Friday, August 19, 2005
A Great Ebert Review
You have to check out this review by Roger Ebert! Though I haven't seen the Deuce Bigalow 2 movie, from Ebert's comments it would seem that the only good thing to come from this movie is his review. I can only fantasise that one day I could write such a witty and yet still useful review.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Quick Reviews: Big Fish & Leboweski, Passion of the Christ
Big Fish:
This was a nice looking film that was all style and little substance. It had the advantage of containing an interesting story and some very likeable characters. The movie is about an oldman with many stories dying and a son who isstruggling to understand the fantastic stories. The stories are very fantastic and we struggle to figure out, with the son, what it all means. Unfortunately the stories are fullof sound and fury, the brief candle is extinguished and we are left with a tale told by an idiot. Idon't think I've spoiled anything. The movie should be better knowing that one need not expend neural energies trying to find underlying meaning.
** Two Stars
The Big Lebowski:
A fun movie with some great characters. The movie is full of great moments and great lines. It is entertaining and is almost a cult classic, but in the end it lacks the qualities that makes a movie great.
*** Three Stars
The Passion of the Christ:
This movie was full of formula and second rate tricks. Slow moton shots, lingering shots, a cheesy score and symbolism with a sledgehammer. This doesn't diminish the importance of the movie or the power of the message. The movie is just a substandard piece of cinema telling an important story.
** Two Stars
This was a nice looking film that was all style and little substance. It had the advantage of containing an interesting story and some very likeable characters. The movie is about an oldman with many stories dying and a son who isstruggling to understand the fantastic stories. The stories are very fantastic and we struggle to figure out, with the son, what it all means. Unfortunately the stories are fullof sound and fury, the brief candle is extinguished and we are left with a tale told by an idiot. Idon't think I've spoiled anything. The movie should be better knowing that one need not expend neural energies trying to find underlying meaning.
** Two Stars
The Big Lebowski:
A fun movie with some great characters. The movie is full of great moments and great lines. It is entertaining and is almost a cult classic, but in the end it lacks the qualities that makes a movie great.
*** Three Stars
The Passion of the Christ:
This movie was full of formula and second rate tricks. Slow moton shots, lingering shots, a cheesy score and symbolism with a sledgehammer. This doesn't diminish the importance of the movie or the power of the message. The movie is just a substandard piece of cinema telling an important story.
** Two Stars
Review: Sin City
What can I say, this was a bad movie. The only thing worse than living in Sin City would be to live in a city that enjoyed Sin City.
The movie has no coherent narrative structure. The movie is organised around three stories that are VERY loosely related - they all passed through one bar. The characters are all bad, they differ only by degree.
The great thing about comics is that they develop very intricate characters with rich back stories. Of course comic series develop over years. Part of the challenge of puting comics on screen is to develop those characters in an hour or two. Sin City has three stories and three sets of charactres. It can't develop any of those characters except as caricatures. Consequently, the movie is a caricature. Cliches and rediculous lines get tossed about as easilly as the bullets and the whole thing is over the top.
Then, there is the violence. It takes a lot to get me to baulk at the violence. The violence was just extreme for the sake of extreme violence. There was nothing symbolic or purposeful in the violence except that it was demanded by the fact that these guys are all bad. All the violence got tiresome.
Of course there is the style. The style is not as original or great as people seem to think. Schindler's List effectively used well placed colour in a B&W film. But, as a comic based movie it does look and feel like a comic book. Comic books, however, are more than just entities that exist preserve a style their characters and stories are what sustain them - not style. Thus a movie like this that is all style and no substance is very much defective.
On the official Chris' Choice scale Sin City gets one star.
*
The movie has no coherent narrative structure. The movie is organised around three stories that are VERY loosely related - they all passed through one bar. The characters are all bad, they differ only by degree.
The great thing about comics is that they develop very intricate characters with rich back stories. Of course comic series develop over years. Part of the challenge of puting comics on screen is to develop those characters in an hour or two. Sin City has three stories and three sets of charactres. It can't develop any of those characters except as caricatures. Consequently, the movie is a caricature. Cliches and rediculous lines get tossed about as easilly as the bullets and the whole thing is over the top.
Then, there is the violence. It takes a lot to get me to baulk at the violence. The violence was just extreme for the sake of extreme violence. There was nothing symbolic or purposeful in the violence except that it was demanded by the fact that these guys are all bad. All the violence got tiresome.
Of course there is the style. The style is not as original or great as people seem to think. Schindler's List effectively used well placed colour in a B&W film. But, as a comic based movie it does look and feel like a comic book. Comic books, however, are more than just entities that exist preserve a style their characters and stories are what sustain them - not style. Thus a movie like this that is all style and no substance is very much defective.
On the official Chris' Choice scale Sin City gets one star.
*
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Review: Hostage
Quickly - We were out last night to see Hostage starring Bruce Willis. This is a competent action flick with an experienced action star. The background story was smart and, to my knowledge, unique. Visually, the movie seemed to do everything it needed to and had a fairly interesting opening sequence. The major problem with the movie was with the logic and the sequence of the movie's action.
In the end, the movie was a good watch but on the walk home the holes began to appear.
In the end, the movie was a good watch but on the walk home the holes began to appear.
On the official Chris' Choice scale Hostage gets three stars.
***
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Movie Review: The Phantom
The Phantom:
This is an older film that we rented. It is based on an old 30s superhero and is one of the better comic book action adventure films. The 30s superheroes have a sort of innocence that makes them endearing and fun to watch. You can get lost in the innocence of their crusade to fight evil, and in this case piracy as well. The film matches the innocence of the characters with a visual pallette that is vivid and simple. The purples, reds and browns help to create a story that is easy to sink into and enjoy as a pleasurable and entertaining adventure. This movie does what it does very well.
**** Four Stars!
This is an older film that we rented. It is based on an old 30s superhero and is one of the better comic book action adventure films. The 30s superheroes have a sort of innocence that makes them endearing and fun to watch. You can get lost in the innocence of their crusade to fight evil, and in this case piracy as well. The film matches the innocence of the characters with a visual pallette that is vivid and simple. The purples, reds and browns help to create a story that is easy to sink into and enjoy as a pleasurable and entertaining adventure. This movie does what it does very well.
**** Four Stars!
Some Quick Reviews
Bride and Prejudice:
This is a pretty good adaptation of the Jane Austen Classic. It is set in contemporary India, Los Angelas and London. The characters in the film are great and lots of fun - they also correspond the traits of the original quite well. The plot, too, follows the original well, and so, there is little to fault to find there. The setting is adequately adapted, but the film is too short to fully develop the parallels and we are left relying on the original to fill things in. Then there is the singing and dancing.... well it can be amusing and often it is annoying.
*** Three Stars
Constantine:
Here we have another comic/superhero movie. It is a stark contrast to The Phantom. The scene is dark and gothic the characters are deeply flawed. The story is interesting, though not too engaging. The story is driven by characters we don't ever get to know. That means that the supervillain isn't very active there is nobalance to the hero. That hero, Keanu Reeves doesn't put up the greatest performance - nor do any other actors. It's a decent attempt and is entertaining. You'd be surprised - it isn't a total waste of money.
** Two Stars
This is a pretty good adaptation of the Jane Austen Classic. It is set in contemporary India, Los Angelas and London. The characters in the film are great and lots of fun - they also correspond the traits of the original quite well. The plot, too, follows the original well, and so, there is little to fault to find there. The setting is adequately adapted, but the film is too short to fully develop the parallels and we are left relying on the original to fill things in. Then there is the singing and dancing.... well it can be amusing and often it is annoying.
*** Three Stars
Constantine:
Here we have another comic/superhero movie. It is a stark contrast to The Phantom. The scene is dark and gothic the characters are deeply flawed. The story is interesting, though not too engaging. The story is driven by characters we don't ever get to know. That means that the supervillain isn't very active there is nobalance to the hero. That hero, Keanu Reeves doesn't put up the greatest performance - nor do any other actors. It's a decent attempt and is entertaining. You'd be surprised - it isn't a total waste of money.
** Two Stars
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Movie Review: Million Dollar Baby
Here we have a decent movie that has been given a lot of attention because of the paucity of good films to come out this past year. I enjoyed this film, that is, I enjoyed it as much as one can enjoy a film of this nature. The problem is that Million Dollar Baby has been thrust into the company of films beyond its merit.
The film starts off well. In fact, it was the beginning of this movie that made the greatest impression on me. We meet some great characters - all of the important ones - in a boxing club run by Clint Eastwood. The dynamic that develops between the regulars at the club was far more interesting, better acted, and generally done with greater skill and effect than anything in the third and final act. One enjoys the relationships as these characters learn to get along, deal with the past and build a future. The lessons learned and the themes are developped with a modicum of subtlety and a great deal of sympathy is built.
The second act train starts to gather speed, but stays on track. If the first act was a character drama, the second is a boxing fantasy. The backstories begin heading toward resolution and we are curious to know if anyone learns anything.
Of course, my problem is always with the endings of movies. The ending has all of the subtlety and art of a trainwreck. First, everything in the final act is alluded to in the second act, because the third act is so extreme that if these allusions hadn't been made the whole act would have been considered 'unrealistic'.
A lot of attention has been drawn to the relationship between Clint's character and the priest character. Many people believe that film is trying to make a statement. I think the film is really just trying to setup a basis for discussion. That is, the film wants the discussion that takes place between Clint and the priest to continue after people leave the theatre. In that respect, it has been successful. However, the ending belittles the potential of the first and, to a lesser extent, the second act. The third act has all of the subtlety of one of those moral-philosophical thought experiments where everything is setup, then put in motion and one decision is required with great, but innevitable, consequence. Such experiments are designed to eliminate variables and to focus ones thought on the essential question that requires an answer. And so, in the end, we are tricked by a movie that appears multifaceted that is, though interesting, a well constructed one-dimensional conversation piece.
The conflict between the beginning and the end of this movie, obviously, left me feeling as though it had failed to live up to its dramatic beginnings. Maybe the attention that it has been getting is simply a refelction of its success at generating discussion - what I think its goal was. Clearly in one respect it is a good movie, but in the aspect that I have tried to articulate I feel it has a big problem and it is the kind of problem that 5 star movies ought tobe able to sort out.
The film starts off well. In fact, it was the beginning of this movie that made the greatest impression on me. We meet some great characters - all of the important ones - in a boxing club run by Clint Eastwood. The dynamic that develops between the regulars at the club was far more interesting, better acted, and generally done with greater skill and effect than anything in the third and final act. One enjoys the relationships as these characters learn to get along, deal with the past and build a future. The lessons learned and the themes are developped with a modicum of subtlety and a great deal of sympathy is built.
The second act train starts to gather speed, but stays on track. If the first act was a character drama, the second is a boxing fantasy. The backstories begin heading toward resolution and we are curious to know if anyone learns anything.
Of course, my problem is always with the endings of movies. The ending has all of the subtlety and art of a trainwreck. First, everything in the final act is alluded to in the second act, because the third act is so extreme that if these allusions hadn't been made the whole act would have been considered 'unrealistic'.
A lot of attention has been drawn to the relationship between Clint's character and the priest character. Many people believe that film is trying to make a statement. I think the film is really just trying to setup a basis for discussion. That is, the film wants the discussion that takes place between Clint and the priest to continue after people leave the theatre. In that respect, it has been successful. However, the ending belittles the potential of the first and, to a lesser extent, the second act. The third act has all of the subtlety of one of those moral-philosophical thought experiments where everything is setup, then put in motion and one decision is required with great, but innevitable, consequence. Such experiments are designed to eliminate variables and to focus ones thought on the essential question that requires an answer. And so, in the end, we are tricked by a movie that appears multifaceted that is, though interesting, a well constructed one-dimensional conversation piece.
The conflict between the beginning and the end of this movie, obviously, left me feeling as though it had failed to live up to its dramatic beginnings. Maybe the attention that it has been getting is simply a refelction of its success at generating discussion - what I think its goal was. Clearly in one respect it is a good movie, but in the aspect that I have tried to articulate I feel it has a big problem and it is the kind of problem that 5 star movies ought tobe able to sort out.
On the official Chris' Choice scale Million Dollar Baby gets three stars.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
