Change Your Image
dbranan
Reviews
Jack Reacher (2012)
Much better than I expected!
I never expect much from a Tom Cruise film. Actually, that's not true. I always expect it to be a Tom Cruise ego stroke-athon, and in that respect I was not disappointed. In every scene where Tom walks into a crowded bar or store or whatever, it seems clear that every woman has been given the direction to point an "I want you" look at Tom. Perhaps this is just the natural response to Tom's manliness; perhaps he exudes great wafts of pheromones that women can't resist - I admit that I don't actually know. OK, I got that off my chest, now let's get to the movie.
I have to admit, I really liked this film. The acting and character development is uniformly good, and particularly so in the case of David Oyelowo - I'll have to go find some of this guy's other films. Even the villains are pretty well developed instead of just being disposable generic bad guys. Werner Herzog is excellent as The Zec, and I just wish Arnold Schwarzenegger would take a cue from a fellow European septuagenarian and pick a few roles that are age-appropriate for him, (Werner is only 5 years older). Rosamund Pike is excellent in her role and perfectly cast for the part, in my opinion. I just wish she would get past her distinctly noticeable reluctance to allow her teeth to contact one another when she speaks - it's really distracting.
But what really sets this film apart from most of what I've seen this year (or in the past few years) is the fact that it has a discernible plot that isn't full of logical holes and discontinuities. Oh, there are a few - it isn't perfect - but it's a distinct improvement over such films as the recent James Bond outing (see my review). It's even better (story-wise) than the Bourne movies, in my opinion (although it can't touch the Bourne Identity for sheer intrigue). I've seen other reviews knocking the lack of "action" in this film, but I thought it was balanced perfectly with the dialogue and story development. The action served the story, rather than just being there for it's own sake, as it seems to be in most "action" films of the past few years.
So, if you like a good action film that actually has a plot and some solid acting, go see Jack Reacher. If you can look past Cruise's palpable narcissism, you'll really enjoy this movie!
Skyfall (2012)
I'll never see another Bond film...
OK, I know I should never say never, but that's how I feel about it right now. SO disappointing! Casino Royale (2006) was inspired greatness! Unfortunately, the sequels have been either confusing and pretentious, or just plain boring dreck. I have no objection to the descendants of Albert Broccoli milking the franchise for all it's worth, but for heaven's sake give us something worth watching!
What's missing from this movie, or what's wrong with it? Oh, let me count the ways. Here's my 4-paragraph rant about this colossal waste of time:
1) Plot-line: MIA. Simply put, there is only one story in this nearly 2 and a half hour movie: get rid of Dench and replace her with Fiennes (with a minor plot-line of creating Ms. Moneypenny). They could have done this in the first 20 minutes of the film and had plenty of time left for a rollicking good Bond story! But instead, we are "treated" to a dull, pandering film that is an attempt to reboot the reboot with Sam Mendes' sensibilities. Why not move on and really develop the story and the characters? Instead, we get a 10 minute story crammed into a 2+ hour movie.
2) Character development: Schizophrenic at best. Although expertly acted by Javier Bardem, the villain is just a rehash of the Joker from Batman, with slightly more homoerotic overtones. Nothing inspired here except Bardem's acting, which is amazing. But what's worse is the ambiguity and confusion of the main characters like Bond and M. Many of their actions are completely out of character or contradictory. Examples: M telling Bond to murder Patrice to avenge Ronson's death. Since when did MI6 become the Untouchables? They don't operate on an emotional level, they're supposed to be a logical, complex organization working for the greater good (at least for England). As was mentioned in other reviews, Bond shows truly sex-offender sensibilities in this film, bedding and forgetting a woman whom he has already identified as having been an abused sex-slave since she was 12 or 13. Bond's a womanizer, but he's also a gentleman. This film doesn't seem to be able to recognize or reconcile those ideas.
3) Plot holes: Too numerous to count! I'm not saying that Bond movies should be completely logical, but they should hang together reasonably well. This one is just a crazy-quilt patchwork of action scenes glued together with "computer magic" while pandering to the audience by throwing in references to REAL Bond films now an then. By "computer magic" I don't mean the CGI effects (which are great), but instead the insistence on using computers and computer programs to explain everything that happens, as if it were magic. It's so ridiculous. They might as well have been casting spells instead of using computer programs. The only difference between this film and Harry Potter is that Voldemort isn't present... oh, wait, he actually is...
4) The final insult: Death by Elocution. The worst part about this film is the subplot of the government inquiry into MI6, which is supposed to convince us that Bond is still necessary in the 21st century. Judi Dench gives an uninspired and creaky speech about how we're no longer fighting nations and how our enemies are loners and small groups whose actions we can't accurately track or predict. This whole subplot is not only dull and unconvincing, it's completely unnecessary and it completely ignores the entire Bond canon! While Bond's enemies in the past may have sometimes been nominally associated with foreign governments, they have ALWAYS been unpredictable psychos! This has always been the whole point to having someone like Bond available to use against them!
In summary, don't waste your time with this terrible movie. Just keep re-watching Casino Royale and dreaming of what might have been. Perhaps Broccoli Corp will get the message and score a hit next time, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Dark Knight (2008)
This film is NOT the greatest film of all time.
Truthfully, it's not a "1" either, but I feel compelled to balance out all the people who are giving it a "10". If I were able to give it an honest rating, it would probably be a 5 out of 10, which is still pretty awful, but well-deserved.
This film is a pathetic sequel to a promising re-invention of the Batman franchise (Batman Begins). I have huge respect for Christopher Nolan, mostly for "Memento", which has an HONEST rating of 8.6 on IMDb and justifiably ranks in the top 250 greatest films. I make the distinction because I don't think "The Dark Knight" is being rated honestly. The current rating of 9.4 is so obviously a sympathy-vote for Heath Ledger (who does a fantastic job) that IMDb should disqualify the rating as tainted.
I won't give anything away, because there's truthfully not much to give away in the first place. The story line is as schizophrenic and chaotic as the Joker himself. The internal logic of the film is all over the map and leads to a very unsatisfying conclusion. If the result was an "art" film, then a disjointed story might be forgivable, but that's not the case. This is a pedantic, boring, formulaic summer "blockbuster" film masquerading as a piece of art.
As I said, Heath Ledger's Joker is a great characterization, even if it does draw noticeably on Nicholson's portrayal. Ledger is undeniably fun to watch, which is more than I can say for Christian Bale. Bale is a passable Bruce Wayne, but, in this film, he's an extremely dull Batman. And what's with his voice? Was that his idea, or Nolan's direction? If you're going to utter dialogue sounding as if you've just gargled battery acid, it can be effective only as a brief, energetic exclamation, preferably monosyllabic. However, if you try to speak for 5 minutes in this manner, it becomes not only distracting, but comical. Any time Batman distressed his vocal cords for more than 10 seconds, spontaneous laughter broke out all over the packed theater. I'm sure this is not the response that Nolan envisioned for these parts of the film.
To sum it all up, seeing this film would be a complete waste of time if it wasn't for Heath Ledger. Wait for it to come out on video. If you want to see a really good comic adaptation, then go see "Ironman". Even "Fantastic 4", which was a big disappointment to me, was a better comic adaptation than "The Dark Knight".
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)
Not a worthy sequel -- don't bother with this one
First of all, I really liked the first NT film. At first, I thought it was because I just had such low expectations, but I watched it again recently and it holds up very well. But, this is about the sequel. Unfortunately, I DID have high expectations for NT2, but it has none of the panache that the first movie possessed. Even in the first film, the plot stretches credulity, but in this pile of dreck, there's almost no coherent plot in the first place. They make an attempt to weave a complex plot out of some weak connections, but only succeed in producing a confusing jumble of "puzzles" that anyone could figure out in a few minutes. With this lack of plot line, it's no wonder that the motivations of the characters are similarly murky. Subplots are set up and toppled for no apparent reason, and the Ed Harris character is particularly schizoid, which is a shame because he's such a good supporting actor. Unfortunately, his talents were almost entirely wasted in this film. In fact, wasting excellent actors' efforts seems to be the primary purpose of NT2. Justin Bartha (Riley) is consistently witty and funny, just as he was in the first film, but he seems a little strained or forced at times in the sequel. Nicholas Cage actually improves on his performance in the first film. He's much less wooden and seems more relaxed and natural in the role of of Ben Gates. Jon Voight and Hellen Mirren are simply dynamite together and could easily pull off a sequel by themselves. Diane Kruger is as hot as ever, but even she's not enough to save this dog of a film. In fact, ALL the acting in NT2 is very good, but the result is much less than the sum of the parts. Even great acting can't save a bad script. Don't waste your time -- you'll just be disappointed.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
A word about the violence
After seeing the film, and after reading many of the comments, I would like to say something about the violence that has attracted so much attention.
This film is violent, but not in the adolescent vein of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Saw" or other similar films. It is violent in a realistic manner that counterbalances the fantasy portion of the story in a non-gratuitous way. All the violent scenes are entirely appropriate to the telling of the story, although many of them are difficult to watch. What you won't see are fountains of gore and exploding body parts. The fact is that people don't explode in a burst of red mist when shot with a military-caliber luger. This is not cartoon/video game violence.
The CGI is done in an understated way that enhances the realism of the movie, rather than detracting from it. This is probably the single best use of GGI that I have ever seen. You truly walk away wondering if much of what you just saw was actually real.
I have read comments disdaining the creatures in this film, but I think these people have entirely missed the point. The fantasy scenes, although some of them are disturbing, are almost charming in their child-like simplicity. They are rooted in the fears and imagination of a young girl, not the jaded mind of an adult. As such, they are frightening only in a "monster under the bed" sort of way.
Finally, I would encourage anyone who loves fantasy films to see Pan's Labyrinth. I would not recommend it for any child under the age of 16, though I think that only the most mature 16-year olds should see it. It is a thought-provoking film that will haunt you for days afterward.
The Killing (1956)
...but there's really no way to spoil this gem!
There's no way to reveal too much about this story line, because it gives itself away purposefully right from the beginning. It was made in the 1950's, when "crime didn't pay." The fact that there's a narrator (reminiscent of not only Dragnet, but also the "Gang Busters" radio series preceding it) describing events subtly suggests that these scofflaws didn't get away with it. In the final analysis, none of that matters, nor does it diminish the suspense or the greatness of the story-telling. The "hook" is not in whether they got away or not, but how they TRIED to get away with it. Criticisms that there are errors in the plan for the heist are misguided. The obvious problems with parts of the plan just play into the realism of the story. These guys aren't Nobel-prize winners, they're just two-bit hoods trying to make a score that's way out of their league.
On top of that, this is probably the best cast of any of the "film-noir" movies. Sterling Hayden is solid, as always; Elisha Cook Jr. and Marie Windsor simply "cook", and Jay C. Flippen gives a tremendously nuanced performance that belies his bulldog appearance. Not a single part (well, perhaps one) is overplayed -- even the "bartender with the sick wife" subplot is sensitive and realistic when it could easily have gone over the top into schmaltzy and maudlin.
My only point-deduction was for the slightly bungled part of the Greek wrestler recruited to cause a disturbance at the track. The fact that his shirt ripped readily into halves was just a little to much homage to the then-burgeoning field of professional wrestling.
One amazing part of this film, in my opinion, that hasn't received much mention in other reviews, is the poignant interplay between Tim Carey's borderline psychotic sharpshooter and James Edward's African-American parking lot attendant. I thought Kubrick did an excellent job, in that brief scene, of highlighting the injustice of the racial disparity prevalent in this country at the time. Both men were war veterans, and both had been marred (one mentally and the other physically), so there was at least a potential connection between them. The pitiful reaction of Edward's character to Carey's faux kindness was heartbreaking. I can't think of a more incisive harbinger of the social unrest that followed in the 60's.
This is a fabulous film and shouldn't be missed by any fan of either Kubrick or 1950's crime dramas.
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
WHY does this film receive so much critical acclaim?
Wow, I just cannot say enough bad things about this film. The acting covers the complete spectrum from "ham-fisted" to "wooden." Poor Shelly Winters is obviously misdirected to deliver her lines as though she were reading from a cue card. If you don't believe she can act, check out "A Patch of Blue" or "The Diary of Anne Frank." She is certainly capable of better than this horrible performance which evokes no emotion whatsoever beyond disbelief. And Robert Mitchum! He certainly shows some chops, but my goodness, has there ever been a more ignorant and stupid character in film history? He'd fit right in with "Dumb and Dumber!" How could anyone in his position (who ostensibly had gotten away with murder and robbery on several occasions) NOT see that the money was hidden in the doll? He oozes menace in some scenes, but then is reduced to popping up like something in a carnival shooting gallery and whooping his way into a barn when Lillian Gish shoots him. Seriously, if you want subdued menace in a BELIEVABLE character, how about Tony Perkins in "Psycho" or Sterling Hayden in almost anything? The only actors who manage to pull off believable performances are Billy Chapin and a wonderful Peter Graves, who, in the few minutes he has on screen, out-acts old Bob handily. Think about it, you actually sympathize with a robber and murderer because Graves turns in an almost "Fonda-esque" performance. Oh, and I can't leave out the wonderful old James Gleason as Uncle Birdie. He's both likable and pitiful and has far too little screen time.
In addition to lame dialogue and poor directing, the sound track is an evil entity of its own. Laughton uses it with the subtlety of a jackhammer to announce that "Rev Powell is a bad guy" or "Rev Powell is on that train," etc. I'm all for overshadowing but these "hints" are more like headlines.
Most of the remaining cast of characters are almost cartoons. Evelyn Varden does a particularly egregious bit of overacting as "Icey Spoon". In fact the film itself could be a parody of film noir! Come on, Lillian Gish actually SINGS A DUET with the menacing man sitting outside her house waiting to kill her! I have no idea why people feel compelled to rave about the greatness of this film. It doesn't hold a candle to REAL 1950's film classics like Kubrick's "The Killing" or "Hatful of Rain" or "On the Waterfront," which has more feeling and menace and credibility in the cab scene than "Night of the Hunter" has in its entire fabric. Face it folks, there's a good reason why this was Charles Laughton's ONLY directorial offering.