I'm conflicted on this one. In some ways, this is a very good movie and in some ways it is not a good movie. It is very well acted. It is almost a given that Gyllenhall is going to give a superior performance. He's one of Hollywood's best. The rest of the cast is quite good too except for Russell Peters. Fortunately, his part is very small. The one that really surprised me though was Jeffrey Wright. His performance of a socially awkward scientific genius was, well, genius.
The story line is also a very good one. It's sort of a Groundhog Day meets Quantum Leap type of thing. The problem is that they do not let the audience in on any of the secrets to the program until halfway through the movie (I checked my watch because it was that confusing for that long). All of Gyllenhall's behaviour is explained eventually. But it drags on a little too long to hold the viewer's interest.
The continuity is also very full of holes. With a movie like this, I'm willing to give the film makers a bit of slack because the whole thing is quite unrealistic. But, given the parameters of the source code program set out by the Rutledge character, what happens to the characters is outside of the realm of their own reality. If you do watch it, that sentence should make sense. (I always try to give as full a review as possible without spoiling the movie.) That poor continuity leads to the ending. I won't give it away but I will say that it is a cop out that does not fit with the theme of the rest of the film.
The bottom line is that this film is very well acted but that's about it. It is a shallow movie that tries to find some depth and is not able to do so. Don't bother seeing it.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Hanna Review
I pretty much got what I expected with this one. There are no real surprises. I'll start with the negatives because there are less of those. First, they use some shaky camera work when it isn't necessary. I hate shaky camera work because it just makes it hard to watch the movie without adding any value. Second, Cate Blanchett should be ashamed of herself. Everyone else gives a terrific performance in this movie and she goes and does the worst American accent I've ever heard. Her performance is just that bad.
Everything else about this movie is good. It uses humour when it is needed to lighten the mood. While it isn't the fastest moving thriller, it doesn't get bogged down into any moral issues. And with this subject, there was a lot of potential for that. It's a simple story about a special girl who is trying to figure out who she is. It is a movie that seems to have had a bi-polar director. But that's a good thing. During the action/thriller portions, it is quite dark and frantic and well done for that. It kind of reminded me of a cross between Resident Evil and Run, Lola, Run. But when it has to slow down to focus on Hanna's transition (or regression) to innocence, it becomes quite light. So the film does a really good job of directing the viewer's emotions to what it wants.
The bottom line is you should see this movie. It is more than just a thriller or an action movie. It has some depth and makes you think a little too.
Everything else about this movie is good. It uses humour when it is needed to lighten the mood. While it isn't the fastest moving thriller, it doesn't get bogged down into any moral issues. And with this subject, there was a lot of potential for that. It's a simple story about a special girl who is trying to figure out who she is. It is a movie that seems to have had a bi-polar director. But that's a good thing. During the action/thriller portions, it is quite dark and frantic and well done for that. It kind of reminded me of a cross between Resident Evil and Run, Lola, Run. But when it has to slow down to focus on Hanna's transition (or regression) to innocence, it becomes quite light. So the film does a really good job of directing the viewer's emotions to what it wants.
The bottom line is you should see this movie. It is more than just a thriller or an action movie. It has some depth and makes you think a little too.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Salt Review
I pretty much got what I expected. The good things about this movie is that it moves very fast like an action thriller should. The action is cool and they do a very good job creating tension with the music. There are, however, two irreparable problems with the film.
First, I cannot believe Angelina Jolie as a spy. Uber sexy grave robber, yes. Incestuous mother of Alexander the Great, yes. Computer animated succubus, yes. But her look is too distinct to be an action thriller spy. She's one of those actors that is always more than the role and, as a result, the film tends to suffer in its credibility. She's great in the more comic book like stuff. But she detracts from a movie like this.
Second, the movie is just too confusing. We're supposed to spend our time wondering what side she's really on. But, the suspense and twists are just too confusing to hold the viewer's attention. By the time anything is resolved, the viewer just doesn't care anymore.
Don't bother seeing it. Better films in the same vein are the Bourne movies and Taken.
First, I cannot believe Angelina Jolie as a spy. Uber sexy grave robber, yes. Incestuous mother of Alexander the Great, yes. Computer animated succubus, yes. But her look is too distinct to be an action thriller spy. She's one of those actors that is always more than the role and, as a result, the film tends to suffer in its credibility. She's great in the more comic book like stuff. But she detracts from a movie like this.
Second, the movie is just too confusing. We're supposed to spend our time wondering what side she's really on. But, the suspense and twists are just too confusing to hold the viewer's attention. By the time anything is resolved, the viewer just doesn't care anymore.
Don't bother seeing it. Better films in the same vein are the Bourne movies and Taken.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Red Riding Hood Review
I really hate it when movies are set in days of yore yet the bare chested young men are still able to get their hands on the latest hair styling products. That sums up this movie. It is flat out ridiculous. It was like I was watching a live action version of a bad romance novel cover. It really has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And it's really sad because the premise for turning the classic fairy tale into a horror/thriller is a really good idea. With today's special effects and movie standards, it had so much it could have been. But instead, they decided to try and make it like Twilight. It was billed as a horror/thriller. It is neither.
On the technical standpoint, it is still a very, very bad movie. The acting was horrendous. Not that the actors had much of a script to work with in the first place. Gary Oldman's performance was so bad that I actually got the feeling he was contractually obligated to do the movie but phoned it in out of spite. Besides that, there are so many plot holes that it makes the whole story unbelievable even in it's own reality. In a story like this, the audience has to suspend belief and let the fantasy unfold. But there just seemed to be no logic to anything. For example, rather than go rooting through everyone's stuff to find out who is the wolf, why don't they just make everyone step onto the church grounds? The wolf cannot set foot on holy ground. And take your damn helmet off if you're going to shoot a crossbow at a wolf! No wonder you can't hit anything. I could go on and on but this post would get too long. So, you get the idea.
The verdict: (surprise, surprise) DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! The only time it should be watched is if you're with a bunch of smart ass buddies and you can make fun of it while you're watching it. In fact, I wish I had watched it in Karl's basement with Darren, Jason, Robin and Dave. The jokes we came up with would have made it slightly more bearable.
On the technical standpoint, it is still a very, very bad movie. The acting was horrendous. Not that the actors had much of a script to work with in the first place. Gary Oldman's performance was so bad that I actually got the feeling he was contractually obligated to do the movie but phoned it in out of spite. Besides that, there are so many plot holes that it makes the whole story unbelievable even in it's own reality. In a story like this, the audience has to suspend belief and let the fantasy unfold. But there just seemed to be no logic to anything. For example, rather than go rooting through everyone's stuff to find out who is the wolf, why don't they just make everyone step onto the church grounds? The wolf cannot set foot on holy ground. And take your damn helmet off if you're going to shoot a crossbow at a wolf! No wonder you can't hit anything. I could go on and on but this post would get too long. So, you get the idea.
The verdict: (surprise, surprise) DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! The only time it should be watched is if you're with a bunch of smart ass buddies and you can make fun of it while you're watching it. In fact, I wish I had watched it in Karl's basement with Darren, Jason, Robin and Dave. The jokes we came up with would have made it slightly more bearable.
Centurion Review
As a big fan of ancient Roman history, I had to watch this movie. However, there are some inaccuracies that I just cannot get past. First, it starts by saying it is set in 117 AD. But they show the building of Hadrian's Wall. Construction on the wall began in 122 AD. This error is just plain sloppiness and could have been avoided with two different keystrokes on a computer. Second, the Roman soldiers slash too much with their swords in hand to hand combat. The gladius sword was short and used to thrust in hand to hand combat. Sure, there would be some necessary slashing but not as much as this movie depicts. Third, any general that wore a purple cloak would have been seen as a usurper by the Emperor and likely done away with. (Maybe this is why the ninth legion was sent to certain death.)
Anyways, enough of the history lesson. Let's get down to the movie. I really like the way it was shot. The scenery is breathtaking and the cinematography is very solid. I also like that it was brutally graphic. I believe it accurately portrays how nasty battle was back then. The plot line and story for Centurion is also quite good. There is a lot of speculation as to the fate of the Ninth Legion and destruction at the hands of the Picts seems like a plausible explanation. In this, it's almost a prequel to the Eagle. It really is the beginning of that story. The problem is that I had to rely on my own research to find that out. It should have been explained at the start. The average movie goer would not know the history behind it.
Speaking of the Eagle, Centurion is better. It takes the concept of a historical drama and makes it seem very realistic without going Hollywood with the non-convincing pretty boy flavour of the month in the lead role. It also doesn't have the dumbed down cheesiness of the Eagle in its writing. I give credit to the fact that it is an English made movie. When the English make a historical movie, it tends to be more credible and believable than American ones.
On the down side of Centurion, it kind of grinds to a halt in the middle. The beginning sets you up for what you think is going to be something akin to Gladiator. But it just doesn't get there. Then, it gets good again with about twenty minutes left. The bottom line is that, at the end, I was glad to have watched it.
So, I'd say see it. But keep in mind that I would likely give that recommendation to anything that deals with ancient Rome. I am an aficionado. Be aware that it is very graphic and never gets as philosophical as it tries to. But it is decent and worth a look if you come across it.
Anyways, enough of the history lesson. Let's get down to the movie. I really like the way it was shot. The scenery is breathtaking and the cinematography is very solid. I also like that it was brutally graphic. I believe it accurately portrays how nasty battle was back then. The plot line and story for Centurion is also quite good. There is a lot of speculation as to the fate of the Ninth Legion and destruction at the hands of the Picts seems like a plausible explanation. In this, it's almost a prequel to the Eagle. It really is the beginning of that story. The problem is that I had to rely on my own research to find that out. It should have been explained at the start. The average movie goer would not know the history behind it.
Speaking of the Eagle, Centurion is better. It takes the concept of a historical drama and makes it seem very realistic without going Hollywood with the non-convincing pretty boy flavour of the month in the lead role. It also doesn't have the dumbed down cheesiness of the Eagle in its writing. I give credit to the fact that it is an English made movie. When the English make a historical movie, it tends to be more credible and believable than American ones.
On the down side of Centurion, it kind of grinds to a halt in the middle. The beginning sets you up for what you think is going to be something akin to Gladiator. But it just doesn't get there. Then, it gets good again with about twenty minutes left. The bottom line is that, at the end, I was glad to have watched it.
So, I'd say see it. But keep in mind that I would likely give that recommendation to anything that deals with ancient Rome. I am an aficionado. Be aware that it is very graphic and never gets as philosophical as it tries to. But it is decent and worth a look if you come across it.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Gnomeo and Juliet Review
A great adaptation of the Shakespeare play. This movie is fun from start to finish. It's got very clever jokes and a really good modified Elton John soundtrack. Lately, I've felt that the animated kids movie has suffered in the fact that they are having a hard time making them so adults will be entertained as well. This does not suffer from that. It's got all the cute little gags that kids will love and plenty of the higher end comedy that adults enjoy too. I particularly liked all of the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) references to other Shakespeare works.
But what really struck me as excellent about this movie was the amount of detail in the art. Animation has come a long way and there always has to be a lot of work done in anything now to make people like it. The amount of detail in these gnomes really raises the bar. The dirt, scratches and even paint flaws were very meticulous and made them look almost real.
See it. It's a great way to have fun and lift your spirits if you need that.
But what really struck me as excellent about this movie was the amount of detail in the art. Animation has come a long way and there always has to be a lot of work done in anything now to make people like it. The amount of detail in these gnomes really raises the bar. The dirt, scratches and even paint flaws were very meticulous and made them look almost real.
See it. It's a great way to have fun and lift your spirits if you need that.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
The Dilemma Review
I wanted to see this movie because of four words: Kevin James Jennifer Connelly. But two words kept me from going to see it for so long: Queen Latifah. Sadly, neither Connelly nor James is actually on screen long enough for me. Fortunately, Latifah only has three (albeit very difficult to watch) scenes. She's just not good.
The problem with this movie is that they tried to rely on one hook for almost all of the humour. And that's Vaughn's ranting. Let's face it. That can still be humorous in moderation. But it cannot save or make a comedy anymore. It's just been done to death too much. It's very much like Will Ferrell's "Ron Burgudyesque" antics.; always trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. So, for this movie, they took a premise that had a lot of potential with a great cast making up the two couples and completely wasted it by focusing too much on Vaughn's rants. He's a good actor. But to keep making him do that in the quantities they do reminds me of the way show business ruined Chris Farley by wanting to see nothing but "Fatty Fall Down."
Don't get me wrong. There are a few funny moments. James cold-cocking Vaughn was good. As was the interaction between Tatum and Vaughn. But other than that, this movie just doesn't have it. Although they did find the perfect role for Channing Tatum: Pretty Boy Douchebag Number One.
Don't bother seeing it. It pains me to say that because Kevin James is in it. But that is the verdict nonetheless.
The problem with this movie is that they tried to rely on one hook for almost all of the humour. And that's Vaughn's ranting. Let's face it. That can still be humorous in moderation. But it cannot save or make a comedy anymore. It's just been done to death too much. It's very much like Will Ferrell's "Ron Burgudyesque" antics.; always trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. So, for this movie, they took a premise that had a lot of potential with a great cast making up the two couples and completely wasted it by focusing too much on Vaughn's rants. He's a good actor. But to keep making him do that in the quantities they do reminds me of the way show business ruined Chris Farley by wanting to see nothing but "Fatty Fall Down."
Don't get me wrong. There are a few funny moments. James cold-cocking Vaughn was good. As was the interaction between Tatum and Vaughn. But other than that, this movie just doesn't have it. Although they did find the perfect role for Channing Tatum: Pretty Boy Douchebag Number One.
Don't bother seeing it. It pains me to say that because Kevin James is in it. But that is the verdict nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)