I've loved Wes Anderson's film ("Rushmore" & "The Royal Tenenbaums" were probably my favorite films of 1998 & 2001) but this is the first time that his signature style (slow motion, intricately composed shots, obsessive rock fan score, etc) seemed like a series of affectations to no good purpose. The movie seemed pointless, it has one of the least satisfying endings of any recent films, and often played like a film by someone parodying Wes Anderson. There are some funny scenes and bits of dialogue so it isn't a complete waste but it just did not add up to much besides being visually lovely. Also, "Rushmore" and "Tenenbaums" were fueled by great characters which is not the case here with the trio of brothers being a bunch of whiny irritants without much depth.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 17850 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Adding: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford Great work from Roger Deakins, Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck with a minimal but exquisite score with cello, piano, bass, guitar. The only real quibble I have is with the women here, always cooking, cooking, cooking. Affleck's dinner table scene was amazing. A
Gone Baby Gone
A hard film for me to assess; I was a bit uncomfortable with the socioeconomic stereotypes, but Amy Ryan gave a truly authentic performance. Ed Harris was wonderful. I really only understood about 2/3 of what Affleck was mumbling. His character is ethically immature and practicing on others along the way. Michelle Monaghan was there to be an excuse for Patrick to pistol-whip people, but was a great moral compass for him in the end, although it didnt serve him at all. His character was more concerned with how "he" would feel. Noone else. I'm not comparing the novel with the film. The thankyou's at the end included Damon, Ortiz, Malik, and interesting others. B
Rendition:
I sat in an empty theatre watching one of my least favorite subjects. Jake Gyllenhaal is a great actor but his character here was naive beyond credibility. In the short scenes they had, Streep and Arkin swept everyone else aside. I admire the message. B
Wild Hogs: Similar in scope with Blades of Glory. It wasnt good at all, but it wasnt gawd-awful. I actually enjoyed Marisa's charm. C-
Posts: 8242 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Wei Tang was exquisite, and the shots of forties Hong Kong, the cars and clothes, were good. Overall, the film was a tedious, vile, pointless, oppressive work where by the end, I had little sympathy for anyone. The score was ok and the characters, either spiritually dead, or, not smart. If you're going to play this sordid game: 1)Have a brain. That helps. 2)Know who the enemy is, even as they stare back at you every day. D
Dan in Real Life
I didnt particularly find these characters endearing. Diane Wiest was reduced to one-liners, but was good to see. I do love Steve Carell though, and people may enjoy sitting back and relaxing with a light, romantic 'comedy'. Most of these actors were wasted, including the sublime Juliette Binoche. There was some good energy from 'pig-face' though. C+
This message has been edited. Last edited by: babypook,
Posts: 8242 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
Added Away from Her and Into the Wild -- Grade "A" for both. Two great, great films. I'll review them later.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Fanciful, Capraesque plot and realistic treatment of the material make for an uncomfortable fit. I was never able to find my way into the film and it held me at a distance for nearly its entire running time... though I will admit I was taken in by the sweet ending. Ryan Gosling is very good but so above the material he often seems to be in a different movie... he reminded me of Benicio Del Toro in that regard who often seems to be acting outside of the material he is saddled with. The sadness in his eyes & physical demeanor suggest wells of pain and disturbance that this rather phony, high concept concoction cannot handle. He is too heartbreaking for the film he is in.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 17850 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Overall I'm still absorbing this film. It was a pastiche of great actors in a long film about our corrupt world. Denzel's bursts of violent tempers as Frank Lucas were very convincing, and he was very very good. But so was Russell Crowe. His earnest boy-scout Ritchie was a marvelous thing. The supporting cast was also interesting to watch and Ruby Dee and Armand Assante were stand-out.
This film was punctuated by brutal violence and unbridled greed. Extrapolating one man and his network of 'businessmen', it reminded me of the world-wide sameness of it all, glossed over by relentless brain washing. At no time did I feel anything glamourized. The threat of violence and the tension surrounding it was fairly palpable. And, there was either direct or tacit approval partnering everything. There was also a moment of hilarity while Denzel delivered his lines about America. I also noticed the Ridley Scott trademarks and I've seen him do this better.
The third theatre I tried was packed, but at least there was seating. I'm not convinced this film has the 'entertainment' value to sustain it, but it seems to be off to a good start. B+
This message has been edited. Last edited by: babypook,
Posts: 8242 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
