I recently went to two movies in the same weekend.
First was Hail, Caesar!
This Cohen Bros. movie was clearly a one off for these renown movie makers. We are familiar with the duo's quirky and violent offerings such as Fargo and No Country for Old Men. Great movies with a real dark streak that could leave some movie goers unsettled. Even their less violent movies like the Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona had a stark edge that never quite tread in the campy satyrism of Hail, Caesar!
Hail, Caesar! stars George Clooney and Josh Brolin as the headliners, but it is chalk full of star power. Brolin plays Eddie Mannix, the stereotypical Hollywood fixer for the legendary studio Capitol Pictures in the 1950s, Mannix cleans up and solves problems for big names and stars in the industry all in the name of protecting the image of the studio. When studio star Baird Whitlock (Clooney) disappears, he has to deal with more than just the reputation of the studio's main star and the biggest picture of the year.
The rest of the cast from Ralph Fiennes, Scarlett Johansson, Jonah Hill and Alden Ehrenreich to Channing Tatum round out a fabulous lineup of real acting talent.
While the movie pokes fun for our benefit at the studio system, its dirty secrets and over the top personality types it delves into a topic that Hollywood almost never dares. The conflict and tension requisite in all good flicks was a communist conspiracy to take over the movie business. This alone deserves praise for the Cohen Bros. What was once denied vehemently in Hollywood and later proven to be true is still basically a taboo subject.
The movie's subplot was Mannix's own inner turmoil around his desire for a regular life with his adoring wife and children and his love of the job - and the studio.
There is a lot to like about the movie. The acting is very good, straight up. The charged reverence for the golden years of the studio system and the campy but charming send offs of the flicks of the era make it eminently enjoyable to watch. Even the thought provoking fecklessness of the communist sympathizers was compelling and funny. However, all in all the movie wasn't really satisfying. Josh Brolin's Eddie Mannix just wasn't enough to latch onto - should have been, but wasn't.
3 of 5 stars
Risen
Going in I had no preconceived notions of what this movie was going to be. It was my son who really pulled me along - not necessarily a hard sell since I've always been interested in the life and times of Jesus Christ.
The opening scene was a truly fantastic battle between the resident conquering Romans and the insurrectionists of first century Judea. The leader of the Roman legion was Pontius Pilate's Tribune known as Clavius (played by Joseph Fiennes). Just when you think the Judean rebels have caught the Romans flatfooted and driven them back Clavius orders his men into a clever maneuver that destroys the rebels in short order.
When Clavius returns to Jerusalem Pilate (played by Peter Firth) orders him to tend to the crucifixion of a troublesome Jew. The Pharisees had demanded the body of the rebel Jesus be quietly removed to prevent his followers stealing the body and claim he had risen - a claim Jesus himself had made before his death.
Clavius instead gives the body to Joseph of Arimathea a wealthy man who has Jesus buried in the family tomb. Pilate orders Clavius to post guards at the entrance of the tomb for three days to appease the Pharisees. Three days later the body was gone and thus starts a mystery that takes Clavius to places he could have never imagined.
I found Joseph Fiennes acting to be first rate. Even at the beginning of the movie when you know he is an evil Roman terrorizing the Judeans, over seeing the daily crucifixions, you find yourself liking him. He has the easy manner of a professional just doing his job, pining for a quiet retirement on a ranch in the hills.
When Pilate allows him to conduct an investigation into the missing corpse the movie starts to resemble a contemporary process crime drama. Until, that is, Clavius finds Jesus and is dumbstruck by what his lyin' eyes are telling him. A stunned Clavius allows the Disciples and Jesus to escape the Roman legion tasked with finding them.
Clavius set out following the Disciples to the Sea of Galilee. Eventually he is welcomed into the group as they search for the risen Jesus. There is some touching and even funny moments as this fierce Roman Tribune is reduced to a star struck kid. It's no spoiler to say they find Jesus on the shores of Galilee. The persona of Jesus was well acted by Cliff Curtis and doesn't betray the character you'd expect or the Gospels you know. You cannot help but like him immensely.
I thought it was a very satisfying movie - primarily due to the intimacy the audience gets to with Clavius. It seemed like a fairly short 1 hour and 47 minutes, left me wanting more.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Showing posts with label Movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Monday, January 18, 2016
The Revenant
Too many logical inconsistencies to overlook. Sorry.
The Revenant is a masterpiece of grand wilderness adventure film making. Hardly a minute goes by without an awesome vista of spectacular scenery juxtaposed against immense and courageous human struggle. So how could I be so underwhelmed by this movie?
It's a movie about simple revenge... Revenge dominates the plot as well as the subplot. The major story is about trapper and frontier guide Mr. Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is bent on avenging the death of his son. The minor plot finds an old Indian looking to put the hurt on the those who stole his daughter. It takes place sometime around the post Revolutionary war era in the Rocky Mountains where American and French fur traders overlapped.
As mentioned the cinematography is spectacular, the opening scene and especially the grizzly attack was extreme and frightening. There are many other scenes that definitely stir our humanity and make us marvel at the perseverance and endurance of the human mind, body and soul. Honestly most modern men would have curled up and died - myself included.
However, after a half an hour I was bored by the whole thing. The rest of the time I was yearning for a satisfying conclusion. That didn't happen, at least not for me. I was completely unmoved by the final scene and left me thinking: that's it? Mr. Fitzgerald - the antagonist, is such a low life scuzzball you hardly feel anything for him but mild contempt. I had zero emotion after all that struggle. Honestly I've felt more stirring in me after a totally predictable Hallmark Channel movie.
Along the way there were so many logical inconsistencies I could not simply overlook. Muzzle loading flint-lock guns cannot be fired in repeating rapid fire succession. When one plunges into a mountain river and rides the rapids in the dead of winter it's hard to believe hypothermia wouldn't prevent gathering wood and making a fire, yet Glass does all this and much, much more without ever donning a pair of gloves on his hands - I can hardly turn the key in my car in sub-zero temps without gloves. We see Glass walking, or rather stumbling across a vast treeless glacier in which the director makes a point of showing us how desolate and lifeless it was with a wide panoramic shot. In the next scene we see Glass in an ice cave with a burning fire - where did the wood come from? In another scene Glass finds his friend, a kind Pawnee Indian hanging from a tree a hundred yards from his camp where a fire burns near a lean-to shelter that apparently the executioners never saw???
I'm glad the movie is getting the critical acclaim it richly deserves on the film making and acting fronts. The director, cinematographer and DiCaprio all deserve Oscar considerations. Still, I was unmoved and bored much of the time. A movie like this should have drawn me in and made me feel something. The realism certainly made me cringe several times but it wasn't an emotional response at all. Not all movies make you feel, some are just good time spectacles - but this story should have made an emotional impact and it didn't.
3 of 5 stars
CW
The Revenant is a masterpiece of grand wilderness adventure film making. Hardly a minute goes by without an awesome vista of spectacular scenery juxtaposed against immense and courageous human struggle. So how could I be so underwhelmed by this movie?
It's a movie about simple revenge... Revenge dominates the plot as well as the subplot. The major story is about trapper and frontier guide Mr. Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is bent on avenging the death of his son. The minor plot finds an old Indian looking to put the hurt on the those who stole his daughter. It takes place sometime around the post Revolutionary war era in the Rocky Mountains where American and French fur traders overlapped.As mentioned the cinematography is spectacular, the opening scene and especially the grizzly attack was extreme and frightening. There are many other scenes that definitely stir our humanity and make us marvel at the perseverance and endurance of the human mind, body and soul. Honestly most modern men would have curled up and died - myself included.
However, after a half an hour I was bored by the whole thing. The rest of the time I was yearning for a satisfying conclusion. That didn't happen, at least not for me. I was completely unmoved by the final scene and left me thinking: that's it? Mr. Fitzgerald - the antagonist, is such a low life scuzzball you hardly feel anything for him but mild contempt. I had zero emotion after all that struggle. Honestly I've felt more stirring in me after a totally predictable Hallmark Channel movie.
Along the way there were so many logical inconsistencies I could not simply overlook. Muzzle loading flint-lock guns cannot be fired in repeating rapid fire succession. When one plunges into a mountain river and rides the rapids in the dead of winter it's hard to believe hypothermia wouldn't prevent gathering wood and making a fire, yet Glass does all this and much, much more without ever donning a pair of gloves on his hands - I can hardly turn the key in my car in sub-zero temps without gloves. We see Glass walking, or rather stumbling across a vast treeless glacier in which the director makes a point of showing us how desolate and lifeless it was with a wide panoramic shot. In the next scene we see Glass in an ice cave with a burning fire - where did the wood come from? In another scene Glass finds his friend, a kind Pawnee Indian hanging from a tree a hundred yards from his camp where a fire burns near a lean-to shelter that apparently the executioners never saw???
I'm glad the movie is getting the critical acclaim it richly deserves on the film making and acting fronts. The director, cinematographer and DiCaprio all deserve Oscar considerations. Still, I was unmoved and bored much of the time. A movie like this should have drawn me in and made me feel something. The realism certainly made me cringe several times but it wasn't an emotional response at all. Not all movies make you feel, some are just good time spectacles - but this story should have made an emotional impact and it didn't.
3 of 5 stars
CW
Monday, January 11, 2016
Joy
I went to see Joy for two reasons - Jennifer Lawrence and Jennifer Lawrence with Bradley Cooper. I think Lawrence is a great actress. She's a chameleon, she's able to pour herself into any role and make you believe. That's what a great movie actor does. In the movies she's starred with Bradley Cooper she has been marvelous. He is always good.Her performance in Silver Linings Playbook was only exceeded by her extreme character in American Hustle. Her other work in major pictures like X-Men and the Hunger Games has also been very good. Considering she's really only been in the majors since 2011 she's accomplished quite a lot. Bradley Cooper, well - he is always good.
That brings us to "Joy". Right off I will say it's not in the same league with Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle. That does not mean it's not good at all. The story just isn't strong or possibly the pacing is a little off.
There was the requisite conflict and tension, but it never felt like the stakes were that high. I guess I found her relationship with her ex-husband to be so ridiculous that it bothered me. The character played by Di Nero was so derivative of all his work that it was also not in the least enhancing to the story in my opinion. If once Di Nero played his part with a different attitude it would be so astonishing I'd put him up for an Oscar myself.
It's a story of a woman who had a tinkerer's brain but found herself mugged by a life she could never get ahead of - the story of a lot of us, right - and how she finally rose above it. I assumed it was based on a true story, at least it really seemed that way. Joy 'invents' the self-wringing mop and by some minor miracle gets it on QVC home shopping TV.
I mentioned pacing earlier, I think that's what kept me from getting roped in and really feeling this movie. The very best parts of the movie were the scenes where Cooper and Lawrence were together, and there were too few of them. There was no guy gets the girl in the end, which may be a horrible cliche, but you almost longed for something to give the movie a heart.
The conclusion of the movie was probably the most unsettling, it was like the director said "ok guys let's wrap it up". There was no context given of how she ended up in the big backed chair holding all the cards.
Joy is certainly not a total flop. Parts of it were well done and well acted. I think the script was pretty weak and the direction was limp. In the end it needed more Cooper time because the Lawrence/Cooper combo shines.
2 of 5 stars
CW
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Avengers
Movie
2012
Two thoughts come to mind after seeing this film. Thoroughly enjoyable from stem to stern and greater than the sum of it's parts. Everything about this movie worked - the plot, the characters, the acting, the dialogue, the effects, but most of all the timing. I never took my eyes off this 142 minute movie, I couldn't.
The one liners you grew accustomed to watching Robert Downy Jr. in the Iron Man movies where so much better, had greater impact and were far funnier in the Avengers. Better still, they came at precise moments enhancing the action in every way. A movie like this could have bogged down in the sort of gratuitous action we've seen before in these super hero movies. Not this movie. It was, in a word - great.
As for declaring the film greater than the sum of it's parts, it's neither a stretch nor necessarily obvious. The Iron Man movies were quite good, thanks in large part to Robert Downy Jr.'s confident acting and super cool technology (special effects). That said, I found the Thor movie unwatchable, I hated it, never finished it. In the Avengers the Thor character (Chris Hemsworth) was fabulous, completely likeable and totally righteous. The Hulk movies left me with a "meh" attitude. Blind rage isn't endearing in a super hero. Except in this movie it was. It was used to perfection. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) became the star of this movie. As for the Captain America (Chris Evans) I never saw the movie. In the Avengers "old" CA was picture perfect, the glue that held the team together.
The other characters Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and The BlackWidow (Scarlett Johansson) were great and really added personality to the plot. Far from being mere eye candy Johansson shows us that the Black Widow is more than just a pretty face; she's as dangerous psychologically as she is physically. Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) Mr. S.H.I.E.L.D. himself was fine as was his sidekick Agent Maria Hill (the stunningly beautiful Cobie Smulders). Perhaps the funniest one liners were delivered by the driest of characters, Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) who we have come to know from the other Marvel movies as the recruiter for Nick Fury.
What super hero movie would be complete without a great villain? The Avengers doesn't disappoint. Meet Loki, wonderfully complex, masterfully dancing on the fine line between villainy and redemption as the god of mischief. The half brother of Thor, he is seeking his revenge on dear brother by declaring war on Thor's protectorate - the Earth. He is more than a simple megalomaniac with a great smile. A great villain will at times pull at your sympathies before showing his true colors and Loki delivers.
Whether you liked any of the Marvel movies before this you owe it to yourself to see this one. It will be the yardstick all future super hero movies will be measured against.It really is that good.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Home
2012
Two thoughts come to mind after seeing this film. Thoroughly enjoyable from stem to stern and greater than the sum of it's parts. Everything about this movie worked - the plot, the characters, the acting, the dialogue, the effects, but most of all the timing. I never took my eyes off this 142 minute movie, I couldn't.The one liners you grew accustomed to watching Robert Downy Jr. in the Iron Man movies where so much better, had greater impact and were far funnier in the Avengers. Better still, they came at precise moments enhancing the action in every way. A movie like this could have bogged down in the sort of gratuitous action we've seen before in these super hero movies. Not this movie. It was, in a word - great.
As for declaring the film greater than the sum of it's parts, it's neither a stretch nor necessarily obvious. The Iron Man movies were quite good, thanks in large part to Robert Downy Jr.'s confident acting and super cool technology (special effects). That said, I found the Thor movie unwatchable, I hated it, never finished it. In the Avengers the Thor character (Chris Hemsworth) was fabulous, completely likeable and totally righteous. The Hulk movies left me with a "meh" attitude. Blind rage isn't endearing in a super hero. Except in this movie it was. It was used to perfection. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) became the star of this movie. As for the Captain America (Chris Evans) I never saw the movie. In the Avengers "old" CA was picture perfect, the glue that held the team together.
The other characters Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and The BlackWidow (Scarlett Johansson) were great and really added personality to the plot. Far from being mere eye candy Johansson shows us that the Black Widow is more than just a pretty face; she's as dangerous psychologically as she is physically. Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) Mr. S.H.I.E.L.D. himself was fine as was his sidekick Agent Maria Hill (the stunningly beautiful Cobie Smulders). Perhaps the funniest one liners were delivered by the driest of characters, Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) who we have come to know from the other Marvel movies as the recruiter for Nick Fury.
What super hero movie would be complete without a great villain? The Avengers doesn't disappoint. Meet Loki, wonderfully complex, masterfully dancing on the fine line between villainy and redemption as the god of mischief. The half brother of Thor, he is seeking his revenge on dear brother by declaring war on Thor's protectorate - the Earth. He is more than a simple megalomaniac with a great smile. A great villain will at times pull at your sympathies before showing his true colors and Loki delivers.
Whether you liked any of the Marvel movies before this you owe it to yourself to see this one. It will be the yardstick all future super hero movies will be measured against.It really is that good.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Home
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Midnight In Paris
Movie
2012
Midnight in Paris combines two of the people I like the least in all of Hollywood. One being Woody Allen and the other being Owen Wilson. Despite this demented duo I found that I really enjoyed this movie - and I wasn't expecting to.
Wilson is an actor I find annoying in general. I thought he was really good in that off beat movie The Royal Tannebaums and not too bad in the Wedding Crashers, but in everything else he plays the same irritating, punch me in the face character. Sure there's a little bit of "that" Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris, but the writing is so good and the dialogue so snappy that you forget that you don't like the main protagonist at all.
I have always been a fan of Rachel McAdams and was looking forward to her contribution here, but honestly anyone could have played her part because this was Wilson's movie from the start.
Gil (Wilson) is a successful Hollywood writer who had grown bored and now has set off to write his first novel. Unfortunately it was not going well. Inez, his fiance, (McAdams) takes him to Paris piggybacking on her father's business trip. Gil falls in love with Paris and thinks they should live there after they get married. Inez scoffs at his romantic notions of the city, brushing his suggestions aside as just crazy talk.
Ultimately Inez bores him with her pretentious friends and culturally bitter parents, causing Gil to seek inspiration by drunkenly wandering that streets of Paris at night. And that's where the fun begins...
At the strike of midnight he is invited into a party car that transports him back to the 1920s where he meets the people that he most admired. To his utter bemusement and delight he meets F.Scott Fitzgerald, his wife Zelda, Hemingway, Picasso, Cole Porter, Gertrude Stein and the delightful Salvador Dali (and his obsession with rhinoceros'). Night after night at the strike of midnight he enters the Golden Age of literature and art to find a special something (and someone) that leads to a breakthrough in his own work.
Adriana, played by the Oscar winning Marion Cotillard, once Picasso's girlfriend soon becomes Gil's muse and the object of his desire. She is also pining for a Golden Era of her own - convinced the1890's Europe was the pinnacle of all culture.
Woody Allen put together an interesting and snappy screenplay that was simultaneously clever and funny. After watching the film I'm not surprised he won the Oscar this year. I was sure Allen had lost his edge decades ago. He put together a fine cast including Kathy Bates, Allison Pill, Adrien Brody, Michael Sheen and Corey Stall as Hemingway. Although I still don't like Allen or Wilson I am big enough to give them both a hat tip for this gem.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Home page
2012
Midnight in Paris combines two of the people I like the least in all of Hollywood. One being Woody Allen and the other being Owen Wilson. Despite this demented duo I found that I really enjoyed this movie - and I wasn't expecting to.Wilson is an actor I find annoying in general. I thought he was really good in that off beat movie The Royal Tannebaums and not too bad in the Wedding Crashers, but in everything else he plays the same irritating, punch me in the face character. Sure there's a little bit of "that" Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris, but the writing is so good and the dialogue so snappy that you forget that you don't like the main protagonist at all.
I have always been a fan of Rachel McAdams and was looking forward to her contribution here, but honestly anyone could have played her part because this was Wilson's movie from the start.
Gil (Wilson) is a successful Hollywood writer who had grown bored and now has set off to write his first novel. Unfortunately it was not going well. Inez, his fiance, (McAdams) takes him to Paris piggybacking on her father's business trip. Gil falls in love with Paris and thinks they should live there after they get married. Inez scoffs at his romantic notions of the city, brushing his suggestions aside as just crazy talk.
Ultimately Inez bores him with her pretentious friends and culturally bitter parents, causing Gil to seek inspiration by drunkenly wandering that streets of Paris at night. And that's where the fun begins...
At the strike of midnight he is invited into a party car that transports him back to the 1920s where he meets the people that he most admired. To his utter bemusement and delight he meets F.Scott Fitzgerald, his wife Zelda, Hemingway, Picasso, Cole Porter, Gertrude Stein and the delightful Salvador Dali (and his obsession with rhinoceros'). Night after night at the strike of midnight he enters the Golden Age of literature and art to find a special something (and someone) that leads to a breakthrough in his own work.
Adriana, played by the Oscar winning Marion Cotillard, once Picasso's girlfriend soon becomes Gil's muse and the object of his desire. She is also pining for a Golden Era of her own - convinced the1890's Europe was the pinnacle of all culture.
Woody Allen put together an interesting and snappy screenplay that was simultaneously clever and funny. After watching the film I'm not surprised he won the Oscar this year. I was sure Allen had lost his edge decades ago. He put together a fine cast including Kathy Bates, Allison Pill, Adrien Brody, Michael Sheen and Corey Stall as Hemingway. Although I still don't like Allen or Wilson I am big enough to give them both a hat tip for this gem.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Home page
Saturday, January 28, 2012
One For the Money
Movie
2012
Based on the famous Janet Evanovich novels about Stephanie Plum, the accidental bounty hunter, One For the Money had a lot to live up to. I heard my wife laugh hysterically while reading the Plum books for years so I was mildly anticipating this movie with her.
Plum, played by Katherine Heigl, is an unemployed lingerie saleswoman out of luck and out of money. She takes a job from her cousin, a bail bondsman, hoping for some quick cash picking up lowlife deadbeats who fail to appear for court. The first case that crosses her radar is Joe Morrelli, a cop who's on the run after being charged with killing an unarmed man while off duty. The price on his head is 50 thousand which is too much for Plum to overlook - and of course there is history between them.
The picture is being panned mercilessly largely because critics routinely can't stand Heigl - personally I find her endearing (I mean anyone who had work with that completely nauseating Seth Rogan and actually make me want to finish watching Knocked Up has something going for her). Admittedly the movie could have been a 2-hour pilot for a TV series, but it was a fun romp and undeserving of such scorn. Audiences are polling in the 70% positive range. The movie was meant for the female audience for obvious reasons and has wonderful escapist qualities. It wasn't meant to vie for an Academy Award, it's a date movie.
Now I have not read the books so I don't know if they are all about the laugh and said escapism, but the story could have had a bit more mystery and cleverness. Some of the comedy seemed contrived but there were some really good laughs.
The rest of the cast, including Debbie Reynolds, Jason O'Mara, Daniel Sunjata, John Leguizamo and Sherri Shepherd, where there to only support Heigl. The movie had no side stories - it was all about Stephanie Plum. Daniel Sunjata who plays Ranger a professional bounty hunter takes Plum under his wing to show her the ropes. He promises to be a integral part of the Stephanie Plum story if this film spawns sequels as one would expect.
Honestly it should be spawning a TV series instead.
3 of 5 stars
CW
2012
Based on the famous Janet Evanovich novels about Stephanie Plum, the accidental bounty hunter, One For the Money had a lot to live up to. I heard my wife laugh hysterically while reading the Plum books for years so I was mildly anticipating this movie with her.Plum, played by Katherine Heigl, is an unemployed lingerie saleswoman out of luck and out of money. She takes a job from her cousin, a bail bondsman, hoping for some quick cash picking up lowlife deadbeats who fail to appear for court. The first case that crosses her radar is Joe Morrelli, a cop who's on the run after being charged with killing an unarmed man while off duty. The price on his head is 50 thousand which is too much for Plum to overlook - and of course there is history between them.
The picture is being panned mercilessly largely because critics routinely can't stand Heigl - personally I find her endearing (I mean anyone who had work with that completely nauseating Seth Rogan and actually make me want to finish watching Knocked Up has something going for her). Admittedly the movie could have been a 2-hour pilot for a TV series, but it was a fun romp and undeserving of such scorn. Audiences are polling in the 70% positive range. The movie was meant for the female audience for obvious reasons and has wonderful escapist qualities. It wasn't meant to vie for an Academy Award, it's a date movie.
Now I have not read the books so I don't know if they are all about the laugh and said escapism, but the story could have had a bit more mystery and cleverness. Some of the comedy seemed contrived but there were some really good laughs.
The rest of the cast, including Debbie Reynolds, Jason O'Mara, Daniel Sunjata, John Leguizamo and Sherri Shepherd, where there to only support Heigl. The movie had no side stories - it was all about Stephanie Plum. Daniel Sunjata who plays Ranger a professional bounty hunter takes Plum under his wing to show her the ropes. He promises to be a integral part of the Stephanie Plum story if this film spawns sequels as one would expect.
Honestly it should be spawning a TV series instead.
3 of 5 stars
CW
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Movie
2012
I was a fan of the black and white movies of old with Basil Rathbone playing our inimitable hero. While I enjoyed the modern remake with the fine acting of Robert Downey Jr. in the first Holmes movie I wasn't prepared for Sherlock to be a street brawling swashbuckler. Never fear in the second movie he still holds his own when guns and knives come out. This movie was well done in the modern format such as it is. Modern movies with their extreme closeups and fast, frenetic editing can be exciting visual candy, but it is not a substitute for great dialog and good story telling. Fortunately Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows has both.If you can get past Holmes being a manic, street smart, wise cracking genius the mystery is pretty good. This film pits Holmes against his greatest foe, the one and only Professor Moriarty (played Jared Harris). Clues are scattered about for future use as the movie progresses, the trick is to guess which are ultimately relevant. The look and feel of the sets/locations is excellent. No expense was spared to make the environment seem like what we imagine the 1890's to be.
Dr. Watson, played by Jude Law, is not all the character we came to love in the old movies. He is as loyal to Holmes as the original but less of a slow wit and far more prickly. Law does a good job but the character is somehow not right, but then again neither is Sherlock Holmes himself. They do work well together, but if you're at all nostalgic for the original films this rendering can be hard to swallow.
The movie starts with a reprise of Rachel McAdam's delicious character from the first movie - the mischievous Irene Adler. However, she makes a quick exit and a love interest for the Holmes character is never re-established. It can be argued that it isn't even missed since the wedding of Dr. Watson to Mary seems to come between Sherlock and John anyway.
The mind games between Holmes and Moriaty are decent, helping to build some tension and suspense, but the wise cracking irreverency Downey brings to the character is a little like inviting Captain Jack Sparrow to the party. There is also just a little too much dependency on slow motion through the critical action scenes that drag the movie down when it should be hectic and a bit unpredictable. What was so effective in the first movie as we watched Holmes evaluate the moves of both his adversaries and himself before they happen tended to drag this film out. It is OK and even worthwhile if it is used sparingly, in this movie it's just too much of an old thing.
Overall it's a afternoon of good fun. You'll laugh, you'll cringe (you'll eat popcorn), but rest assured this film will not be winning any awards.
3 of 5 stars
CW
Sunday, January 1, 2012
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Movie
2011
Based on the popular novel of the same name by Stieg Larsson this movie is a taut, well acted murder mystery that keeps you guessing and intrigued throughout. Starring Daniel Craig as disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist and Rooney Mara as Lisbeteh Salander the story has a several twists and turns that serve to define the principal characters.
Blomkvist, fresh off a losing court battle in which he is left nearly penniless takes a job investigating a 40 year-old murder of the niece of a wealthy industrialist played by Christopher Plummer. He leaves behind the magazine and his lover and quickly becomes obsessed with the case as it morphs into conspiracy of vast proportions. All the while he works with the promise that Henrik Vanger (Plummer) has the goods on his nemesis Wennerström who had brought the lawsuit on him.
As the conspiracy widens he bring on an investigator, a rather unconventional one at that. Lisbeteh Salander, the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker is officially a ward of the state because she is labeled clinically insane. She is brilliant, but ultimately trapped by the system and therefore lives in the shadows of society. Her very appearance and manner make her almost invisibly to polite society which disregards her as just another troubled youth. She is able to use this to her great advantage.
Rooney Mara takes over the film at this point as the whole mood ratchets up ten notches. Her street smarts and ability to defend herself make her a worthy anti-hero as she simultaneously frees herself from her government oppressors and makes a true friend with Mikael.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was easy enough to "bond" with Daniel Craig's character, but I found myself extremely sympathetic to Mara's character whom if I had met on the streets in my daily life would have repelled me.
The movie is rated R and rightly so, with some extreme violence (though not gratuitous) and some sex scenes. I can imagine sequels stemming from this as there are two more novels in the series, though this movie stands alone in it's resolution.
4 of 5 stars
CW
2011
Based on the popular novel of the same name by Stieg Larsson this movie is a taut, well acted murder mystery that keeps you guessing and intrigued throughout. Starring Daniel Craig as disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist and Rooney Mara as Lisbeteh Salander the story has a several twists and turns that serve to define the principal characters.
Blomkvist, fresh off a losing court battle in which he is left nearly penniless takes a job investigating a 40 year-old murder of the niece of a wealthy industrialist played by Christopher Plummer. He leaves behind the magazine and his lover and quickly becomes obsessed with the case as it morphs into conspiracy of vast proportions. All the while he works with the promise that Henrik Vanger (Plummer) has the goods on his nemesis Wennerström who had brought the lawsuit on him.
As the conspiracy widens he bring on an investigator, a rather unconventional one at that. Lisbeteh Salander, the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker is officially a ward of the state because she is labeled clinically insane. She is brilliant, but ultimately trapped by the system and therefore lives in the shadows of society. Her very appearance and manner make her almost invisibly to polite society which disregards her as just another troubled youth. She is able to use this to her great advantage.
Rooney Mara takes over the film at this point as the whole mood ratchets up ten notches. Her street smarts and ability to defend herself make her a worthy anti-hero as she simultaneously frees herself from her government oppressors and makes a true friend with Mikael.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was easy enough to "bond" with Daniel Craig's character, but I found myself extremely sympathetic to Mara's character whom if I had met on the streets in my daily life would have repelled me.
The movie is rated R and rightly so, with some extreme violence (though not gratuitous) and some sex scenes. I can imagine sequels stemming from this as there are two more novels in the series, though this movie stands alone in it's resolution.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Ides of March
Movie
2011
First let me note that this movie featured fine performances by top tier talent. George Clooney played the Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate with just the right calmness and grace of someone in the game at that level. Phillip Seymor Hoffman was once again simply outstanding as was Paul Giamatti playing rival campaign managers. These two in particular, have they ever given a bad performance? What can you say about Ryan Gosling, he was just great.
Here comes the however, however, the script, the story, was run of the mill political intrigue, absolutely nothing new. It only solidified what all of us already know - politics is soulless and cut throat.
The story was completely predictable - in fact my wife whispered in my ear every plot twist as if it was a freight train barreling across the Great Plains. Even the moralizing speeches that Governor Morris (Clooney) sprinkled throughout might as well have been the same speeches given by Michael Douglas in "The American President" back in '95. "You know how we fight terrorism?" he asks. "We stop buying their product, their product is oil. Stop buying oil!" Umm, OK, what you gonna put in those big SUV's and that campaign bus you're driving all over the country Governor? This was just one of the nauseating boiler plate liberal quips - and there were a lot more.
The young intern played by Evan Rachel Wood was a bit of a cliche. She's a fine young actor, but the role, the role the whole movie pivots on, was weak. A 20 year old daughter of a political family caught up in the idealism of a hope and change campaign and all she could think to do with herself was spread her legs.
I'm not saying The Ides of March wasn't a good movie or that it wasn't well done, it was, both... I'm saying it was nothing new, we learn absolutely nothing. In the end you have to wonder how everyone involved with such things doesn't end up truly despising themselves.
3 of 5 stars
CW
2011
First let me note that this movie featured fine performances by top tier talent. George Clooney played the Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate with just the right calmness and grace of someone in the game at that level. Phillip Seymor Hoffman was once again simply outstanding as was Paul Giamatti playing rival campaign managers. These two in particular, have they ever given a bad performance? What can you say about Ryan Gosling, he was just great.Here comes the however, however, the script, the story, was run of the mill political intrigue, absolutely nothing new. It only solidified what all of us already know - politics is soulless and cut throat.
The story was completely predictable - in fact my wife whispered in my ear every plot twist as if it was a freight train barreling across the Great Plains. Even the moralizing speeches that Governor Morris (Clooney) sprinkled throughout might as well have been the same speeches given by Michael Douglas in "The American President" back in '95. "You know how we fight terrorism?" he asks. "We stop buying their product, their product is oil. Stop buying oil!" Umm, OK, what you gonna put in those big SUV's and that campaign bus you're driving all over the country Governor? This was just one of the nauseating boiler plate liberal quips - and there were a lot more.
The young intern played by Evan Rachel Wood was a bit of a cliche. She's a fine young actor, but the role, the role the whole movie pivots on, was weak. A 20 year old daughter of a political family caught up in the idealism of a hope and change campaign and all she could think to do with herself was spread her legs.
I'm not saying The Ides of March wasn't a good movie or that it wasn't well done, it was, both... I'm saying it was nothing new, we learn absolutely nothing. In the end you have to wonder how everyone involved with such things doesn't end up truly despising themselves.
3 of 5 stars
CW
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Chaos Theory
Movie
2008
Retro-Review
I was striking out in the new release section at Blockbuster (you remember Blockbuster, right) so I wandered into the main section looking for something, anything to bring home. I happened across a lonely DVD with Ryan Reynolds picture on it called Chaos Theory. I like Reynolds so I grabbed it thinking it might not suck and then completely forgot about it. I ended up taking it back to Blockbuster unwatched. Sometime later - same scenario - found me looking at the same DVD and thought, what the heck, I may even watch it this time. I did. What started as a movie pick out of sheer boredom turned out to be one of my favorite movies of all time - and no one has heard of it.
Chaos Theory peers into the life of an obsessively organized time efficiency expert whose life is thrown into pure chaos by a single act of misguided love by his wife. He is forced to examine the deeper meaning of love and forgiveness.
The movie begins with a wedding scene where Frank (Reynolds) catches his future son-in-law sneaking out the back and makes him stop long enough to hear his story about what it means to love.
The story takes us back to the day Frank and Susan get together and then fast forwards to a point in time when Frank is a successful time efficiency expert whose life and clock is ruled by his ever present index cards. His wife mistakenly moves the clock behind 10 minutes to give him a little breathing room and break his rigidity, but of course this sets off a series of cascading events as he misses the ferry boat that was take him into the city for his lecture on time management.
From this point Frank's life gets turned upside down as he learns things that would bring into question everything he thought he knew about his beautifully organized life. What sounds like a tragedy is downright hilarious. Reynolds does a great job transforming a character whose rigid devotion to the clock becomes a unpredictable rebel.
The role of Susan played by Emily Mortimer is convincingly angry/sad and contrite as the story evolves. Frank's best friend Buddy Endrow (Stuart Townsend) is motivated by his life long yearning for Susan as he moves in to try to pick up the pieces of Frank's abandoned life.
In the end the story is touching and lovely - and hilarious. I loved this movie.
The soundtrack is also really good, floating passively under well placed scenes of emotion and revelation. Several of the songs played by a group called the Damnwells fill-in the transformational scenes beautifully. The songs "Graceless" and "Tonight and Forever" will stick with you long after the final credits.
I'm not sure how or why this movie was missed. Ryan Reynolds had already been a well known movie star and should have given this fun and touching movie some credibility. Well, now you know - check it out!
5 of 5 stars
CW
2008
Retro-Review
I was striking out in the new release section at Blockbuster (you remember Blockbuster, right) so I wandered into the main section looking for something, anything to bring home. I happened across a lonely DVD with Ryan Reynolds picture on it called Chaos Theory. I like Reynolds so I grabbed it thinking it might not suck and then completely forgot about it. I ended up taking it back to Blockbuster unwatched. Sometime later - same scenario - found me looking at the same DVD and thought, what the heck, I may even watch it this time. I did. What started as a movie pick out of sheer boredom turned out to be one of my favorite movies of all time - and no one has heard of it.Chaos Theory peers into the life of an obsessively organized time efficiency expert whose life is thrown into pure chaos by a single act of misguided love by his wife. He is forced to examine the deeper meaning of love and forgiveness.
The movie begins with a wedding scene where Frank (Reynolds) catches his future son-in-law sneaking out the back and makes him stop long enough to hear his story about what it means to love.
The story takes us back to the day Frank and Susan get together and then fast forwards to a point in time when Frank is a successful time efficiency expert whose life and clock is ruled by his ever present index cards. His wife mistakenly moves the clock behind 10 minutes to give him a little breathing room and break his rigidity, but of course this sets off a series of cascading events as he misses the ferry boat that was take him into the city for his lecture on time management.
From this point Frank's life gets turned upside down as he learns things that would bring into question everything he thought he knew about his beautifully organized life. What sounds like a tragedy is downright hilarious. Reynolds does a great job transforming a character whose rigid devotion to the clock becomes a unpredictable rebel.
The role of Susan played by Emily Mortimer is convincingly angry/sad and contrite as the story evolves. Frank's best friend Buddy Endrow (Stuart Townsend) is motivated by his life long yearning for Susan as he moves in to try to pick up the pieces of Frank's abandoned life.
In the end the story is touching and lovely - and hilarious. I loved this movie.
The soundtrack is also really good, floating passively under well placed scenes of emotion and revelation. Several of the songs played by a group called the Damnwells fill-in the transformational scenes beautifully. The songs "Graceless" and "Tonight and Forever" will stick with you long after the final credits.
I'm not sure how or why this movie was missed. Ryan Reynolds had already been a well known movie star and should have given this fun and touching movie some credibility. Well, now you know - check it out!
5 of 5 stars
CW
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Drive
Movie
2011
The first words out of my mouth after watching this movie were "there's two hours of my life I'll never get back". Obvoiusly I didn't care for Drive.
I was really looking forward to seeing this movie particularly since the reviews on Rottentomatoes.com were so glowing. It received near universal acclaim with a 92% positive rating on Rottentomatoes.com, a nearly unheard of level of love. Being a sucker for happy endings and uplifting sentiments maybe this movie wasn't made for people like me.
I will go along with most critics that the performances by Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks and Ron Pearlman were solid. But the aimlessness and pregnant still shots made sitting through many of the disconnected scenes quite tedious. It's not that the movie wasn't a linear path, it's just that too many scenes had zero resolution.
Carey Mulligan who played Irene, the "love interest", whom the whole tale surrounds was less impressive. It may have been that she looks twelve years old or the disconnect that such a wholesome lass could have been mixed up in such a dysfunctional life. Her character seemed out of place, a little too much of a sweetheart.
It was the gratuitous violence that finally got to me. The Gosling character (whose name we never learn) went from a quiet, brooding young man with a heart of gold to a robotic killer in one short scene. His talent for killing and unprovoked violence rivals any government trained super agent with none of the background character development that would help the audience understand how he became so cold and efficient.
Unlike a Tarantino movie this movie had none of the ironic humor to help take the edge off the shocking violence, not that humor was ever called for in Drive. It did, however, have some of the visual and stylistic feel of a Tarantino film, and the soundtrack was very good. In the end that you ultimately don't care about any of the characters leaves an empty space in your queasy gut.
That the movie sticks with me means it had some impact - seeing Albert Brooks as the heavy was a departure from my notion of his venerable humor. Ryan Gosling will be a star someday, this performance cements that.
2 of 5 stars
CW
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Super 8
Movie
2011
Basically I loved this movie. It brought to mind the best of what we remember about our childhood - the wonder, the awe and discovery. It had all the elements of a great Sci-Fi movie - excitement, wonderment, suspense, a great alien alien and, of course, an evil government conspiracy.
The child actors were especially good. Joel Courtney as Joe Lamb, the grieving son whose mother was killed in a work accident as the movie opened was spectacular. As was Elle Fanning as Alice Dainard, the older girl the little geeks couldn't believe would even talk to them let alone agree act in their super 8 movie.
Taking place in the summer of 1979, in a small Ohio town where the kids witness a spectacular train crash while shooting a super 8 movie at the depot. It was soon clear that it couldn't have been an accident when unusual disappearances and strange events begin to take place all over town. Deputy Lamb, Joe's father, played by Kyle Chandler, is desparate to uncover the truth - and save his son.
Super 8 was well paced and the plot had enough depth for the audience to chew on that it never had to rely on one dimensional, gratuitous violence. My single gripe was the decision to shoot the film with the qualities of "super 8" film. The grainy nature of the small format and indistinct darkness became bothersome after a while. It did not, however, hamper my enjoyment.
4 of 5 stars
CW
2011
Basically I loved this movie. It brought to mind the best of what we remember about our childhood - the wonder, the awe and discovery. It had all the elements of a great Sci-Fi movie - excitement, wonderment, suspense, a great alien alien and, of course, an evil government conspiracy.
The child actors were especially good. Joel Courtney as Joe Lamb, the grieving son whose mother was killed in a work accident as the movie opened was spectacular. As was Elle Fanning as Alice Dainard, the older girl the little geeks couldn't believe would even talk to them let alone agree act in their super 8 movie.
Taking place in the summer of 1979, in a small Ohio town where the kids witness a spectacular train crash while shooting a super 8 movie at the depot. It was soon clear that it couldn't have been an accident when unusual disappearances and strange events begin to take place all over town. Deputy Lamb, Joe's father, played by Kyle Chandler, is desparate to uncover the truth - and save his son.
Super 8 was well paced and the plot had enough depth for the audience to chew on that it never had to rely on one dimensional, gratuitous violence. My single gripe was the decision to shoot the film with the qualities of "super 8" film. The grainy nature of the small format and indistinct darkness became bothersome after a while. It did not, however, hamper my enjoyment.
4 of 5 stars
CW
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Shooter (movie), Point of Impact (book) by Stephen Hunter
Movie
Book
reviewed in 2007
First off the book is a genuine 5 star effort by Stephen Hunter. Everyone I have talked to who read the book just loves Bob the Nailer. Bobby Lee Swagger is an ex-military sniper who was the best in the game. Wounded and destined for a life in pain he retreats to the hills to live quietly and alone but for a loyal dog and his arsenal of guns. When a secret quasi-government agency employs a profiler to find the right man for a set-up of epic proportion Swagger unwittingly takes the bait.
"Point of Impact" is a gripping page turner with a great sense of pacing and just enough (relevant) plot lines to keep it interesting without burdening the reader with fluff and filler.
I didn't get the sense that the author was trying to make any deep personal political statements via the hero, Bobby Lee Swagger. Using a tried and true plot point of the secret out of control entity tied to the shadow government as the primary villain was just good fun. In fact, it is one of the rare novels with which I haven't any quibbles - at all. It comes highly recommended by yours truly and hundreds of reviewers at Amazon.com where it received a unequivocal 5 star rating!
The movie version, which was renamed "Shooter" (probably as not to confuse audiences with a title that could be construed as a Steven Segal flick) gets an A for effort and a D for execution. The screenplay tried valiantly to touch on the most important plot points. Unfortunately the movie failed more often than not to convey the true nature of Bob the Nailer, and frankly, all the other characters too. Wahlberg is a decent enough actor but was badly miscast - or simply failed to capture the calm and grace of Swagger as written in the book. Danny Glover, who stinks in anything without Mel Gibson, was just terrible as the principal antagonist.
This movie deserved to be a long 3 hour epic instead of the typical bang, bang action thriller. This is not to say the novel wasn't an action thriller, it was. But it was anything but typical.
If you don't read the book and see this movie please don't let that convince you that Bob the Nailer is just another action hero. Swagger is a complex character who could have been a bitter man, but never lost the sense of his place in the big picture when he chose to simply fade away. The one thing you should take away from the movie and the book is that you don't want to mess with a man like Bob the Nailer!
(movie) 2 of 5 stars
(book) 5 of 5 stars
CW
Book
reviewed in 2007
First off the book is a genuine 5 star effort by Stephen Hunter. Everyone I have talked to who read the book just loves Bob the Nailer. Bobby Lee Swagger is an ex-military sniper who was the best in the game. Wounded and destined for a life in pain he retreats to the hills to live quietly and alone but for a loyal dog and his arsenal of guns. When a secret quasi-government agency employs a profiler to find the right man for a set-up of epic proportion Swagger unwittingly takes the bait."Point of Impact" is a gripping page turner with a great sense of pacing and just enough (relevant) plot lines to keep it interesting without burdening the reader with fluff and filler.
I didn't get the sense that the author was trying to make any deep personal political statements via the hero, Bobby Lee Swagger. Using a tried and true plot point of the secret out of control entity tied to the shadow government as the primary villain was just good fun. In fact, it is one of the rare novels with which I haven't any quibbles - at all. It comes highly recommended by yours truly and hundreds of reviewers at Amazon.com where it received a unequivocal 5 star rating!
The movie version, which was renamed "Shooter" (probably as not to confuse audiences with a title that could be construed as a Steven Segal flick) gets an A for effort and a D for execution. The screenplay tried valiantly to touch on the most important plot points. Unfortunately the movie failed more often than not to convey the true nature of Bob the Nailer, and frankly, all the other characters too. Wahlberg is a decent enough actor but was badly miscast - or simply failed to capture the calm and grace of Swagger as written in the book. Danny Glover, who stinks in anything without Mel Gibson, was just terrible as the principal antagonist.
This movie deserved to be a long 3 hour epic instead of the typical bang, bang action thriller. This is not to say the novel wasn't an action thriller, it was. But it was anything but typical.
If you don't read the book and see this movie please don't let that convince you that Bob the Nailer is just another action hero. Swagger is a complex character who could have been a bitter man, but never lost the sense of his place in the big picture when he chose to simply fade away. The one thing you should take away from the movie and the book is that you don't want to mess with a man like Bob the Nailer!
(movie) 2 of 5 stars
(book) 5 of 5 stars
CW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)