Change Your Image
jmelvin1-1
Reviews
Avatar (2009)
It's as Corny as Kansas in August
8 means I liked it a lot. I don't think I love it yet. I do feel that this film is amazing, at least in the way that it engages the viewer. I did feel young again.
The film does have a limited plot, and yet this is a fine story. Just not spectacular. This is similar to the acting and scoring......both are fine, but not noteworthy. The special effects and use of 3-D in the cinematography seem to rule this film. They dominate, yet don't overwhelm it.
It is very, very romantic. So romantic that it led me to expect an ending like Brazil. But nothing quite so sobering.
I spent much of the summer and fall wondering why Entertainment Weekly had awarded New Moon the movie of the year with its over coverage, and given little talk to Avatar. In November I thought I was wrong and EW was right. But I am happy to see Cameron have the film of the year. This is a movie lovers film (please remember the director of New Moon state that that film was for the fans. Gee, thanks).
Avatar is a must see.
As for 'how good' is it.....lets compare Avatar, the most expensive film ever made to the 2nd most expensive film ever made, Pirates Of The Caribbean 3.
Both are too long at 2:40. Both struggle with special effects overpowering the film. Avatar succeeds better. Pirates uses its actors better (Depp and Rush). Avatar seems to overpower their actors, at least in having outstanding performances. This includes Sigourney Weaver. I'm not saying she's bad......just that there will be no Oscar nom for this role. Avatar is better directed. Pirates is better balanced between direction, cinematography and score. Both have similar villains who are white corporate men using military power to exploit nature. . I thoroughly enjoyed both, while my wife did neither.
How memorable is it? Well, it did put a smile on my face. like when I saw Star Wars, Empire, Raiders, Return of the King, The Incredibles, well, you get the idea. But I do think that the story is a little predictable....similar to the disappointment in Star Wars episode 2. Well, not nearly that disappointing. And I feel that is a good comparison because Ep 2 was the first all digitally filmed movie.....a technological breakthrough.
Perhaps it gets close to Star Wars (notice, no episodes. You know, the 1977 movie when there was only one Star Wars).
I wouldn't give it a best picture nom. I do feel that Star Trek was better. That is to say Star Trek was superb, Avatar was excellent.
One thing is for sure.....the plot of this film is corny. Very.
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Reimagined, good that seems great
Sherlock Holmes gives the viewer more than most films this holiday season. We enjoy many actors at their best, certainly to be topped by Downing Jr.and Law, who both give Depp-like popcorn performances. Guy Richie has intelligent style in his direction. And Zimmer's score plays as a strong supporter of the plot.
To re-imagine Sherlock Holmes is not to just bring to life Doyle's Victorian detective.....but to confront the veteran movie goer with Christopher Plummer's detective, as well as Basil Rathbone's definitive interpretation. However, history does have an advantage here. There is no superb Sherlock Holmes' movie (perhaps Rathbone's Hounds of Baskervilles is close). And there still isn't. But there is another great interpretation to enjoy. And in this viewing, one will find these points of cinematic fascination.
1. Do all Hollywood blockbuster's today require heroes who fight? Maybe, but when Richie directs the scenes this well, we understand Downey's Holmes much better.
2. Why is Hollywood so male centered? Perhaps a movie based on two famous male detectives would not be the movie to ask this about, but Rachel McAdam's character brings this to point. She's very good, but for being such an important chacter, she gets very limited screen time.
3. Is this film great? Well, the narrative is a little jumpy. But considering how bad popcorn movies have bee this year(other than Star Trek) perhaps we all should just enjoy a very good movie.
Btw, be sure to savor the use of the violin for Holmes.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)
Figuring out "New Moon" for men over 35.
First of all, I gave it a 5 out of 10 somewhat out of respect. Any movie that creates this buzz deserves some sort of respect, simply because, it is history. And it is much better than Transformers 2 or GI Joe.
However, in the end, a good movie is a good movie. A bad movie is a bad movie. This seems to succeed as neither.
The first movie had its charm. But at times it was painfully under produced, directed, etc.,. This sequel unfortunately keeps a similar mood.
At issue is Kristen Swan. She was decent in the first film, but she is in almost every scene in this movie, with the same expression. It's tiring. Perhaps I should be easier on her. Very few actresses can hold a movie at age 19. Except Keira Knightely, Scarlett Johansen, Ellen Page......see my point? Poor casting.
This continues with Robert Pattinson, who looks like James Dean, and seems to emulate Hayden Christenson in Episode 2 and 3. See the big problem?
Fortunately, there is Jakob, played by Taylor Lautner. He keeps a strong character (and strong physique) in his scenes. He is believable as a teenager in love.
The direction has no inspiration, the scoring is relies too much on pop songs, and the script is rather poor at times. As someone who loves movies, I am upset to see film studios rake in movie bucks for a lackluster product. This is the second time this year, with the embarrassment of Transformers.
But this is an event. The teen girls love this. Note: Bella's source of self-esteem seems to be dating vampires and werewolves.
Race to Witch Mountain (2009)
Painfully close to a great movie
First of all, it's not great. Second, any of the reviewers who talk about the original being a classic, I was 11 in 1975. Give me a break. It was typical of the Disney crap released at this time. Finally, when I say close to great, I mean in an ET/Iron Giant way. Instead, it's more along the lines of Cocoon.
This is a good movie, and at times, it IS great. But as a whole, it falls short. Much of the film is typical. You know, Aliens are good, men in black are bad, action, chase, environment message, yada yada. Here's where it's better than your typical sci-fi action family film.
1. Everyone except Carla Gugino (Dr. Alex Freidman) is excellent in their rolls. Even she isn't particularly bad, just not as good. There are some good cameos. Gary Marshall is great.
2. The action: while this is PG, it doesn't shy away from violence or guns. But the catch is when Dwayne Johnson and the teen-Aliens are running from an Alien Bounty hunter early on, the teens look scared. Anna Sophia Robb's eyes really deliver a sense of vulnerability. I found this as effective as the Train Tunnel chase.
3. It is rather dark for a PG film. The men in black are a culvert group from our federal government, who point their loaded weapons constantly at innocent US citizens. The film briefly makes the parallel to the Alien Bounty Hunter, who is a military agent from the teen- aliens' planet. Washington is mentioned behind the men in black. They want to kill our beloved Alien teens.
4. As with most great Sci-Fi, it relates to our times. Our protagonist teens have no rights because they are illegal aliens. The Men In Black are out of control. Granted, this would work better if Bush was still president, but still, it directly plays on the reality that the executive branch of our government has unchecked power.
5. Two sections of the movie takes place around a sci-fi convention. This allows for plenty of gags that remind us that the film makers didn't take this movie too seriously.
Now, if this isn't your kind of film, don't be tempted to see it. But for family action, yes. For Sci Fi, it's a must see. For a Sci fi action flick, it does everything well, except the ending. And that's its fault. It is the typical corn ball alien ending (al-la Cocoon, or Splash). After the first two acts being so strong, it's too bad.
Let's compare this to Bolt, since both are PG family Disney fare. After a poor second act, Bolt delivered with a rather emotion resolution. With Race to Witch Mountain, Act 3 becomes a Ron Howard formula. Strange, as Act 1 and Act 2 were almost good enough to be a must see for everyone.
How could this film have delivered better in the end? First of all, play up the teen-aliens sacrificing themselves to save our world. Environment, so it reminds us of "This Island Earth". And Sarah dies making this sacrifice. Now, Seth and Jack stay strong until the end, when they finally let loose with the tears. Sarah's innocence was very effective in this movie, and this would be just emotionally devastating. But in the sequel we discover that Sarah's body has been reproduced, and her soul was stored in Jack Bruno's brain (think Star Trek 2 and 3). So he has a sudden fetish for female teen accents and a strange fascination with Hannah Montana. Would you pay to see Dwane Johnson air singing with a Hannah Montana wig, earrings, and a bow in his hair? I think so. So, Disney may have missed the boat on this. Big time
So close.
Jane Eyre (1943)
Citizen Jane
Fans of Jane Eyre usually hold this movie in high esteem. That is curious, for this film was not successful when it was released, and there have been so many other versions. But time and again, this is at the top. And when you look at the credits, it has a stunning group creative forces.
Orson Welles, John Houseman, Agnes Morehead, Erskine Sanford, Bernard Herrman. All five Mercury Theatre members. All five part of Citizen Kane (Houseman is uncredited for screenplay). All five in this. Indeed, when the Mercury Theatre was doing its radio shows at the same as Broadway repertory, they performed Jane Eyre. Houseman and Welles knew how to cut and paste a great book for highbrow network radio. Hence, their first encounter with Bronte's work.
Now we go to the end of the Mercury Theatre, when Welles had screwed over RKO, and Houseman left him realizing the self destructive nature of Welles. Houseman was helping to produce movies, and when coming across the project, mentioned to his bosses the Mercury Theatre show. Houseman proposed using Welles as Rochester.
The movie gets even better after this. Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) helps with the screenplay. Director Robert Stevenson was a fan of Citize Kane and Welles, and did not hesitate to use some of the cinematography effects. Throw in Herrmann, the Mercury Theatre composer for the score, and there you have it. Citizen Jane.
The film will not go away. Charlotte Bronte fans keep it relevant. There are so many versions of Jane Eyre. Yet this one comes to the top of most lists. So many actors have played Rochester. Yet a flat footed, overbearing and hammy Welles again comes in at the top of people's lists. Only Toby Stevens of the most recent BBC version seems to offer any competition.
This is not a top 100 or even 400 Hollywood movie. But it is important. Even just as a job for this amazingly talented cast and crew. Welles on his way out, Houseman as another step on his way to his great golden years.
Notice these strong elements:
1. Agnes Moorehead as Mrs. Reed. What a great actress. Endora on Bewitched. Wow!
2. The scenes in Thornfield. They are scary. For having almost no blood or violence, Stevenson creates a very Eyree atmosphere.
3. The shots of the candle moving through the windows. Ah, just great.
4. The window crashing open, and the supernatural voice of Welles heard through the night.
5. Elizabeth Taylor and Margaret O'Brien
6. Dr. Rivers (come on, Charlotte Bronte fans, St. John Rivers was a drag in the book. Much more efficient.
7. Welles as Rochester. Sure, Welles' flat footed, clumsy, hammy, and irritating. And so is Rochester.
This makes up for a very unJaneish Joan Fontaine, and the over-scoring by Herrman. Yes, he may be the best movie scorer of all time, but not for this movie.
Enjoy it. Preserve it. It's a lot of fun.
Watchmen (2009)
Watch something else
Many fans are going to this mess of a film and probably enjoying it. Me and my wife went and after about 90 minutes began to play "Mystery Science Theatre 3000". My other reviews mention the costume dramas she drags me to. This movie was a payback.
Please understand that I have not read the graphic novel yet.
My comments will be brief on behalf of a movie that may have been true to the graphic novel, but seemed to have lost a sense of a strong narrative somewhere around 90 minutes. That first 90 minutes featured some strong direction with plenty of movie references from Wellesian shots, to several Kubrick influences (Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove).
I will put a turning point during the flashback when Dr. Manhattan reveals his past. This section was perhaps my major motivation for seeing the movie. It uses Philip Glass' Koyanisquatsi as its scoring. It is a good series of scenes. But how it contributes to the narrative is unclear to me. it goes on and on. And at some point a choir was added over Glass' music. Did Glass know his music was being altered?
The film has issues with stupid sex scenes, stupid music during stupid sex scenes, violence that seems put in the movie for the sake of violence, and some characters that become as enjoyable to watch as Malcolm MacDonald's Caligula.
My major criticism is that more skill wasn't used to craft a narrative, similar to how Jackson adapted the Lord of the Rings. At 2:40 in length, I hope for either a payoff in the story similar to The Dark Knight, or at least a great cast that keeps the movie enjoyable, like POTC: At World's End. Neither is to be had.
But my major "what were are you thinking?" comes from the soundtrack choices. Dylan's The Times They Are A'Changin. Simon and Garfunkel's Sounds Of Silence, Hendrix's Watchtower (maybe that one should slide). Boy, it's nice to see the film uses music from the 80's. And such original choices. Uhhhg.
That goes as well for the high brow stuff, like Glass' Koyanisquatsi from, uh, Koyanisquatsi. Or Wagner's Ride of Valkeries for the Watchmen's fighting in Vietnam (too close a reference to Apocalypse Now's use of it). But the worst was at the end, when Mozart's Requiem pops in for 30 seconds. Oh, come on. If Snyder wanted to really pay homage to Kubrick, maybe he should have studied Clockwork Orange, 2001, and The Shining better for their use of preexisting classical music.
In the end, if the viewer ignores the poorly directed violence, poor music, corny music, and tangential story lines, there is a compelling story of heroes who more closely resemble villains, and the conflict of good and evil within a person.
If you don't want to ignore these choices, just watch "The Dark Knight" again.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Men, be not afraid.
Every so often, a wife guilts her husband, or a girlfriend her guilts her boy into their choice for a film. If so, men, be not afraid. This film works for us. Here's how.
The first scary area is this world of is the author Jane Austin. Or, I mean her followers. They are as over the top in their unending devotion as J.R.R. Tolkien fans. "But she one of the great authors of the English language." Maybe, but her fans are true to that word. Fanatics. Hence, the much acclaimed 6 hour miniseries of 1995. But this movie is not that. It is a sensible 2 hours.
The first half hour can be painful, including the obligatory 'girls laughing in their corsets' scene before a ball. Uhggg. But things quickly change when Mr. Collins visits.
The first bit of good news is the wonderful direction of Joe Wright. Second is the great scoring of Dario Marianelli. The next is the casting.
For Collins is the fantastic character actor Tom Hollander. As an unwelcome guest, he brings to life Donald Sutherland and Keira Knightley. These are our family, the Bennetts. Knightley is Elizabeth Bennett, the main character, who shares a special bond with her father, Sutherland. Part of the bond is making fun of this guest. Check out the pointed direction.
Next comes a dance with Elizabeth and the legendary Mr. Darcy, played by MI6 man Matthew McFayden. His effectiveness in this role may be debated by the ladies, but men, relax. We can deal with him. Partially because at any moment we hope he will pull out a gun. Of course, that doesn't happen. But it could. Like when the Zombies come to eat the guests at the dance. OK, that doesn't happen. But I could just imagine it.
Scene after scene, what is PG material seems steaming and naughty. This is from Wright's take....Elizabeth Bennett is not the wise cracker of the book or miniseries, but intelligently outspoken and emotional. Her crisis seems to be her coming to terms with being at the crossroads of youth and a sexually mature woman. Needless to say, Knightley pulls this off stunningly.
Scenes of passion with McFayden seem more so. The scene of confrontation with Judi Dench and Knightley comes across like Dench is holding a gun on her. Maybe this isn't as true to Austin as the miniseries, but why would a man care? It is engaging. And enjoyable. And at times seems downright dirty. And we can imagine Knightley throwing Dench out of the house to be eaten by Zombies. Whoops! Sorry.
Also of great note is Bond girl Rosamund Pike. The novel deals with two couples. One is Elizabeth and Darcy. The other is her sister Jane and Charles Bingley. At several points of the movie, Jane's story goes front and center, and Pike has the ability to come from the background and take charge of a scene, while Knightley steps into the background. Pike and Knightley work well together. Especially when cornered in the house be the Zombies, and they have to bring out Mr. Bennett's arsonal to kill them off. Oh, sorry again.
In the end, you may actually enjoy this. A man can respect McFayden. A man will be engaged by Knightley. And this is one of few period pieces that can reach across that barrier that some schmucks call "Mars and Venus".
Lost in Austen (2008)
Men avoid!
I can enjoy period pieces. Last year I actually stopped watching the Giants beating up Dallas to enjoy Mansfield Park (seriously, but that was Billy Piper). I loved 2005's Pride and Prejudice, and I proceeded to read the book, and watch the very long 1996 miniseries.
But seriously folks, this is goofy. Very chick cliché filled. I bought it for my wife, played on our regionless DVD player. But men, leave the room. Watch Momma's Boys. Do the taxes. But do anything to avoid this.
The only decent few minutes were in Episode 4, after Darcy visits the current time and he and Elizabeth return. Amanda invites a friend who is black to return back to their time, and she says no way. Good. Darcy refers to the future as a bad dream, partially because of women's rights. Good. Elizabeth returns to the future, largely because of women's rights. Good. Amanda's kiss with Darcy at the end. Vomit alert. Amanda at almost all times.....Bad Bad Bad.
Now, Austen fans, for the record, why is Bingley always portrayed as this wishy washy sop? And can any one tell me why Amanda's last name was Price? How does this relate to Fanny Price from Mansfield Park? This can't be a coincidence. And while it is funny to see Collins portrayed as a freak, all it does is make Tom Hollander's geeky not freaky portrayal in 2005 P&P that much more masterful.
King Arthur (2004)
The Seven Samurai, or uh Knights
The 2004 release of King Arthur provides the movie fan with a rare chance to view two versions of a movie. One that was packaged as a PG-13 summer blockbuster, and the other as the great unrated (really 'R') movie the director had envisioned.
Director Antoine Fuqua provided a great angle to this interpretation of the King Arthur story. Instead of Camelot, it is based on current theories that state King Arthur was a roman who led the Britains after the Empire left the island.
The biggest issue critics have with the movie is this uncomfortable retelling where Arthur is not yet a King, but an honorable British leader of Sarmatian knights whose world comes crashing down as the Romans are pulling out of England.
In addition to that, the movie makes clear references to great classics. "The Seven Samurai", "Brave Heart", and "Alexander Nevsky" occupy positions on Sight and Sound's 100 best movies list. And that leaves no room for error. When Bruckheimer is the producer, well, this could mean disaster. That would be the PG-13 version.
However, the director's cut is quite satisfying, if not quite ready for Best Picture. The battle sequences are engaging and believable with the "R" violence. Each of the knights are able to achieve good screen presence early on, which is good, because they get pushed aside by Guinevere when she shows up in the second act.
The first great scene is the battle on the ice, which is an homage to "Alexander Nevsky". Here we are treated to 7 knights plus Guinevere trying to hold off an army of 200 Saxons crossing on thin ice. Eisenstein had to deal with Styrofoam ice, while Fuqua deals with goofy CGI. But even with the over-done Hollywood shots, it's still awesome.
Themes of soldiers fighting in a land far from their home for an Empire resonate strongly with the American experience. Arthur discovers that his Roman Empire has become corrupted, and in a test of his mettle, he abandons his retirement to lead the Britons against the invading Saxons. Again, this theme speaks for our current world.
The use of seven warriors defending natives from invaders seems very close to "The Seven Samurai". The emotional funeral for the death of one of the Knights seems to echo closely to the first funeral in Kurosawa's classic. But when Guinevere decides she and Arthur must express their attraction physically she says "What tomorrow brings, we cannot know." This scene is almost exact to the scene in Seven Samurai when Shino tries to seduce the innocent Katsushiro. Well, other than the humping.
The end features a typical "Magnificent Seven" set up as the other Knights are going to leave the battle to Arthur, Guinevere, and various natives known as Woads. Of course they return, and have a spectacular battle.
Clive Owens has received criticism for his portrayal of Arthur. While he is somewhat introverted, he delivers a great portrayal. Ioan Gruffudd is wonderful as Lancelot, Arthur's close but more emotional friend. Between them appears Keira Knightley as Guinevere. But instead of the affair and infidelity, Lancelot is true to his lead, and can recognize Arthur and Guinvere's belief in a higher purpose, and his own lack of faith. Fuqua discusses this choice in his commentary, and I feel it is a great one.
Of special note is Knightley. This is the first movie I can remember where a woman in battle was very believable. This is partially because during shooting she didn't get out of the way of a stuntman and took a kick in the bust. And of course, that shot was used. Also of great amusement is when the 17 year old Knightley sits on a seemingly terrified Clive Owens for their PG13 sex scene (it stays the same in the director's cut, other than an interruption). Contrast this with the last scene at the wedding, when Knightley seems to try to suck out Owen's tonsils. This time, he is quite happy to let her do it.
Fuqua's original ending is another funeral, again echoing the final shots of Seven Samurai. While this is sensitively done, it is understandable why another ending was shot. The end of the movie isn't sad, other than the Knights who gave their lives for English freedom. Arthur is King, Guinevere is Queen, and Boors, Gawain, and Galahad, are now leaders for Britain.
Another star of the film is Hans Zimmer's score. It soars and provides bite to the fights, sadness to the mourning, and nobility to Arthur's triumph.
To be able to see the two versions tells us so much about editing, narrative, and how to repackage a serious R film as a summer blockbuster.
Finally, this film claims to be historically accurate. It's not. I could go on about details, but in the end it's Hollwood. Guinevere's eyes sparkle after battle, and Arthur looks like he just spent that battle with John Kerry's make up man. Even the dead Lancelot looks better than most of the living. But in the end, how could anyone be surprised (and by reading the other reviews, they were). The film says Bruckheimer. Yeh, I really expect a truly historical movie. Duhhhhhhh.
The Edge of Love (2008)
Portrait Of An Artist as a Bad Man
From the start of "The Edge Of Love", the viewer is transported to the striking world of WW2 London. We follow the lives of four people who might have been created just for this movie, an exploration of female friendship and the strains caused on it by marriage and infidelity. Except one of the characters is named Dylan Thomas, perhaps the greatest English poet of the 20th century. And his reactions to the world around him were not only selfish, but at times truly despicable.
This movie is based on Thomas' writings about love and romance. These were adapted with a sharp screenplay by Sharman MacDonald (Keira Knightley's mother). The director, John Maybury, does claim that the three other lead characters were actual people.
All four are performed very strongly. Sienna Miller is Dylan's wife, Keira Knightley is the cabaret singer Vera Phillips. Matthew Rhys is Dylan Thomas, and Cillian Murphy is William Killick. The first section of the movie takes place in London during the Nazi air raids, with Vera being pursued by Willaim, a soldier waiting for deployment. By a chance encounter, Dylan meets with his first love, Vera. From there Vera meets Caitlin, Dylan's wife. While the three are drinking, William successfully breaks Vera's guard.
The film follows their lives as Vera and William are married and he is sent to war. Vera has become pregnant, and returns to Wales with Dylan and Caitlin. There they face a gritty existence, with Vera supporting Dylan and Caitlin with her husband's war pay. Through these times, Vera's and Caitlin's friendship grows. So does Dylan's infatuation with Vera. She gives in. This creates the first test for the two women.
When William returns from war, he barely recognizes his wife, and has no bond with his infant son. Things get worse, as Dylan idly watches his friend struggle with battleground fatigue (post traumatic stress disorder). William realizes something has happened between Dylan and Vera, and in a drunken rage shoots up Dylan's house.
"Edge Of Love" starts as a stylish romance in war torn London and ends in the stark, gritty life of motherhood, infidelity, and attempted murder in Wales. The treatment of PTSD is well done, and should speak to an American audience. Some day (see ending).
Each star has a great moment. Miller when she is yanking out stitches in her head in response to her abortion of another man's child. Knightley and Murpy when he finally bonds with his son. Oh hell, almost all their scenes are awesome. And Rhys when he purgers himself on the stand to get Vera's husband sent to jail.
Yet, the real star of the movie is Jonathan Freeman's cinematography and John Maybury's direction. They seem to understand that no matter how good the story or how historical Thomas is, this is a film dominated by two great actresses of our time. And they cherish their scenes with stunning shots. While this isn't best picture material, it is a very good movie (much more engaging than "The Dutchess"). It has a visual lyricism that accentuates the use of Thomas' poetry. Also, this is clearly Knightley's second best performance of her career, and perhaps Miller's best.
I have always had a weakness for the Artist in struggle, whether it's Hulce's Mozart, or Hoffman's Capote. But I was stunned at how little sympathy I felt for Dylan Thomas. His struggles with alcohol are well known. But his antagonism of William and Caitlin to gain possession of his first love Vera makes him out to be.....a bad man.
So is this Academy Award Worthy? Clearly no. At least, not this year. It will be released state side in March, 2009, making it ineligible for the Academies. This is 9 months after it was released in Britain. Between Atonement, Miss Pettigrew, and Brideshead Revisited, the US has had its fill of WW2 British period pieces. Too bad. This film is better then the other ones, except Atonement. But in this one, Knightley's soldier does come back, but as a shell of the man who left her.