![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something that is *gasp* not related to Darren Criss or Chris Colfer!
Catching up...
4/12/2010
The Road to El Dorado
What I got most from this movie is that it skipped past the interesting stuff really fast to get to the boring part, on which they lingered a long time. Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh have...animated chemistry, I guess, their voices bounced off each other amicably and Rosie Perez does a nice job undercutting them. Still, for a movie called "the road to El Dorado", they get to El Dorado really fast and spend a lot of time not being particularly interesting or funny. It picks up a little towards the end, but there's something a little unsettling about the depiction of El Dorado and the white boys who visit it. I would've liked to have seen more of them in Spain beforehand and less of them thinking about the bigger questions.
2.5 out of 5
5/12/2010
Splice
I have a real fondness for Sarah Polley, who I think makes interesting films. This movie is a bit of an undiscovered scifi/horror gem, with really interesting ideas about genetic engineering, the frontiers of science, and sexuality. There are some genuinely funny geek moments and quotes (one of my favourites: "Wired doesn't interview losers." "Ah, sometimes I forget those simple scientific principles.") It looks great, too, with completely convincing special effects (until the end, which I'll get into later). The three central actors do a fantastic job of retaining the tension and deliver engaging performances. I think it starts to fall apart a bit towards the end as it turns more horror than scifi, with the scientists' creation (gasp, shock) turning against them, no matter how interestingly this is done, and it boils humanity down to some very simple concepts for a movie so complex. The final scene is pretty interesting, though.
Jamie, watch this movie.
3.5 out of 5
Gran Torino
This is a beautifully measured portrait of a racist, bitter man coming to terms with the people he is prejudiced against and himself in a violent world. It looks amazing, it's completely gripping despite a lot of scenes where not much happens, and Clint Eastwood puts in a corker of a performance as said bitter old man. He's so incredibly convincing that you can't tear your eyes off him. Some of the most telling scenes in the movie are between him and other old men who throw racial and other insults at each other in good humour - this is the world the character comes from, and it establishes him as less mean and more stuck in his ways. The Hmong culture is portrayed with sensitivity and interest, which is nice to see.
A couple of quibbles. This movie seems to favour the style of acting other people call naturalistic and I call people just failing to deliver their lines properly. This is particularly noticeable when you compare the performances of the young cast, who have that loose, naturalistic style, with the measured and powerful performance of Clint Eastwood. Also, the song at the end is rubbish. Clint, sweetie, please stick with the writing/directing/acting/producing and leave the singing to someone else. Finally, the symbolism of the Torino itself is sort of a mess.
4 out of 5
Timeline
Ugh, Paul Walker.
Okay, I haven't read the book Timeline is based on, but I take it that everything is much, much better explained than in this movie, which is less science fiction than pure fantasy. The ideas are pretty hilariously out-there. The stuff about the "markers" that get the people back to their own time makes NO sense, and there is some bizarre cutting between different scenes that leaves you completely disoriented. As a Goonies fan, I can see a LOT of the techniques Dick Donner applied to such effect in that movie - overlapping dialogue, breakneck speed of action that doesn't give you room to breathe - completely fail in this movie. The overlapping dialogue, instead of adding that childlike realism of The Goonies, just makes everything confusing. The breakneck action seems incredibly silly given the film's, er, timeline (also, seriously? They happened to go back to that exact day?!). Also, there's Paul Walker. Paul Walker cannot carry a movie. There is nothing interesting about him except how blue his eyes are. He couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, and he sure as hell can't act his way out of the mess this movie makes of sense.
Having said that, there is a decent supporting cast for this, including a badly-American-accented David Thewlis, his gorgeous actually-convincingly-French wife Anna Friel, a positively sparkling baddy in Michael Sheen, Marton Csokas, Ethan Embry, Billy Connolly, Gerard Butler (this is the first movie I've liked him in!) and the kicked puppy-esque Rossif Sutherland, whose character death actually upset me and made me engage for the first time. I don't know why almost everyone's doing an accent that's not their own, but most of them pull it off just fine. Whenever Paul Walker's not on the screen, there's a sense of actual fun about the movie, and it's easier to let go of all the issues and just enjoy the romp. I couldn't help but enjoy certain scenes, particularly any that involve Martin Sheen's brilliant Lord Oliver. The theories of time travel are sort of dodgy at best (Frances O'Connor breaks the wall for herself to find in the future, yet Gerard Butler's changes the past? What?) but there's a lot of fun to be had here. Just...ignore Paul Walker. Always.
2.5 out of 5
The Terminal
Interminable.
I'm not a huge fan of airports. I've spent enough time there to know that anyone stuck in one for 9 months would probably go crazy. Maybe that's why I found this movie so frustrating. Or maybe it's Catherine Zeta-Jones's incredibly annoying, whiny and self-absorbed (and self-hating) love interest. Or maybe it's the fact that Stanley Tucci, while good, is (in spite of any attempts to humanise him) just basically a moustache-twirling villain. Or maybe it's the hundred other cliches in the movie. Or the fact that it's TWO HOURS LONG, UGH.
Having said all that, it's kind of impossible to hate any scenes that involve Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana and Chi McBride, and whenever these supporting characters are on screen the movie finally lights up a little. They're far more entertaining and heartwarming than any of the stuff that's supposed to uplift. It looks good, too. Also, I can't bring myself to rate a Steven Spielberg movie, even this one, lower than Timeline.
2.5 out of 5
...14 more to go, 16 more days of the year. Woo!
Green Queen
Catching up...
4/12/2010
The Road to El Dorado
What I got most from this movie is that it skipped past the interesting stuff really fast to get to the boring part, on which they lingered a long time. Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh have...animated chemistry, I guess, their voices bounced off each other amicably and Rosie Perez does a nice job undercutting them. Still, for a movie called "the road to El Dorado", they get to El Dorado really fast and spend a lot of time not being particularly interesting or funny. It picks up a little towards the end, but there's something a little unsettling about the depiction of El Dorado and the white boys who visit it. I would've liked to have seen more of them in Spain beforehand and less of them thinking about the bigger questions.
2.5 out of 5
5/12/2010
Splice
I have a real fondness for Sarah Polley, who I think makes interesting films. This movie is a bit of an undiscovered scifi/horror gem, with really interesting ideas about genetic engineering, the frontiers of science, and sexuality. There are some genuinely funny geek moments and quotes (one of my favourites: "Wired doesn't interview losers." "Ah, sometimes I forget those simple scientific principles.") It looks great, too, with completely convincing special effects (until the end, which I'll get into later). The three central actors do a fantastic job of retaining the tension and deliver engaging performances. I think it starts to fall apart a bit towards the end as it turns more horror than scifi, with the scientists' creation (gasp, shock) turning against them, no matter how interestingly this is done, and it boils humanity down to some very simple concepts for a movie so complex. The final scene is pretty interesting, though.
Jamie, watch this movie.
3.5 out of 5
Gran Torino
This is a beautifully measured portrait of a racist, bitter man coming to terms with the people he is prejudiced against and himself in a violent world. It looks amazing, it's completely gripping despite a lot of scenes where not much happens, and Clint Eastwood puts in a corker of a performance as said bitter old man. He's so incredibly convincing that you can't tear your eyes off him. Some of the most telling scenes in the movie are between him and other old men who throw racial and other insults at each other in good humour - this is the world the character comes from, and it establishes him as less mean and more stuck in his ways. The Hmong culture is portrayed with sensitivity and interest, which is nice to see.
A couple of quibbles. This movie seems to favour the style of acting other people call naturalistic and I call people just failing to deliver their lines properly. This is particularly noticeable when you compare the performances of the young cast, who have that loose, naturalistic style, with the measured and powerful performance of Clint Eastwood. Also, the song at the end is rubbish. Clint, sweetie, please stick with the writing/directing/acting/producing and leave the singing to someone else. Finally, the symbolism of the Torino itself is sort of a mess.
4 out of 5
Timeline
Ugh, Paul Walker.
Okay, I haven't read the book Timeline is based on, but I take it that everything is much, much better explained than in this movie, which is less science fiction than pure fantasy. The ideas are pretty hilariously out-there. The stuff about the "markers" that get the people back to their own time makes NO sense, and there is some bizarre cutting between different scenes that leaves you completely disoriented. As a Goonies fan, I can see a LOT of the techniques Dick Donner applied to such effect in that movie - overlapping dialogue, breakneck speed of action that doesn't give you room to breathe - completely fail in this movie. The overlapping dialogue, instead of adding that childlike realism of The Goonies, just makes everything confusing. The breakneck action seems incredibly silly given the film's, er, timeline (also, seriously? They happened to go back to that exact day?!). Also, there's Paul Walker. Paul Walker cannot carry a movie. There is nothing interesting about him except how blue his eyes are. He couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, and he sure as hell can't act his way out of the mess this movie makes of sense.
Having said that, there is a decent supporting cast for this, including a badly-American-accented David Thewlis, his gorgeous actually-convincingly-French wife Anna Friel, a positively sparkling baddy in Michael Sheen, Marton Csokas, Ethan Embry, Billy Connolly, Gerard Butler (this is the first movie I've liked him in!) and the kicked puppy-esque Rossif Sutherland, whose character death actually upset me and made me engage for the first time. I don't know why almost everyone's doing an accent that's not their own, but most of them pull it off just fine. Whenever Paul Walker's not on the screen, there's a sense of actual fun about the movie, and it's easier to let go of all the issues and just enjoy the romp. I couldn't help but enjoy certain scenes, particularly any that involve Martin Sheen's brilliant Lord Oliver. The theories of time travel are sort of dodgy at best (Frances O'Connor breaks the wall for herself to find in the future, yet Gerard Butler's changes the past? What?) but there's a lot of fun to be had here. Just...ignore Paul Walker. Always.
2.5 out of 5
The Terminal
Interminable.
I'm not a huge fan of airports. I've spent enough time there to know that anyone stuck in one for 9 months would probably go crazy. Maybe that's why I found this movie so frustrating. Or maybe it's Catherine Zeta-Jones's incredibly annoying, whiny and self-absorbed (and self-hating) love interest. Or maybe it's the fact that Stanley Tucci, while good, is (in spite of any attempts to humanise him) just basically a moustache-twirling villain. Or maybe it's the hundred other cliches in the movie. Or the fact that it's TWO HOURS LONG, UGH.
Having said all that, it's kind of impossible to hate any scenes that involve Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana and Chi McBride, and whenever these supporting characters are on screen the movie finally lights up a little. They're far more entertaining and heartwarming than any of the stuff that's supposed to uplift. It looks good, too. Also, I can't bring myself to rate a Steven Spielberg movie, even this one, lower than Timeline.
2.5 out of 5
...14 more to go, 16 more days of the year. Woo!
Green Queen
Tags: