although as is usual of a Kubrick film the protagonist is generally in opposition to the authority throughout the film a effort that Kirk Douglas does with his usual ferocity, nobody can quite getting as seemingly hot tempered as Douglas. He is a yeller of extraordinary talent. Despite being roughly 51 years old this film still holds up quite well with great cinematography work and art direction.
The backdrop of this film is based in fact. A certain General George Broulard, played with his usual air by Adolphe Menjou, comes to another commanding officer whom he manipulates into ordering a suicide run on the enemies' position. General Paul Mireau, played with a particularly hateful attitude by George Macready, then carries down the orders to his brilliant Colonel Dax, Kirk Douglas. Mireau in turns forces Dax to ready his men for the insane attack run. This is the setting, what follows of course is the utter failure of the attack and the anger of the superiors especially Mireau. Mireau wants to kill some hundred troops as an example of the men's cowardice, because during the attack he sees about roughly half of Dax's troops refusing to advance out of the trenches.
The film's strength is not in the message so much as the human face Kubrick gives the soldiers zeroing first on a moment of true cowardice committed by Lieutenant Roget. The Lieutenant is ordered to go on a reconnaissance mission the night before the attack by Dax, and, whether out of fear of going into No Man's Land or just a bad drinking problem, he gets drunk before going out with two of his men. As the trio goes out, he makes rash decisions, splitting up the party and fleeing at the first signs of trouble in the process letting fly a grenade that kills one of his men. The other man on the mission stays behind to see this and makes it back alive. This seemingly smaller story inside the big story is key though I think because it shows the humanity of the issue. What gives the commanding General up in his safe booth the authority to call his men cowards? He cannot possibly have a feel for the issues of the moment as Colonel Dax does in seeing his men bottled up in the trenches because they will be slaughtered upon going over the top.
The last third of the film is devoted to the court-martial of three of Dax's men over the issue of cowardice because Dax has managed through his form weight of being a premier lawyer to get the Generals to agree to settle for just three men's life at steak instead of the hundred originally discussed to show an example. The three men in question are either chosen by the commanding officers by random of because they are generally in disfavor as is Corporal Philippe Paris, the man who witnessed Roget's cowardice. Each falls apart as the date of their never in question execution approaches.
I will not reveal much more about the plot and the ending, but I will say that this film stands as a stellar war film dealing with great issues of warfare and the horrors it creates. The performances are gripping and the story gives a fair tone to the whole issue although as is usual of a Kubrick film the protagonist is generally in opposition to the authority throughout the film a effort that Kirk Douglas does with his usual ferocity, nobody can quite getting as seemingly hot tempered as Douglas. He is a yeller of extraordinary talent. Despite being roughly 51 years old this film still holds up quite well with great cinematography work and art direction.
Iron Man
(2008)
Great Kick Off to the Summer Lineup
1 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Playboy rich superheroes are in, officially. First the Dark Knight makes a splash with Batman Begins taking superheroes dark and non-super dare I venture and now we have Marvel's version which is much splashier and glamorous. Tony Stark is Iron Man and Robert Downey Jr. is both with ease and flare.
The updating of the character for Iron Man comic enthusiasts works quite well as it keeps the original gray, large, and bulky design. As well, the filmmakers threw in as much of the Marvel lore of the character as they could from SHIELD to Jarvis, not the butler but a slight variation given flare by the voice of the wonderful Paul Bettany. For those interested in more nods check out the final scene at the end of the credits.
Robert Downey Jr. is the king of the show though despite the ultra-cool and slick looking Iron Man suit and all the effects around it. He grabs hold of the spoiled rich boy persona and exudes confidence and silver tongue as the CEO of Stark Enterprises. He is a genius as well as a patriot of sorts or rather he becomes a patriot through the events of the film. His character's complexity is in the fact that despite his well-meaning attitude, the attitude, which comes across to the public, is kind one of an attention-seeking star. It is an allure of the character, but also a defect as it is hard to believe he is doing this for selfless reasons. Downey portrays all this quite well making for a well-rounded blockbuster central character.
A strong group of characters and actors surrounds Tony Stark / Robert Downey Jr. One of the top amongst them being his secretary Mrs. Pepper Potts played with charm and some sass by Gwyneth Paltrow. She is obviously the heart of Stark, his closest link to humanity up on his pedestal. Along with Potts are Jim Rhodes, and Obadiah Stane, of business relation and the only other human strings Stark has, a family of sorts for the young genius. Terrence Howard and Jeff Bridges play each respective character and offer the friendship side of Stark.
Spoiler Alert Along with being, the father figure of sorts Obadiah Stane gets to play a more complex angle. He gets to play the close to the heart villain much as Ducard was in Batman Begins. He doubles to fill to voids and does so quite adequately if a bit heavy handily. The Iraq War is a dated but timely affair to trace the hero to, but it works. The villain of course is one dimensional, but that is all right for an escape film like this with far bigger than life characters.
In all the film is great kick off to the summer lineup and the best Marvel has to offer since Spider-Man 2 in 2004. The effects are pristine and the action raw and fun as well the humor is generally on target. It is safe to say this is the best fun I have had in the theater all year.
The updating of the character for Iron Man comic enthusiasts works quite well as it keeps the original gray, large, and bulky design. As well, the filmmakers threw in as much of the Marvel lore of the character as they could from SHIELD to Jarvis, not the butler but a slight variation given flare by the voice of the wonderful Paul Bettany. For those interested in more nods check out the final scene at the end of the credits.
Robert Downey Jr. is the king of the show though despite the ultra-cool and slick looking Iron Man suit and all the effects around it. He grabs hold of the spoiled rich boy persona and exudes confidence and silver tongue as the CEO of Stark Enterprises. He is a genius as well as a patriot of sorts or rather he becomes a patriot through the events of the film. His character's complexity is in the fact that despite his well-meaning attitude, the attitude, which comes across to the public, is kind one of an attention-seeking star. It is an allure of the character, but also a defect as it is hard to believe he is doing this for selfless reasons. Downey portrays all this quite well making for a well-rounded blockbuster central character.
A strong group of characters and actors surrounds Tony Stark / Robert Downey Jr. One of the top amongst them being his secretary Mrs. Pepper Potts played with charm and some sass by Gwyneth Paltrow. She is obviously the heart of Stark, his closest link to humanity up on his pedestal. Along with Potts are Jim Rhodes, and Obadiah Stane, of business relation and the only other human strings Stark has, a family of sorts for the young genius. Terrence Howard and Jeff Bridges play each respective character and offer the friendship side of Stark.
Spoiler Alert Along with being, the father figure of sorts Obadiah Stane gets to play a more complex angle. He gets to play the close to the heart villain much as Ducard was in Batman Begins. He doubles to fill to voids and does so quite adequately if a bit heavy handily. The Iraq War is a dated but timely affair to trace the hero to, but it works. The villain of course is one dimensional, but that is all right for an escape film like this with far bigger than life characters.
In all the film is great kick off to the summer lineup and the best Marvel has to offer since Spider-Man 2 in 2004. The effects are pristine and the action raw and fun as well the humor is generally on target. It is safe to say this is the best fun I have had in the theater all year.
Gone Baby Gone
(2007)
Surprisingly Great Moral Story
24 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, just wow
I did not expect Ben Affleck to be such a potent film director. His acting was just mediocre at best for me so I avoided this because of that, a little biased on that count. Nevertheless, he proved me very wrong. He crafts a fascinating tale of a detective hired to find a missing child whose mother is a cokehead. It seems a bit offish at first why he would take this job, but the pleas of the sister are quite convincing. With the whole police force looking it looks like he is not needed, but as it turns out he is the key to it all. Things are not what they appear at all and that slowly becomes apparent despite best intentions. What drew me in so well to this film was the main character played brilliantly by Casey Affleck. He is soft-spoken, but seemingly confident and yet humanly afraid. His sense of right and wrong is what I liked most though. It was such a sincere performance. Add to that a great story full of gray areas through which this character has climb and it stands as one of the best of the year.
Spoiler Alert: What struck me as so great was that it not only unraveled like a very good mystery, but all that it was hauntingly real bringing back all these news reports of missing children and the tragic endings to those tales. In fact, he becomes involved in a similar spin-off tale with a tragically killed child, which eventually leads to the unraveling of the original case. It would not have been possible without his moral compass as it were, which would not let it rest. Moreover, it was the rightness of the ending and the heartbreaking reality of who gets to choose that makes this such a great film to me. He does the right thing and yet loses practically everything from his partner to the money, but it feels so right and he knows it.
Great film
Spoiler Alert: What struck me as so great was that it not only unraveled like a very good mystery, but all that it was hauntingly real bringing back all these news reports of missing children and the tragic endings to those tales. In fact, he becomes involved in a similar spin-off tale with a tragically killed child, which eventually leads to the unraveling of the original case. It would not have been possible without his moral compass as it were, which would not let it rest. Moreover, it was the rightness of the ending and the heartbreaking reality of who gets to choose that makes this such a great film to me. He does the right thing and yet loses practically everything from his partner to the money, but it feels so right and he knows it.
Great film
Incredibly Moving Biography
12 February 2008
Normally you hear the premise of a film like this and you think, "No way could this film keep my attention. It is about a man, parallelized from head to toe minus his eyes and then its one eye at that, his left eye. How could this be moving and powerful outside of focusing on the people around this man?" How wrong that thinking is for this film. The filmmaker transports the viewer into the eye of this man, into his thoughts, his three working tools: his eye, which for the most part acts as the view for close to 90% of the film, his imagination, which is free to run rampant and do what he cannot, and his memories, which offer some solace and regret. The actors are very good in this film, but second to the incredible visualization, which carries this film.
His left eye is point of view for majority of the beginning film. It is here where the cinematographer gets to be the actor, of sorts. He blinks to let the people outside this man know what he is thinking. Working in unison with that is the man's thoughts, which the actor narrates, offering another mirror into this man who captures the heart of the viewer by the way he copes with his situation and the very human frustration in his voice. I believe the point of view elevates this film and makes it so powerful to watch.
The imagination is also a strong player offering the escape from the frustration of the reality. As the man, Jean-Dominique Bauby, explains he is free with his imagination to do anything, be anywhere, experience anything, etc This outlet also offers a vision of what Jean Do believes his situation to be like a diving bell, which parallels his emotions. He is a diver stuck in an inside a steel suit in the middle of the water, lost unable to communicate. But in his dreams, his imagination, he can get up walk and dance, eat, etc The final tool, which he utilizes, is his memories, which are filled both with great memories of happiness and regret. The happy memories are those that he remembers of having no regret. Loving scenes like the one shown where he shaves the stubble of his 92-year-old father, played heartbreakingly by Max Von Sydow. The regret-filled ones are sad full of unfilled promise.
In the end the culmination of all these tools, make for quite a ride with a great blending of images. I would have to consideration among the best if not the best film of 2007 as well as being one of the few films that has practically moved me to tears.
His left eye is point of view for majority of the beginning film. It is here where the cinematographer gets to be the actor, of sorts. He blinks to let the people outside this man know what he is thinking. Working in unison with that is the man's thoughts, which the actor narrates, offering another mirror into this man who captures the heart of the viewer by the way he copes with his situation and the very human frustration in his voice. I believe the point of view elevates this film and makes it so powerful to watch.
The imagination is also a strong player offering the escape from the frustration of the reality. As the man, Jean-Dominique Bauby, explains he is free with his imagination to do anything, be anywhere, experience anything, etc This outlet also offers a vision of what Jean Do believes his situation to be like a diving bell, which parallels his emotions. He is a diver stuck in an inside a steel suit in the middle of the water, lost unable to communicate. But in his dreams, his imagination, he can get up walk and dance, eat, etc The final tool, which he utilizes, is his memories, which are filled both with great memories of happiness and regret. The happy memories are those that he remembers of having no regret. Loving scenes like the one shown where he shaves the stubble of his 92-year-old father, played heartbreakingly by Max Von Sydow. The regret-filled ones are sad full of unfilled promise.
In the end the culmination of all these tools, make for quite a ride with a great blending of images. I would have to consideration among the best if not the best film of 2007 as well as being one of the few films that has practically moved me to tears.
In Bruges
(2008)
Redemption and Regret
10 February 2008
The trailer for this film would suggest fair like 2007's Shoot 'Em blood bath with a bit dark sense of humor. Instead, this film is totally different. No fast killing starts off this film, but a bit of profanity and a strangely tortured main character named Ray, who is supposedly a hit man. Things do not become crystal clear until about midway and then things take off crescendos to a slam-bang finish full of blood, but that is not what makes the film. What makes the film is its bitingly sharp sense of black humor where characters are mean to those around them trying to get away from their own problems. I never thought I would come away impressed by a Colin Farrell film, but this film made me immensely mirthful and laugh hard than I have for a while over this winter season of films. It is sad, but has a nice message packaged inside, which takes its time to get to the surface.
Atonement
(2007)
Beautifully Sad
26 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Joe Wright has master eye for the camera. He seems to like to tell the story by having characters in the most beautiful settings he can imagine or create. Atonement is no different and, in fact, I might say a trifle more beautiful and much sadder than his previous work in Pride & Prejudice. While not among my top tier film masterpieces of the year this comes quite close with its great story design and strong performances. And in a year full of sad films it does not quite the punch of the films with the message, but rather just sticks to the tale and tells is exquisitely. This is a tale of misunderstanding and of course, atonement.
The tale begins of a little girl, Briony, played fantastically by Saoirse Ronan, who is typing a play up and is quite excited about it. Things do not go so well though when she wants to see the play done. Circumstances are bad for the visiting children and she has to make sacrifices, but then she gets a doozy of an idea when she misconstrues a situation from a far of her sister and the gardener. More errors are made on both sides further along as she jumps to conclusions with a creative mind, the gardener writes and sends the wrong letter, and of course, Briony can resist a read when she is entrusted with it. The sins and misinterpretations of one day and one night have devastating repercussions with jail being the least of worries when war comes.
I will point out one of my few quirks about the situation here. I do not get why the pair did not just talk over the situation with Briony when she saw them in the library. It just made it that much more muddled. Sure Briony did the telling and jumped to the conclusion, but they offered her no explanation and she was young impressionable and the other cousin agreed to the lie.
Well anyways, besides my reservations about how the situation arose and where the blame was cast, I became enthralled in how Wright broached the war and the incredible makeup that was used in the hospital scenes. That was quite a spectacle and made one shudder a bit without being harsh. He did much the same with the Dunkirk sequence, which was disgusting in the horror of the situation and beautiful with how the camera moved across it all. For a guy who I heard does not like period pieces, Wright is a natural nay a master at it.
The tale begins of a little girl, Briony, played fantastically by Saoirse Ronan, who is typing a play up and is quite excited about it. Things do not go so well though when she wants to see the play done. Circumstances are bad for the visiting children and she has to make sacrifices, but then she gets a doozy of an idea when she misconstrues a situation from a far of her sister and the gardener. More errors are made on both sides further along as she jumps to conclusions with a creative mind, the gardener writes and sends the wrong letter, and of course, Briony can resist a read when she is entrusted with it. The sins and misinterpretations of one day and one night have devastating repercussions with jail being the least of worries when war comes.
I will point out one of my few quirks about the situation here. I do not get why the pair did not just talk over the situation with Briony when she saw them in the library. It just made it that much more muddled. Sure Briony did the telling and jumped to the conclusion, but they offered her no explanation and she was young impressionable and the other cousin agreed to the lie.
Well anyways, besides my reservations about how the situation arose and where the blame was cast, I became enthralled in how Wright broached the war and the incredible makeup that was used in the hospital scenes. That was quite a spectacle and made one shudder a bit without being harsh. He did much the same with the Dunkirk sequence, which was disgusting in the horror of the situation and beautiful with how the camera moved across it all. For a guy who I heard does not like period pieces, Wright is a natural nay a master at it.
There Will Be Blood
(2007)
An Angry Film With Strength
23 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Are you an angry man, Henry?...Are you envious? Do you get envious?...I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people
There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone
I see the worst in people. I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I want to rule and never, ever explain myself. I've built my hatreds up over the years, little by little, Henry... to have you here gives me a second breath. I can't keep doing this on my own with these... people." The film is a saga of just this, a man attempting to get away from it all. It is dark and bloody brilliant for it. I had my doubts early in the film when the sound appeared off from film rising to a finale that was not there. Actually, it was more foreboding than off, but it felt different. Nevertheless, it kept that throughout driving a deliberate pace, which built and built throughout making many expected and many non-expected turns and twists. I have never seen a Paul Thomas Anderson film until now, but this film is a great masterpiece to add to the films already out falling in line with No Country for Old Men and Zodiac for dark themes and moods.
The first and strongest aspect of the film is the central performer, Daniel Day Lewis who plays a charismatic "oil" man named Daniel Plainview. He speaks those words at the top in confidence to his brother, Henry. He believes his jealously and beliefs are ingrained in his whole family and, therefore, must reside in his brother as well. Well things in that respect are flawed, but it just goes further to prove Daniel's angry man complex. He can never truly be at peace. In addition, he finds a perfect enemy in the town "minister" Eli Sunday, played with fervor by Paul Dano, who is made of the same stuff. Into this mix is added the beloved "son" of Daniel, H W, who appears to be innocent, but cannot be truly, so with such a mentor/father as Daniel who will do whatever it takes to succeed to get away from everyone.
These are just the keys players, the films is further helped by a brilliant symphonic soundtrack constructed by Johnny Greenwood, which invokes classical pieces, as well as, more "primitive" sounds. I use primitive to refer to the native sound of it all, almost what could be called, a minimal sounding chorus at times with a single drum or strain carrying in the background. I think it helps to reach the savageness of the main characters and their ever growing jealously and anger.
It is hard to talk about the film without revealing twists, which help to add to the greatness of the film, but I will leave it at that to suffice to say that this is great addition to the strong group of masterpieces that I have watched this past year.
The first and strongest aspect of the film is the central performer, Daniel Day Lewis who plays a charismatic "oil" man named Daniel Plainview. He speaks those words at the top in confidence to his brother, Henry. He believes his jealously and beliefs are ingrained in his whole family and, therefore, must reside in his brother as well. Well things in that respect are flawed, but it just goes further to prove Daniel's angry man complex. He can never truly be at peace. In addition, he finds a perfect enemy in the town "minister" Eli Sunday, played with fervor by Paul Dano, who is made of the same stuff. Into this mix is added the beloved "son" of Daniel, H W, who appears to be innocent, but cannot be truly, so with such a mentor/father as Daniel who will do whatever it takes to succeed to get away from everyone.
These are just the keys players, the films is further helped by a brilliant symphonic soundtrack constructed by Johnny Greenwood, which invokes classical pieces, as well as, more "primitive" sounds. I use primitive to refer to the native sound of it all, almost what could be called, a minimal sounding chorus at times with a single drum or strain carrying in the background. I think it helps to reach the savageness of the main characters and their ever growing jealously and anger.
It is hard to talk about the film without revealing twists, which help to add to the greatness of the film, but I will leave it at that to suffice to say that this is great addition to the strong group of masterpieces that I have watched this past year.
Juno
(2007)
Quirky, Humorous and Tad Risqué
5 January 2008
Quirky, humorous although a bit touchy, dramatic, and a bit risqué with it subject matter this film walks a fine line between a being a distasteful teen comedy and smart comedy with a strong center of drama based around family and relationships. I will admit the beginning was a bit off humor wise, but stick through that rough patch and it will draw you in with an especially strong outing by young Miss Page. She is the core of the film without her slightly off beat sense of humor and strong will the film would probably fall off track. The surrounding cast is finely cast with Leah, Juno's friend being a bit more teenagerish than Juno, offering a funny sidekick and J. K. Simmons having a strong base as the rather rough around the edges father who ultimately cares about his daughter no matter what. Really the film did disappoint a bit from the hype, but that was to be expected. It had an off beat sense of humor which made for some great laughs and some strong drama moments making for a good balance, but nothing astounding. If there is anything to be loved about this it is Page's shining performance.
I Am Legend
(2007)
Emtional, but Flawed Sci-Fi
21 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Will Smith is a charismatic actor whose career has spanned a lot of sci-fi films from Men in Black a sci-fi action comedy to I, Robot to Independence Day, his breakout film. But this latest film by him is a bit daring with him being a man against the world, or rather alone against the world. It could be compare to being a Cast Away, but in deserted city instead of a island with only a dog and manikins as company. As a drama this film flourishes with Smith taking on all the deep emotional trauma of trying to stay sane in a silent world with only his own voice to keep him sane. But as a science fiction film it is hampered by jumps of logic which do not quite click.
The story is that the world has been infected by a virus. A virus originally designed to cure cancer which it seemingly did to begin with. But everything went wrong. It seems the doctors forgot to read the fine print. The one that reads side effects may include rabid behavior, a lust for blood, aversion to sunlight, etc Well I guess in any good zombie movie they do not see it coming although these zombies seem to be more like a mixture of zombie and vampire. Anyways, this virus not only turned people into these horrid creatures, but also killed a great portion of the world's population and the rest that were not killed by the air born virus died from the being torn up by the dark seekers, as the people in the film call the creatures infected with the virus. Anyways, it is three years after these events rock the world that we find Robert Neville, Will Smith, working tirelessly to find a cure as well as stay alive in a New York City over run with dark seekers.
It is here that the storyline thrives by focusing on Neville and his struggle to hold onto his humanity. He treats his dog, which has not been infected but can be, like his child. In a few touching scenes, he prepares dinner for the dog and tells him to eat the vegetables which of course the dog does not. He also sets up a video store with manikins to simulate a familiar environment for himself. He talks to some of them familiar and others like the female ones with a bit tentativeness as he would to woo a girl.
The film is full of action as well after good deal of development which gives it a strong base before actually meeting these fearsome dark seekers in the pitch blackness of a building. I do not want to reveal too much about the sequence, but it will get you on the edge of your seat.
I have talked a good deal about the pluses of this film and I am a bit loathed to tear it down, but the effects are split in this film with half being great and half being so-so. The great being the effects for the overgrown city which has been slowly overgrown by vegetation and wild beast with deer flocking through the city and other more fearsome beasts. The so-so effects are on the dark seekers who can easily be distinguished as computer generated.
Other flaws in the storyline also bring down the film on account of the slightly unbelievable turn toward the end and the intelligence of the dark seekers themselves which do not really make all that much sense. Still though, the film is headed by a strong performance from Will Smith which helps bring this film above average and gives it a strong emotional edge.
The story is that the world has been infected by a virus. A virus originally designed to cure cancer which it seemingly did to begin with. But everything went wrong. It seems the doctors forgot to read the fine print. The one that reads side effects may include rabid behavior, a lust for blood, aversion to sunlight, etc Well I guess in any good zombie movie they do not see it coming although these zombies seem to be more like a mixture of zombie and vampire. Anyways, this virus not only turned people into these horrid creatures, but also killed a great portion of the world's population and the rest that were not killed by the air born virus died from the being torn up by the dark seekers, as the people in the film call the creatures infected with the virus. Anyways, it is three years after these events rock the world that we find Robert Neville, Will Smith, working tirelessly to find a cure as well as stay alive in a New York City over run with dark seekers.
It is here that the storyline thrives by focusing on Neville and his struggle to hold onto his humanity. He treats his dog, which has not been infected but can be, like his child. In a few touching scenes, he prepares dinner for the dog and tells him to eat the vegetables which of course the dog does not. He also sets up a video store with manikins to simulate a familiar environment for himself. He talks to some of them familiar and others like the female ones with a bit tentativeness as he would to woo a girl.
The film is full of action as well after good deal of development which gives it a strong base before actually meeting these fearsome dark seekers in the pitch blackness of a building. I do not want to reveal too much about the sequence, but it will get you on the edge of your seat.
I have talked a good deal about the pluses of this film and I am a bit loathed to tear it down, but the effects are split in this film with half being great and half being so-so. The great being the effects for the overgrown city which has been slowly overgrown by vegetation and wild beast with deer flocking through the city and other more fearsome beasts. The so-so effects are on the dark seekers who can easily be distinguished as computer generated.
Other flaws in the storyline also bring down the film on account of the slightly unbelievable turn toward the end and the intelligence of the dark seekers themselves which do not really make all that much sense. Still though, the film is headed by a strong performance from Will Smith which helps bring this film above average and gives it a strong emotional edge.
The Golden Compass
(2007)
Disappointing, Yet Enjoyable
2 December 2007
I went in with mixed feelings, hearing that this was a controversial film with veiled themes from the novel being feared by the Church and such. I went because it looked to be the most fantasy fun "cold" film of the Christmas Season. I was disappointed. It was a variety of things but mostly the over hyping by the ads which compare it to Lord of the Rings which is just not smart considering it isn't very epic like at all. It is under 2 hours which to start off a supposed deep trilogy was quite disappointing with not enough setup being allowed and the film feeling a quick movie action film with short scenes of development and a lot of action. It was just confusing and unsatisfying in that sense. Nothing made all that much even on later thought of trying to put stuff together. Most of all I would have to say the ending left a lot to be desired as it felt like it was leaving too much undone.
The story revolves around a little girl, Lyra, whose relationship to another key figure is still quite murky at the end with so many questions flying, but she seems to be set to be in the middle of action managing to sneak into places where she should not. She also seems having a bunch of hidden guardians. Many points of the story do not make much sense. It seems the filmmakers were going from the child's perspective hinting at stuff that does not make sense. We left like the child Lyra with the pieces still far off and unlike Lyra with little understanding of this world. I guess that partly works, but it was not satisfying as I felt not enough was explained to let myself be able to let go enough to get into the story properly. It was the lack of development that really frustrated me, quick explanations by a narrator at the beginning is not quite enough to help us understand what exactly is going on. Everything becomes muddled and makes one question the structure of the film.
I will say a few positive things for the film though. The young actress playing Lyra was quite convincing and strong one of the best child performances I have seen since probably Pan's Labyrinth, but that is not enough to save the film for me with the story being as it is. The other point is the special effects specifically the polar bears who are quite ferocious and have one of the best and clearest story lines of the whole film. That was very strong point of the film and made it quite enjoyable.
Overall the film is disappointing and yet enjoyable as it offers good action and a few strong performances and effects, but at the cost of a strong overall film with an unsatisfactory conclusion and poor development. Kids will probably enjoy it and you can too, but just do not try to make too much sense of it all. If the sequel is indeed made maybe it will help, but this is not as strong of a foundation as I think they were going for.
The story revolves around a little girl, Lyra, whose relationship to another key figure is still quite murky at the end with so many questions flying, but she seems to be set to be in the middle of action managing to sneak into places where she should not. She also seems having a bunch of hidden guardians. Many points of the story do not make much sense. It seems the filmmakers were going from the child's perspective hinting at stuff that does not make sense. We left like the child Lyra with the pieces still far off and unlike Lyra with little understanding of this world. I guess that partly works, but it was not satisfying as I felt not enough was explained to let myself be able to let go enough to get into the story properly. It was the lack of development that really frustrated me, quick explanations by a narrator at the beginning is not quite enough to help us understand what exactly is going on. Everything becomes muddled and makes one question the structure of the film.
I will say a few positive things for the film though. The young actress playing Lyra was quite convincing and strong one of the best child performances I have seen since probably Pan's Labyrinth, but that is not enough to save the film for me with the story being as it is. The other point is the special effects specifically the polar bears who are quite ferocious and have one of the best and clearest story lines of the whole film. That was very strong point of the film and made it quite enjoyable.
Overall the film is disappointing and yet enjoyable as it offers good action and a few strong performances and effects, but at the cost of a strong overall film with an unsatisfactory conclusion and poor development. Kids will probably enjoy it and you can too, but just do not try to make too much sense of it all. If the sequel is indeed made maybe it will help, but this is not as strong of a foundation as I think they were going for.
Jaws
(1975)
Arguably Spielberg's Best Film
22 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Arguably Spielberg's best film. Peter Benchley's bubblegum story makes a perfect film. A shark stakes out Amity Island as its feeding grounds and is practically served up a smorgasborg as the town's people don't want to compromise their business to get this killing machine.
Spielberg may not have meant to make this film so suspenseful, by not showing the audience the shark until midway through, but it works perfectly for this film. John William's score does an excellent job of adding to that suspense or maybe the score makes the suspense whatever the case it works perfectly.
The greatest feature of this film is the great acting and chemistry between the leads, Richard Dreyfuss (Hooper), Roy Schneider (Chief Brody), and Robert Shaw (Quint). The constant bickering between them when they are cooped up on that boat together is great. The shark scenes are certainly great, but the complementary of this great cast is the factor that makes this film so excellent.
Spielberg may not have meant to make this film so suspenseful, by not showing the audience the shark until midway through, but it works perfectly for this film. John William's score does an excellent job of adding to that suspense or maybe the score makes the suspense whatever the case it works perfectly.
The greatest feature of this film is the great acting and chemistry between the leads, Richard Dreyfuss (Hooper), Roy Schneider (Chief Brody), and Robert Shaw (Quint). The constant bickering between them when they are cooped up on that boat together is great. The shark scenes are certainly great, but the complementary of this great cast is the factor that makes this film so excellent.
No Country for Old Men
(2007)
"You don't have to do this."
16 November 2007
"You don't have to do this," repeated words in this lingering film, which really does not feel like a typical Coen Brothers film to me. Fargo, had its quirky character and its grotesque moments, but this film is all about a subdued natured intermixed with quick action. For what I expected, I got some of it, but also a bit more of a subdued air and timing than I expected. It would do things in spurts, action at the beginning then a lull and more thunder. It worked great for keeping one on edge, which Brolin did, excellently in the lead role lying awake thinking too hard. Jones too was good in a strong supporting role as a close to retirement sheriff who is on the outside shaking his head at the carnage and mayhem unleashed by the simple finding and taking of a satchel full of money.
The real gem and glue of the film though is Javier Bardem's menacing character who has his own brand of justice, which is extremely harsh and well insane. Even the one who claims to know him cannot even begin to stop or even slow him down. Bardem whom I have not had the pleasure of seeing in anything before is gold and like no other before looks to have the supporting actor award locked up in this performance. His presence is felt, even when he does not show up. That is something I have not seen in film well since probably The Third Man and Orson Welles' character Harry Lime.
I cannot really describe the film that well so I will suffice to say that is best modern western tale I have seen since The Three Burials of Melquiades, which also happened to have Tommy Lee Jones and was directed by him to boot. Another thing I noted was the lack of strong score. The filmmakers just seemed to let the sounds of the creaking boots and the desert landscape speak for the film. It felt natural and a bit menacing.
The real gem and glue of the film though is Javier Bardem's menacing character who has his own brand of justice, which is extremely harsh and well insane. Even the one who claims to know him cannot even begin to stop or even slow him down. Bardem whom I have not had the pleasure of seeing in anything before is gold and like no other before looks to have the supporting actor award locked up in this performance. His presence is felt, even when he does not show up. That is something I have not seen in film well since probably The Third Man and Orson Welles' character Harry Lime.
I cannot really describe the film that well so I will suffice to say that is best modern western tale I have seen since The Three Burials of Melquiades, which also happened to have Tommy Lee Jones and was directed by him to boot. Another thing I noted was the lack of strong score. The filmmakers just seemed to let the sounds of the creaking boots and the desert landscape speak for the film. It felt natural and a bit menacing.
Tombstone
(1993)
Kilmer's Show
7 November 2007
No question I think this is easily Val Kilmer's best role to date. He has all the best lines, the best swagger, and steals every scene he can get his mug in. It's a shame he wasn't nominated the year this came out, but then again some say the western has been dead for years. I beg to differ although this one does go on a bit too long and has a bit of an awkward romance between Wyatt Earp and Josephine. But I will have to say the fantastic cast makes up quite a bit and Kilmer commands it in the right direction along with Russell who through his weight around as the lead. Best line: "I'm your huckleberry..." or "You're a daisy if you do!" Hard to call so many great one liners from Doc Holiday Kilmer.
Tell Your Friends