leglevy Reviews

The Rhythm Section (2020)

Excellent, realistic spy thriller

[9/10 · 5 April 2021]

Go watch it now. It's the real deal. Measured, deep storyline with bone-crunchingly real action.

Blake Lively does a great job portraying a damaged person who happens to learn enough tradecraft to avenge her family. A real person, not a super-spy.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Fun set pieces in a movie that loves to swim in circles

[6/10 · 12 July 2006]

Pirates II is a fun summer movie. It has its share of laughs, romance and convincing CGI. It's a charming piece, a charming Pirate movie.

Sadly, the lines above are about the only good points about this unnecessary sequel. It seems the rush to bring it to theaters resulted in a 150 min "preview-from-hell" that, although amusing at times, gets repetitive and incomprehensible very early in the game.

It's very clear that there's no real storyline. All we get is another dumb McGuffin device (whoa, a BOX) and a collection of set pieces that barely relate to each other. There's no sense of purpose, no notion of continuity or consequence. Like a David Lynch pic - in a bad way.

Gore Verbinski is a very talented guy. If Pirates is even watchable, that is a testament to his skill as a director. It looks and sounds amazing; Verbinki always picks the best shots. We can see he was trying very hard to turn this mess into a great movie. Kudos for him.

Surprisingly enough, this time Depp was way off in his Keith Richards impersonation. Of course it's funny but soon enough we get bored of Orlando Bloom (aka "the hero") and eventually expect more from Jack Sparrow. We never get it. He seems uncomfortable having to repeat the same old tricks in the sequel. As for the rest of the cast, they do the best they can but there's no escaping a poorly written script.

In the end, Pirates II is just another example of a franchise gone bad, much like The Matrix Reloaded before it. Today we know that the only reason Reloaded made so much money was that it had the momentum of the first one, not that the Wachowski brothers had found some new and improved way of hypnotizing an audience. I bet the third one will not do as well.

So, for those brave enough, go see it and enjoy the special effects in a big screen with good Dolby or DTS sound. It's worth 10 dollars - and you might even have some laughs added as a bonus. However, expect nothing else or disappointment will ensue.

Don't Tell (2005)

Five episodes of (bad) soap-opera crammed into 2 hours of film

[4/10 · 27 February 2006]

OK, let me talk some sense about this movie:

1. This is Italian Drama at its worst 2. There are three different movies crammed into one 3. The narrative cues are typical of soap operas

There, I said it. And I know what I'm talking about since I'm from Brazil and we know all about soap operas.

This is not a great film, period. Put that in your head, Foreign Film judges.

It might have been a good episode (if heavily edited) of prime time TV, but it will NEVER be Oscar material.

First, let me digress about the script. As many of you will see, it's a mess from start to finish. The main topic (abuse / incest) has to share time with a struggling TV director and a some thoughts on lesbianism AND blindness at the same time. Can you guys see the SCOPE of all that? How are we supposed to follow all these very intense plot lines and still care for the main theme?

Well, the answer is simple. We can't. Soon the audience gets divided over plot lines and the main one never recovers. Since this is a scripting problem - mainly from the adaptation from a book, I'm sure - this would already be a major con for a serious drama.

Then we go to acting. The husband gives us the "theater speech" but all we see on screen is an impersonation of a caring husband. He never goes above TV level - just like what they are supposedly mocking. As for the main actress, she is good but her character soon loses steam and she has to rely on pre-fabricated "moments" to emote on. After a while, it gets plain boring.

We never get a feel for the lesbian/blind girl either. She is no more than a mental construct, a "moral in a person" that manages to shine in a couple moments and nothing more. A wasted character, I might say.

The older woman. She appears from nowhere, turns lesbian, says she's straight then proceeds to kiss the blind girl and disappears again.

I have to mention the music. All the cues come straight from a horror picture, making the horrific abuse almost funny. Less strings would be nice. Actually, less music in general would help the movie a lot.

Finally, the directing works really well sometimes. The movie has moments of greatness, of true emotion. It's unfortunate that it is so irregular - whole sequences are destroyed by badly selected shots and artificial mis-en-scene. Again, it gets funny when it shouldn't and many important plot points fall flat. This seems to be the work of a novice director, someone still getting to know the tools of the trade.

It could be so much better. 30 minutes less, it would be a competent drama. This is watchable for the most part - 70 minutes or so, I'd say - but gets irritating and over-extended close to the third act. As always, great intentions don't make a movie great.

I'll end this review saying that I'm stupefied over the Oscar nomination. I still can't put my mind around it and will have nightmares tonight, I bet.

Eight Below (2006)

"Eight Below" defies Disneyfication and becomes a great picture in the process

[8/10 · 14 February 2006]

The Disneyfication that plagues many of Disney's story-lines is never to be seen in this exciting and heart-warming picture. It looks real, it feels real. It even managed to scare the hell out of me.

Maybe "Eight Below" is a great movie because of the experienced hands of Frank Marshall. After all, the former second-unit director was responsible for memorable efforts in the past, like "Arachnophobia" and "Alive". He may not be showy (in that disgusting Michael Bay way) but Marshall sure seems to know what he's doing.

My second pick goes for the screenwriter, a "noob" out of Disney's own writers boot camp. He brings freshness to the storytelling, enough character development (more to that later) and a sense of grandeur and danger that really make the movie. It's a solid, if minimalist, piece of work.

A third element is the animatronics, by Stan Winston and some choice CGI. I could spot the CGI (seal sequence, cracks in the ice) but none of the animatronics / models. His work is simply flawless and adds to the big picture in a most effective way. As for the CGI, it's OK for most of the time.

The only downside to this entertaining and truly riveting movie are the acting and character development. There, I said it. By acting, people should infer "human acting" since the dogs involved are absolutely adorable and steal the show every single time. Heck, maybe the human acting is not as satisfying BECAUSE of the dogs!

This is by far one of the better acting jobs of Paul Walker but he still seems limited for me. It's kind of sad, really; he has chances to display real emotion but all we get are facial gymnastics that don't convey much. I won't say it's a bad performance but it sure looks and sounds underwhelming.

Jason Biggs plays the comedic element and succeeds. Enough said. As for Bruce Greenwood, who played his character with honesty and heart, there's not much to say. I liked it, we can see the arc, it totally works.

Finally, the newcomer female lead (Moon Bloodgood) is OK but not much else. She barely carries the role, making it believable at least. However, I failed to get anything deeper from her despite liking the character.

Yeah, the movie is lacking proper character development but this may be because of the focus on the dogs. It's not a big problem per se but it keeps it from achieving the echelons of the genre.

Everyone should see this movie on a BIG SCREEN. The antarctic landscapes practically demand a nice movie theater. Also, male and female audiences alike should be able the enjoy this very much - specially the dog lovers, who probably will have to race home afterwards to hug their pets.

I never though I would say that (not since "The Lion King, anyway) but... WELL DONE, Disney!

Freedomland (2006)

Overblown drama/thriller that goes nowhere

[3/10 · 6 February 2006]

Caught an advance screening a week ago, the same one attended by the other reviewer.

It's a sad day when a movie is made with its sights set on an Oscar award AND box office at the same time. For me, the mere intent can undermine a good idea - what to say of a bad one? That's what happens in this botched and overblown attempt at a drama/thriller (some may say a cross between a 70's racial drama and "The Forgotten" - on speed). IT IS a bad idea from the start - everyone in Hollywood knows the trouble that is adapting a lengthy book to the screen. But when you couple that with Oscar aspirations - for acting, I suppose - you have a recipe for disaster.

The basic story line is that of a single mom that gets car-jacked while lost in a public park and then proceeds to tell the police (after much "emotion") that her son is still in the car with the criminal. Pretty much what all thrillers are about, right? Well, everything is kosher except that she is white and the park where it all took place happens to be right in the middle of a poor, black neighborhood.

As the viewer would have guessed, the main topics here are the racial conflict - "violent" white cops versus "angry" black mob - and the desperate search for the kid.

As director and screenwriter tried to keep every single thread present in the book, things eventually get extremely confusing. We never get a feel for the characters or a sense of fulfillment. Many of the threads feel incomplete and others seem like mere sketches that went along for the ride.

More so, Joe Roth's directing style is frenetic and restless. I'd say he could do a great action flick, but here so much movement ends up wasted and actually annoys the viewer.

Finally, to keep this short, the acting goes from OK to histrionic. I truly feel sorry for Julianne Moore - she is a great actress trapped in a recycled role. Samuel Jackson is another casualty; his talent is wasted on another empty character, an amalgam that doesn't work despite his visible effort. Many dislike the score, but I did enjoy it for some obscure reason.

Well, as you guys can see, "Freedomland" is a disappointment and I would highly recommend a DVD screening for this one since it is my personal belief that we should see a little bit of everything in a protected environment.

The Punisher (2004)

Not too faithful adaptation, but watchable

[6/10 · 3 March 2005]

The Punisher was one of those movies that just seems BAD the moment they premiere. I'm still not sure if the problem were the previews, the early reviews or the buzz, but something kept me away from it. Spider sense, maybe?

It's a very simple revenge story. Good guy kills bad guy's son, bad guy kills good guy's whole family, good (?) guy kills everyone else. In a way, it's The Punisher, but it also isn't. It has all the elements from the recipe, but something very subtle is still missing.

I'd say the direction is uninspired to say the least. It's not gritty nor very exciting. In fact, there's ONE really amazing sequence in the whole movie - the one with the Russian guy. All the rest is pretty bland. The creative team never REALLY makes use of the whole mythos or even the equipment. The car is totally underused, a mortal sin in this kind of movie.

The one good thing about this one is the script. Some inspired dialogue shines sometimes, giving the impression that a better director could pull it off. The writing is not top notch, but it manages to convey a pretty good sense of realism and pain.

This is one to be seen on DVD and with no expectations. I ended up liking it, but I'm still not sure if it's worth 2 hours of my time.