3/4 stars
So, a year or two ago, sometime before there was a separate article on Wikipedia for this movie, I was wasting time on said website, and found my way to the article on the short story upon which the movie is based. It's a strange coincidence that a story written long before I was born should be made into an acclaimed film within such a short time of my reading it. Or maybe not. Anyway, this film shouldn't really be compared to F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story; the overlap of a few significant details only confuses the fact that they are different stories that serve different purposes.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a long film, in the best sense. I commented back in 2006 (in response to, among others, Casino Royale, a 2.5 hour Bond movie) that my attention span for a movie is closer to three hours than two. That was probably an overstatement, but two hour movies do sometimes feel a little slight, and I'm happy to grant a third hour of my time to a film that has a good use for it. I'm also fond of movies that have a slow enough pace that, like a novel, you can see distinct sections in them, begin to feel comfortable with a sense of status quo before the events of the film disrupt it. It sounds odd to refer to a movie that spans 85 years as slow-paced, but pacing isn't about how a movie gets through narrative time, it's about how it gets from the beginning to the end. A long movie, when it's good, allows several episodes their appropriate weight and consideration. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a long, sweeping story, with all the complexity and craftsmanship that that entails. It will draw you in and keep you emotionally engaged with what you're seeing for its entire two and three quarter hours.
CCBB (yeah, I just did that) is the story of two lives, and how they are shared. Both Benjamin Button (portrayed by Brad Pitt with a generous amount of soft spoken charm) and Daisy Fuller (portrayed mostly by Cate Blanchett, although Elle Fanning also has a memorable scene) are old when the film begins. She is looking back from her deathbed on him looking forward into an uncertain future. "I was born old," he says simply at one point. As you no doubt are aware, Benjamin is aging backwards, which makes sharing his life with someone else a tricky proposition. You may also have some idea from the ads, what their solution is ("we meet in the middle"). They both have interesting and eventful lives, and the way the world changes around them is what gives the film its massive scope. I especially liked the symmetry of having the film end on the eve of Hurricane Katrina, suggesting the story of city as well as everything else.
I stated last week that the number of Academy Award nominations for this film surprised me. Now I find it interesting to consider how it seems to be an amalgamation of various past Oscar favorites. I think a lot of viewers will notice that it smacks of Forrest Gump, an unusual man with soft spoken Southern charm. Also, what does that recurring hummingbird motif remind you of? The special effects used to allow Brad Pitt to inhabit various ages of the character reminded me of The Lord of the Rings and its hobbits. It even becomes Magnolia for a minute, in an ill advised car crash sequence. If you want to know why I think this is a good but not a great movie, it's that. Yes it entertained me, yes it engaged me, yes it earned the time it took to watch it, and I would watch it again. But I don't think it's the year's best film. As the hasty and underdeveloped coda ("some people get struck by lightning") suggests, it's a good story, but at the end seems to strain to have been about something. It's trying too hard; its fairytale elements are a bit too earnest, its protagonist too purely good. In short, it is wondrous, but it is not curious.
Showing posts with label 3 stars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3 stars. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
In Bruges
3/4 stars
In Bruges is both a comedy and a tragedy; it's like a Guy Ritchie movie if people actually cared about the consequences of their actions. The comedy is Ritchiesque, invoking the rapid and irreverent banter of his Lock, Stock... or Snatch. But it is effectively tempered by director Martin McDonagh's somber contemplation of the city itself, and its use as a symbol of guilt. Colin Farrell plays Ray, a hitman whose first job has gone horribly wrong. He is sent to Bruges (it's in Belgium) to lay low, and hates every minute of it. He can't wait to get back to the real world, and although we are assured by the camera (and some of the characters) that it is a breathtaking, fairytale place, Farrell can't stand it. The movie is a comedy because the characters must laugh as a respite from sorrow, and because life is random and unpredictable. It is a tragedy for the same reasons.
Although there is a somewhat ineffective romantic subplot with Clémence Poésy, the main performances are by Farrell, the sturdy Brendan Gleeson as his partner, and the dynamic Ralph Fiennes as the boss. Farrell has the hardest work; his character is an extrovert who races from comical mischief to suicidal grief several times in each scene. Gleeson's character is more reserved, less emotionally involved, but he too has baggage and heavy decisions to make. Even Fiennes, though his character is a problem for the movie, executes well what he has been given, revealing the humanity behind an outwardly menacing character.
The movie sees Ray find his way back to the desire to live. Bruges represents the purgatory he is trying to escape, between life and death. The symbolism is rich, but not overbearing, much of the Christian analogy delivered seamlessly through the culture of the city itself. Where the movie falls short is in the conception of two characters, the woman and the boss. Poésy does everything she's supposed to, but the affair just feels peripheral. The script (by McDonagh) is trying to tell us that her love could be redemption, and Ray certainly sees it as such; what we get instead is the impression that the lure of sex is enough to make Ray forget that he should be feeling guilty. Fiennes presents two problems. For one, the relationship between his character and Gleeson's is well developed, but distracts from the arc of the movie. The second is a plot twist which I won't detail, but which is intended to bring the movie neatly together, and instead turns it into a farce, and reduces everything that has come before.
McDonagh, in his first full length effort, has inspired ideas and proficient technique. He has the misfortune that his few mistakes are noticeable and frustrating, and disrupt the balance of a fine film. Nonetheless, what he gets right and what he draws out of his actors is worth seeing.
In Bruges is both a comedy and a tragedy; it's like a Guy Ritchie movie if people actually cared about the consequences of their actions. The comedy is Ritchiesque, invoking the rapid and irreverent banter of his Lock, Stock... or Snatch. But it is effectively tempered by director Martin McDonagh's somber contemplation of the city itself, and its use as a symbol of guilt. Colin Farrell plays Ray, a hitman whose first job has gone horribly wrong. He is sent to Bruges (it's in Belgium) to lay low, and hates every minute of it. He can't wait to get back to the real world, and although we are assured by the camera (and some of the characters) that it is a breathtaking, fairytale place, Farrell can't stand it. The movie is a comedy because the characters must laugh as a respite from sorrow, and because life is random and unpredictable. It is a tragedy for the same reasons.
Although there is a somewhat ineffective romantic subplot with Clémence Poésy, the main performances are by Farrell, the sturdy Brendan Gleeson as his partner, and the dynamic Ralph Fiennes as the boss. Farrell has the hardest work; his character is an extrovert who races from comical mischief to suicidal grief several times in each scene. Gleeson's character is more reserved, less emotionally involved, but he too has baggage and heavy decisions to make. Even Fiennes, though his character is a problem for the movie, executes well what he has been given, revealing the humanity behind an outwardly menacing character.
The movie sees Ray find his way back to the desire to live. Bruges represents the purgatory he is trying to escape, between life and death. The symbolism is rich, but not overbearing, much of the Christian analogy delivered seamlessly through the culture of the city itself. Where the movie falls short is in the conception of two characters, the woman and the boss. Poésy does everything she's supposed to, but the affair just feels peripheral. The script (by McDonagh) is trying to tell us that her love could be redemption, and Ray certainly sees it as such; what we get instead is the impression that the lure of sex is enough to make Ray forget that he should be feeling guilty. Fiennes presents two problems. For one, the relationship between his character and Gleeson's is well developed, but distracts from the arc of the movie. The second is a plot twist which I won't detail, but which is intended to bring the movie neatly together, and instead turns it into a farce, and reduces everything that has come before.
McDonagh, in his first full length effort, has inspired ideas and proficient technique. He has the misfortune that his few mistakes are noticeable and frustrating, and disrupt the balance of a fine film. Nonetheless, what he gets right and what he draws out of his actors is worth seeing.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Quantum of Solace
3/4 stars
The comparison that seems to be on the lips of most reviewers of Quantum of Solace is with The Bourne Trilogy, and I can certainly see the elements that prompt it, although I feel they are not prevailing. It's true that the film's frenetic (there's this film's reviewer buzzword) editing and cinematography meet sort of halfway between 2006's Casino Royale and Paul Greengrass's first Bourne film (The Bourne Supremacy). And there's a rooftop parkour chase that will bring back memories of the Tangiers chase scene in Bourne Ultimatum. Still, the feel of the new Bond series is distinct from the Bourne series, which eschewed the tuxedo and cocktail dress elements that are still a major part of the 007 flavor, even in spite of its more gritty character. Like The Bourne Supremacy though, Quantum of Solace does take quick cutting a bit too far, making the action scenes difficult to appreciate or follow. This, along with a preposterous main theme (a pretentious stylistic exercise by Jack White in lieu of actual songwriting) and some uneven sequences, make for very noticable flaws.
In spite of that, I did not dislike the film. This is the first 007 movie to be a sequel to another 007 movie in terms of continuing the other film's plot. At this, it is essentially a success. Daniel Craig continues to bring a solid emotional being to the character, his performance is fierce and moody. Other returning actors include Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright and Judi Dench, all of whose characters have interestingly complicated relationships with Craig's Bond. Quantum of Solace is a partner film to Casino Royale, and its events succeed at feeling relevant and necessary to the story that is told. The last half hour of Casino Royale introduced a new premise for a Bond film, that they can be character rather than event driven. QoS is singular in the series in that it is the only movie that follows this logic from start to finish. Yes, it has a primary villain, but neither his plan nor his demise are the main focus, and neither are the mechanations of the umbrella organization Quantum (who were also behind some of the events in the last movie). Instead, the cohesive logic of this movie is formed by Bond's drive to pursue them, his need for closure. In an impressive way, this film's subject is what it says it is.
The comparison that seems to be on the lips of most reviewers of Quantum of Solace is with The Bourne Trilogy, and I can certainly see the elements that prompt it, although I feel they are not prevailing. It's true that the film's frenetic (there's this film's reviewer buzzword) editing and cinematography meet sort of halfway between 2006's Casino Royale and Paul Greengrass's first Bourne film (The Bourne Supremacy). And there's a rooftop parkour chase that will bring back memories of the Tangiers chase scene in Bourne Ultimatum. Still, the feel of the new Bond series is distinct from the Bourne series, which eschewed the tuxedo and cocktail dress elements that are still a major part of the 007 flavor, even in spite of its more gritty character. Like The Bourne Supremacy though, Quantum of Solace does take quick cutting a bit too far, making the action scenes difficult to appreciate or follow. This, along with a preposterous main theme (a pretentious stylistic exercise by Jack White in lieu of actual songwriting) and some uneven sequences, make for very noticable flaws.
In spite of that, I did not dislike the film. This is the first 007 movie to be a sequel to another 007 movie in terms of continuing the other film's plot. At this, it is essentially a success. Daniel Craig continues to bring a solid emotional being to the character, his performance is fierce and moody. Other returning actors include Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright and Judi Dench, all of whose characters have interestingly complicated relationships with Craig's Bond. Quantum of Solace is a partner film to Casino Royale, and its events succeed at feeling relevant and necessary to the story that is told. The last half hour of Casino Royale introduced a new premise for a Bond film, that they can be character rather than event driven. QoS is singular in the series in that it is the only movie that follows this logic from start to finish. Yes, it has a primary villain, but neither his plan nor his demise are the main focus, and neither are the mechanations of the umbrella organization Quantum (who were also behind some of the events in the last movie). Instead, the cohesive logic of this movie is formed by Bond's drive to pursue them, his need for closure. In an impressive way, this film's subject is what it says it is.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Untouchables
3/4 stars
While the script could be better, this movie sees virtuoso performances from Connery, De Niro, director De Palma and composer Ennio Morricone. A long time favorite of mine.
Written June 26, 2007.
While the script could be better, this movie sees virtuoso performances from Connery, De Niro, director De Palma and composer Ennio Morricone. A long time favorite of mine.
Written June 26, 2007.
A Beautiful Mind
3/4 stars
Not bad, but vastly overrated. A good attempt, and a decent performance by Crowe, but ultimately clumsy and more than a little disrespectful of the audience.
Written June 26, 2007.
Not bad, but vastly overrated. A good attempt, and a decent performance by Crowe, but ultimately clumsy and more than a little disrespectful of the audience.
Written June 26, 2007.
The Matrix Revolutions
3/4 stars
The sequels (which should really be taken as a single movie) were flawed, but should not be quickly dismissed, as they brought some interesting ideas to the series. The common perception that they were brainless is really more of a self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
Written June 30, 2007.
The sequels (which should really be taken as a single movie) were flawed, but should not be quickly dismissed, as they brought some interesting ideas to the series. The common perception that they were brainless is really more of a self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
Written June 30, 2007.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Phone Booth
3/4 stars
Tense and well constructed, Kiefer is chilling, but I had higher hopes when I heard the premise. A great director and a better screenplay could have made a masterpiece out of this.
Writtem July 10. 2007.
Tense and well constructed, Kiefer is chilling, but I had higher hopes when I heard the premise. A great director and a better screenplay could have made a masterpiece out of this.
Writtem July 10. 2007.
Miami Vice
3/4 stars
Michael Mann has incredible style with crime films and this is no exception, but the characters lacked the depth one would expect after seeing Heat and Collateral.
Written July 18, 2007.
Michael Mann has incredible style with crime films and this is no exception, but the characters lacked the depth one would expect after seeing Heat and Collateral.
Written July 18, 2007.
The X-Files
3/4 stars
This should be looked at as an episode of the show that just happens to be a movie. The thrill of seeing The X-Files with big screen and big budget is fantastic, and the story/writing make this a high quality entry in the mythos. That said, I can't stand by the often repeated notion that the movie can be enjoyed out of context, but then again, I really wouldn't know.
Written July 18, 2007.
This should be looked at as an episode of the show that just happens to be a movie. The thrill of seeing The X-Files with big screen and big budget is fantastic, and the story/writing make this a high quality entry in the mythos. That said, I can't stand by the often repeated notion that the movie can be enjoyed out of context, but then again, I really wouldn't know.
Written July 18, 2007.
Shopgirl
3/4 stars
For the first act, I found this to be a boring movie about boring people. By the end I discovered a film that was both beautiful and truthful, and I understood the purpose of the earlier drudgery (a realistic demonstation that the characters lack a genuine connection) but the beginning still didn't sit right with me. Why watch a movie about boring depressed people, when you can watch one about interesting depressed people (like Lost in Translation)? So, a worthwhile story, but loses points as a film.
Written July 22, 2007.
For the first act, I found this to be a boring movie about boring people. By the end I discovered a film that was both beautiful and truthful, and I understood the purpose of the earlier drudgery (a realistic demonstation that the characters lack a genuine connection) but the beginning still didn't sit right with me. Why watch a movie about boring depressed people, when you can watch one about interesting depressed people (like Lost in Translation)? So, a worthwhile story, but loses points as a film.
Written July 22, 2007.
The Bourne Identity
3/4 stars
Possibly my least favorite of the three. A bit clumsy compared to the latter two. Example: why does Castel come through Bourne's window on a wire to attack? That's a little over the top and flashy. Some points back for conveying the premise, a task the other two movies obviously aren't required to do; as well as for Clive Owen's cool, understated performance.
Written August 16, 2007.
Possibly my least favorite of the three. A bit clumsy compared to the latter two. Example: why does Castel come through Bourne's window on a wire to attack? That's a little over the top and flashy. Some points back for conveying the premise, a task the other two movies obviously aren't required to do; as well as for Clive Owen's cool, understated performance.
Written August 16, 2007.
The Bourne Supremacy
3/4 stars
Improves upon Identity with a tighter pace and a more intense directorial style (although parts were just too hard to visually comprehend). On the downside, a lot less happens in this film than in the other two of the series.
Written August 16, 2007.
Improves upon Identity with a tighter pace and a more intense directorial style (although parts were just too hard to visually comprehend). On the downside, a lot less happens in this film than in the other two of the series.
Written August 16, 2007.
Spider-Man
3/4 stars
A pretty good movie, but with a disappointing ending. A little more self-important and clunky than its two superior sequels.
Written September 8, 2007.
A pretty good movie, but with a disappointing ending. A little more self-important and clunky than its two superior sequels.
Written September 8, 2007.
Hitch
3/4 stars
The opening sequence of this movie is quite well made. It's interesting even on a purely academic level. The rest of the flick is okay too (if you like romantic comedies and Will Smith's familiar brand of humor).
Written September 8, 2007.
The opening sequence of this movie is quite well made. It's interesting even on a purely academic level. The rest of the flick is okay too (if you like romantic comedies and Will Smith's familiar brand of humor).
Written September 8, 2007.
X-Men
3/4 stars
As a fan of the X-Men in print, I was very eager for this movie to exist, and glad it did well. But, the problem with it and its sequels is that they still fail to epitomize the world of the X-Men that I know and love. Certainly some of the actors are dead on in their roles: Jackman, Paquin, Stewart. Others, particularly Marsden and Berry fail to hit on what makes their particular character interesting. And, by giving the characters relationships with one another that don't exist in the comics (Mystique as Magneto's henchman, Iceman as Rogue's love interest just for example) they fundamentally change their characterization and muddle their motivations. Furthermore, the storyline of the movies may deliver the required balance of drama and adrenaline, but it lacks the complexity and epic quality of the classic X-Men stories.
Written October 15, 2007.
As a fan of the X-Men in print, I was very eager for this movie to exist, and glad it did well. But, the problem with it and its sequels is that they still fail to epitomize the world of the X-Men that I know and love. Certainly some of the actors are dead on in their roles: Jackman, Paquin, Stewart. Others, particularly Marsden and Berry fail to hit on what makes their particular character interesting. And, by giving the characters relationships with one another that don't exist in the comics (Mystique as Magneto's henchman, Iceman as Rogue's love interest just for example) they fundamentally change their characterization and muddle their motivations. Furthermore, the storyline of the movies may deliver the required balance of drama and adrenaline, but it lacks the complexity and epic quality of the classic X-Men stories.
Written October 15, 2007.
The Holiday
3/4 stars
Cameron Diaz has been in a number of fine movies and has often surprised me with good performances, but there's something about her (oh, unintentional joke there) that just doesn't grab me. She just doesn't exude enough emotion to make me interested in her characters. Too bad then, that she apparently has more star power than Kate Winslet, who I haven't really seen in this kind of movie before and does very well, despite the lesser amount of attention given to her storyline.
Written December 2, 2007.
Cameron Diaz has been in a number of fine movies and has often surprised me with good performances, but there's something about her (oh, unintentional joke there) that just doesn't grab me. She just doesn't exude enough emotion to make me interested in her characters. Too bad then, that she apparently has more star power than Kate Winslet, who I haven't really seen in this kind of movie before and does very well, despite the lesser amount of attention given to her storyline.
Written December 2, 2007.
Live Free or Die Hard
3/4 stars
This movie was just as idiotically intense and exciting as I was hoping it would be, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Still, the potential for repeat viewings could have been much improved by action scenes a little sharper and one liners a little smarter. The original Die Hard was a classic for a reason. This is just popcorn, albeit damn tasty.
Written December 2, 2007.
This movie was just as idiotically intense and exciting as I was hoping it would be, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Still, the potential for repeat viewings could have been much improved by action scenes a little sharper and one liners a little smarter. The original Die Hard was a classic for a reason. This is just popcorn, albeit damn tasty.
Written December 2, 2007.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Constantine
3/4 stars
Keanu Reeves is at the same calibre of acting here as he was in The Matrix films. I mean that as a compliment, I don't have much patience for the unfair singling out of Keanu as a bad actor that's so popular. He has his troublesome moments (and with bad editing, that can happen to anyone) but he's still a head and shoulders above plenty of vacant, good-looking people in Hollywood. The action is also on the same level as the aforementioned trilogy, with some stylistic differences. I found the world of the movie, its use of Catholicism as a mythological backdrop both startling and engrossing. On the negative side though, the supporting cast could use a bit more depth and development, and the story seems more complicated than it really is at times due to muddled delivery. This movie encourages the audience to think, but the sheer spectacle at times seems to act as a reward for not doing so. Still, a gripping and inventive film.
Written March 26, 2008.
Keanu Reeves is at the same calibre of acting here as he was in The Matrix films. I mean that as a compliment, I don't have much patience for the unfair singling out of Keanu as a bad actor that's so popular. He has his troublesome moments (and with bad editing, that can happen to anyone) but he's still a head and shoulders above plenty of vacant, good-looking people in Hollywood. The action is also on the same level as the aforementioned trilogy, with some stylistic differences. I found the world of the movie, its use of Catholicism as a mythological backdrop both startling and engrossing. On the negative side though, the supporting cast could use a bit more depth and development, and the story seems more complicated than it really is at times due to muddled delivery. This movie encourages the audience to think, but the sheer spectacle at times seems to act as a reward for not doing so. Still, a gripping and inventive film.
Written March 26, 2008.
Bee Movie
3/4 stars
This is actually a pretty funny movie, and Seinfeld's distinctive observational comedic stylings make a welcome and refreshing return (in his first big project since his eponymous TV show ended ten years ago). His particular form of humor actually adapts quite well into an animated family comedy, and doesn't even really clash with the rest of what's going on. No, the problem with this movie, if I had to name one, is its constantly goal-shifting convoluted plot. I know that you enter a movie like this with certain lowered expectations about believability. What I'm saying is that Bee Movie still strains credibility even in that context. It starts as a (very) offbeat romance, turns into a sort of David and Goliath legal farce and ends as something else altogether. The audience is expected to adjust its desired outcome altogether too many times. Given that, it's still a fairly enjoyable ride.
Written April 17, 2008.
This is actually a pretty funny movie, and Seinfeld's distinctive observational comedic stylings make a welcome and refreshing return (in his first big project since his eponymous TV show ended ten years ago). His particular form of humor actually adapts quite well into an animated family comedy, and doesn't even really clash with the rest of what's going on. No, the problem with this movie, if I had to name one, is its constantly goal-shifting convoluted plot. I know that you enter a movie like this with certain lowered expectations about believability. What I'm saying is that Bee Movie still strains credibility even in that context. It starts as a (very) offbeat romance, turns into a sort of David and Goliath legal farce and ends as something else altogether. The audience is expected to adjust its desired outcome altogether too many times. Given that, it's still a fairly enjoyable ride.
Written April 17, 2008.
Rounders
3/4 stars
Mol is bland, Malkovitch is over the top, Janssen is underused and Norton just disappears about halfway through the movie, never to be seen again. Still, Damon immerses us in the movie with the same blend of charisma and vulnerability that worked in Good Will Hunting, aided by some suitably confessional narration. The world that the film draws us into is seductively gritty, the storyline effective, and the overall result entirely watchable if not inspired.
Written June 12, 2008.
Mol is bland, Malkovitch is over the top, Janssen is underused and Norton just disappears about halfway through the movie, never to be seen again. Still, Damon immerses us in the movie with the same blend of charisma and vulnerability that worked in Good Will Hunting, aided by some suitably confessional narration. The world that the film draws us into is seductively gritty, the storyline effective, and the overall result entirely watchable if not inspired.
Written June 12, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)