cwx

Reviews

37 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Losing the west
27 September 2006
Like any good western, this film is about bringing "civilization" to those who are uninterested in it, but ambiguity sets in as the villains seem almost like the victims at the beginning, and when they reveal themselves later to be far from harmless, we find ourselves unsure how the film wants us to regard the idea of civilization… and that seems to be the point of it all. The main character in the film turns out to be the lawman (an capital in the imperial army though, not a sheriff) who proposes an interesting way to deal with the villainous gang, and then watches his society and even his own marriage nearly break under the strain when his choices gradually come to light. The relationships between the murderous band of outlaws are a bit murkier, and perhaps required more work to understand than I was willing to put in (especially as far as the ending was concerned). Overall, though, the film manages to be taciturn without being inscrutable, which is always nice. Certainly worth a look for the interesting questions it raises, and then refuses to answer.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reality Bites (1994)
5/10
It works in spite of itself
24 September 2006
Winona Ryder stars, generally exhibiting her desirableness and her lack of talent. Ethan Hawke is her co-star, playing the scuzzy asshole who gets the girl even though I sometimes wished he didn't, and concurrently found it very probable that he did. Director and secondary love interest Ben Stiller is the most interesting case though, as he plays a viable if hapless foil to Hawke in perhaps the only human performance I've ever seen him deliver (as opposed to his current career, which consists entirely of encouraging the audience to enjoy bad things happening to him). This is particularly fascinating because within the overall film, Stiller the director uses his own character more as a symbol of a lifestyle and ideology than as an important participant in the plot.

Actually, the long stretches of the film in which Stiller disappears seem to enable the two-headed nature of the film, as it lunges between the romance plot and the career plot. While these wouldn't seem to be particularly contradictory, the film uses his presence or absence to dismiss one plot, almost out of hand, in order to focus on the other, which leads to a resolution that actually seems to ignore what the movie was about… well, at least half of the time.

All that said, Reality Bites is an interesting time capsule of a film, if wildly uneven, and it does contain some genuinely great character moments. My favorite of these is Stiller's speech about Yorick, the only time when the film doesn't try to convince us that Hawke has one-upped him.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not much there
19 September 2006
So is this a mystery film, a fantasy film, or what? Well, rather than successfully blurring the boundaries of genre, this film just seems to be a confused muddle of several genres, including the period piece. It's actually hard to speak in much detail about the film without spoiling it. What I will say is that while I enjoyed the character who played the main role in the film, I felt that some more focus on the other characters might have made the goings-on more meaningful. I also felt that the film suffers greatly right up until the ending, as it starts to appear even more pointless than it really is just for the sake of an interesting ending. While the "German" accents of the Austrian characters are actually not half-bad, they are still woefully unnecessary (if you want it to be authentic, film it in German!). Finally, there's the "small" matter of using Asian people as props in search of some mystical shorthand; I think it would be disingenuous to say that this is only supposed to work within the film. Overall, while not a painful experience, it was largely forgettable and not as clever as it was meant to be.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
True anti-colonial escapism
19 September 2006
Unlike, say, Once Upon a Time in China, with which this film shares at least its English (sub)title, this is populist anti-Western colonialism done right! For one thing, having the villains actually be white goes a long way; Paul Blackthrone is an extremely effective "evil Englishman," and he actually speaks Hindi for a good chunk of his role! As a result, we get a real struggle, rather than an ultimately-meaningless proxy battle as we usually do in Tsui Hark's film. This is, however, no Gibsonesque exercise in Anglo-bashing, and everything comes out extremely balanced, perhaps too obviously so. He does, after all, have a sister that helps out the village people as they try to learn cricket and beat his wager. More importantly, untouchables and Muslims, despite earlier misgivings, are welcomed into the team, providing a heartening, inclusive vision of Indian resistance against the occupier.

What's nice about this film is that it is clearly a high-profile Bollywood picture with an eye towards crossover, but it is not so compromised that it becomes unrecognizable to anyone who is already somewhat familiar with Bollywood. I imagine this is one of the better "gateway drugs" for the genre, as the music is good and fits with the plot, and one rarely feels that the more-than-three-hour running time is needlessly padded. Sure, they could have made it shorter, but this is actually epic enough to deserve it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting stuff, shoddy presentation
13 August 2006
I really wanted to like this colorful flick about glam rock, featuring thinly-veiled portrayals of two key figures from the time and an ostensibly-fictionalized intimate relationship between them. Unfortunately, the film is a mess despite the great music, the trippy performances and the compelling recreation of a classic subculture. Todd Haynes tries to slap some faux-Citizen Kane writing-an-article narrative onto what is otherwise a surreal, drug-induced haze of rock and sexual ambiguity, and while the journalist has his own story to tell through flashbacks, this only serves to throw us more off balance as we try to figure out which of the three male leads is supposed to be the protagonist. Haynes' work is frustrating because he can't decide whether to go for narrative or non-narrative, surreal or realist, linear or non-linear, and instead, he just goes with "all of the above." What this leaves us with is a wealth of good content made tiresome by the awkward, fractured structure of the piece.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Through the years
12 August 2006
This epic six-hour film (more of a television miniseries actually, but its quality apparently netted it some festival showings and distribution, in two parts) tracks an Italian family from the 1960s to today. While there were clearly references to pieces of historical background that I wasn't able to pick up on, overall this film does a good job of portraying a "slice of life" for Italy during most of the postwar period. Because Marco Giordana has so much room to breathe due to his running time, he is able to fully develop a wide variety of characters and themes, none of which end up seeming shallow or insubstantial. Although he uses these elements to comment on modern Italian historical and cultural phenomena, he doesn't make the mistake of boiling his characters down into mere allegories. The result is a very rich, nuanced viewing experience, and while you may find yourself more interested in some plot lines than in others, Giordana has nonetheless created a wonderful tapestry that is well-worth your time (although you may well choose to watch it in multiple installments, as I did and as the original Italian TV audience did).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Mainstream evolution
7 August 2006
What a shame this film didn't get a real wide release, because it seems like with some real promotion and distribution, this might really have caught on. Here you have a seemingly worn-out premise, the buddy/romance/detective picture, somehow brought to new life with just the right flavor of wit. Writer-director Shane Black was responsible for writing the Lethal Weapon series (I only saw the fourth one and some of the many imitators), and it seems like this movie is about as revolutionary (from what I've heard of the original) in attempting to rejuvenate the genre… too bad nobody is ready for that anymore nowadays.

Robert Downey, Jr. and Michelle Monaghan are quite formidable here (in different ways), while Val Kilmer is more just okay, although his gay detective character is great anyway. Downey narrates the whole film (as his character, but also as a "narrator) and his commentary is mostly hilarious, although there are a few moments of meta that fall flat (and that must be saying something considering how much I love meta). The plot is convoluted, but it sets off the difference between "fantasy" and "reality" in a much more creative and even insightful way than how these films usually present outlandish events while impotently asserting their verité. It's not perfect, but I do feel vindicated in my constant protests that mainstream film doesn't have to be the thoughtless swamp of nonsense that it usually is now. The experiment doesn't always work, but overall this film is meant to entertain and succeeds; are you really telling me that it was "too challenging" for the average moviegoer?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Consuming
5 August 2006
This film is the starkest thing I've ever seen in such bright (ultimately eery) colors. It's a "more-than-meets-the-eye" melodrama about intergenerational and interracial love back when such things were even more frowned upon (and even the protagonist is shown, in odd ways, to have Hitler on the brain, despite her love for a younger Arab man). Even before they get together (fairly early on) there is such a weird sense of menace and discomfort, as if you're being forced to see how strange and "wrong" this is even though you yourself don't feel it personally. Everyone who thought Crash was somehow insightful should watch this film, because it's definitely the best film about racism that I've ever seen, even though it's also "more" than that. The first part of the film is not oblique at all; if anything, it's direct, like a series of punches to the gut. The final third, by contrast, moves inward more as we see the price of compromise (and some other factors that are more difficult to understand). This is one of those film-school classics that actually lives up to its reputation, and I strongly recommend it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strangers in the night
4 August 2006
In his first film, international "arty" director Tsai Ming-liang tells what is apparently, for him, a fairly accessible tale about two fake thugs, the sometimes-girlfriend of one of them, and a younger teenager who has a strange preoccupation with the three of them. He does so largely with long, one-take, unmoving shots (when the action moves into the background, the camera usually doesn't follow). It's not always easy to understand the relationship between these various characters, which is just as well, as it is pretty languid and obscure in general; teasing out the nuances of these relationships was my main source of interest while watching this film. Overall, it seems to be worth a try, but not worth a recommendation. I got a generally positive impression from it (meaning that it didn't just totally irritate me), but it didn't provoke a strong visceral aesthetic appreciation (that's a little paradoxical I guess) that I get from my favorite "art films." I'm tempted to watch one of Tsai's later, "better-known" (relatively speaking) films, but I'm not sure that I'm that enamored with his visual style or his style of storytelling (as opposed to, say, that of Wong Kar-Wai).
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clerks II (2006)
4/10
Trying to have it both ways
25 July 2006
Even at his best, Kevin Smith's films tend to be missing something, as if Smith mostly seeks to impress you by what he's willing to bring up, rather than by what he actually says about it. Here, he tries to have it both ways, throwing both the tasteless, apropos-of-nothing comedy and the mawkish sentimentality that we've seen in his work before, but he doesn't fully succeed at either. There are undeniably some hilarious bits, but there is also too much dead air, mostly consisting of unfunny shock attempts by the often-tiresome Randal, and impotent objections from Dante, the protagonist. In the harsh light of color, the actors who portray both characters seem really flat and dull, leaving the luminous Rosario Dawson to practically carry the whole movie (and she does a better job than I would have thought her capable of).

The unfunniness isn't really caused by the plot or the sappy stuff, but this stuff doesn't work either. Part of it is that the pathos of something like Chasing Amy is missing here, because the choices are too easy and everyone is so shallow and one-note in the first place. Ultimately, though, the thin-skinned Smith should have known better than to (rightly) mock The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King for its multiple endings, only to commit the same sin. Oh, and Jason Lee was shamefully wasted.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Linear meta
23 July 2006
I'm sucker for meta, so my enjoyment of this film was all but guaranteed. However, aside from a disorienting ending, A Cock and Bull Story is actually quite linear, largely giving us a 24-hour period in the making of an actual Tristram Shandy film (the original British title making the point that this is not that film; presumably it was changed because we Americans genuinely don't know what a "cock and bull story" is).

Much of it, then, consists of Steve Coogan portraying himself. He's clearly the protagonist in Michael Winterbottom's film, but his most of the Coogan character's efforts are spent making sure that he will in fact be the protagonist and lead in the film that "Mark" is making. Considering that I'd never even heard of Coogan before, I was quite glad that the American DVD distributor included a trailer for the box set of his old mock talk show, which comes up several times throughout the film (and is therefore a must-view for fellow clueless yank viewers; it's the last one that plays before you get to the menu). Even with this admittedly fuzzy knowledge, I still really enjoyed Coogan's persona and the unerringly hilarious antics that the film provides. There's also a lot of good observations and snarky commentary implicit in the how Winterbottom deals with high literature and high film, and the usual cluelessness that the characters, especially Coogan, have regarding both despite the task at hand. Amazingly, there is even a bit of a plot too; it's just not Shandy's story, although I did actually wish we'd seen a bit more of that, despite my appreciation of what I did get.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Collateral (2004)
10/10
Jamie Foxx's real breakthrough
20 July 2006
There's no denying that the flawless style of Michael Mann is the main reason this movie is as remarkable as it is. However, this is also the movie that made me a big Jamie Foxx fan, even though I've still never seen Ray. Much like Damon Wayons in Bamboozled, I sensed both times I watched this film that Foxx was basing his role off of one of his comic personas, specifically the passive loser. Spike Lee talks on the Bamboozled DVD about using comic (black) actors in dramatic roles because he believes they're capable of more (and probably because he hopes to redeem the buffoonish portrayal of blacks in film) and he was right; he just had the wrong guy.

Wayans never managed to rise above the level of preprogrammed comic persona, whereas Foxx, despite my initial skepticism on the first viewing, does a fantastic job at slowly progressing his character through a sometimes-ludicrous series of transformations and epiphanies, mostly revolving around how he both reacts against and is molded by Tom Cruise's villain character (and Cruise-as-villain seems rather prescient now that people have turned against him; today, Foxx might well have gotten the top-billing he deserved).

I've read criticisms about the plot in spite of the style, but honestly, I'm not bothered by any of it, not even the ending that I've seen criticized the most frequently. What I love about this movie is that it's a mainstream film that beats most art films at their own game. It doesn't actually have to be so polarized. Imagine that.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not One Less (1999)
9/10
A compelling reality
19 July 2006
Surprisingly, I never lost my patience or got bored while watching this, even though it is very slow, understated film in which there is a great deal of repetition and very little character development. Zhang Yimou takes us along with a 13-year-old substitute teacher, played, like the other characters, by a nonprofessional actor (the credits even tell you where each person comes from, and that most of them actually do the jobs in real life that we see them doing here).

It is fascinating to see the bonds develop between the teacher and her students almost without anyone trying. The film barely even seems like it needs a "quest," but when one develops, the teacher's plight is even more poignant. I will say that I'm not sure I got any great insights into the problem of "poverty in rural China," but the mindset of the characters as Zhang shows them – obstinate and determined – was quite captivating.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Blazing a trail
17 July 2006
Maybe I jinxed it by reading about how important it was too many times, but it was unquestionably funnier and a better film than The Producers, which had me beginning to wonder if Mel Brooks was anything like what he was cracked up to be. While there seem to be some lulls, Brooks overall succeeds at depicting outrageous racism, often without much humor to shield the audience or the protagonist from its blunt impact, and then succeeds in depicting an almost cartoonish comedic effort to squash it. It's a "deconstruction" of the western in that it fills in the blanks, rather than, say, the thoughtless revisionism that leads to casting Will Smith as the lead in Wild, Wild West and hoping we'll accept that no white character in the film notices.It is, then, interesting to see how positive and forceful the political message of this film is, considering that the most one gets out of Producers is that gays and Germans are allegedly funny. The film isn't always a laugh-riot, but it earns our patience.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Something new and exciting
16 July 2006
So far, it's the best movie I've seen that came out in 2006, and the first one I would rate "four stars" out of four. Richard Linklater and his rotoscoping animation staff have greatly improved on the already impressive technique used in his earlier film, Waking Life, and the improvement is only helped by the use of actual characters this time around; there's still not tons of plot, but it's less of a patience-testing talkfest than the aforementioned film, which was nonetheless still fairly good.

Although it's not particularly plot-driven, it's still a narrative film (being as it is based on a Philip K. Dick novel), and so that means that we get to see this technique used toward "traditional" film towards the purpose of disrupting it. Some effects clearly need this medium to be accomplished effectively, but the nice thing about this medium is that the effects aren't particularly different from the sight of a ashtray on the table, slightly wobbling in its color distribution. What this means is that every frame of the film is ultimately a joy to look at, which is a rare thing in film.

Surprisingly, the film is also quite hilarious, in addition to the expected morose darkness. Drug addiction is shown to be "funny" without the awful side of it somehow being erased with this depiction. This humor is mostly thanks to Robert Downey, Jr. although the other, more frequently maligned cast members hold their own fairly well. The twists and turns of who's watching who and who's responsible for what are politically and dramatically compelling.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
That'll show 'em
10 July 2006
At first, I figured that a movie based on a PowerPoint presentation didn't really need to be seen on the big screen, but having finally succumbed to good buzz from friends and media, I found that I was mistaken after all. Surprisingly, the still photos Al Gore offers of the effects of global warming are quite effective – breathtaking and disturbing – on the big screen. There are, of course, some videos too, and even a few quite funny cartoons, but the director chooses to show all of these through Gore's giant video screen, which means that we are, barring some autobiographical interludes in Tennessee and so on, firmly placed in the seats of Gore's college audience. This seems like folly, but it is surprisingly effective.

Speaking of those autobiographical bits, Gore narrates some key turning points in his life, but I wish he had explained what epiphany transformed him from a guy that couldn't carry a CSPAN session to a guy that can carry a major motion picture! I definitely want him for president now, almost in spite of myself. As for the science, I did learn a lot, and I thought he was most effective when he took shots at the characterization of global warming as "theory." This movie is a force for good and its actually well mad and honest; it's nice when these things come together for once.
2 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good, but unsound
6 July 2006
This is one of those movies that seems solid and entertaining, then starts to crumble a bit when you think about it afterwards; however, it still holds up for the most part, and the main purpose of a movie is to keep you interested while you're watching, after all. The first problem is the title, which also implies that Meryl Streep is the main role, rather than protagonist Anne Hathaway who is, in fact, effectively plays an interesting character rather than just a sounding board for another virtuoso Streep performance (which isn't to say that Streep isn't good, either).

The main problems mostly lie in how Andy, Hathaway's character, deals with her dilemma; should she stay true to herself or fall into the fashion world? This isn't as lame as it sounds on paper, especially since they managed to convey some sense of the aforementioned fashion world's glamour to someone like me who by default reviles every aspect of it. This, however, might mean that I sympathized more with her plight than someone who, say, never had any qualms about "fitting in" at all costs. However, the weakness of the detractors seems to sap this film's moral clarity, as does its eventual mutation from a series of critiques of a whole industry to a mere interpersonal conflict; of course this is inevitable in Hollywood film, but the way this happens in this movie decidedly muddies up and changes the entire issue at hand. Of course, a film like this wants to have it both ways, but one hopes at the very least that when several characters describe a size 4 as "fat," the filmmaker means to attack that perspective. A lack of clarity on this issue is a lot more unforgivable. All that said, I did find it to be compelling and well-played.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caché (2005)
8/10
The political is personal
3 July 2006
This is a "family under siege" film in which the threat (or menace) increasingly seems insignificant compared to darkness in the protagonist's own past. Georges' darkness has political shades to it, but most interestingly, it's always a little fuzzy just exactly what happened, and this lack of clarity continues into the "present day" of the film. I'm used to ambiguous endings and what not, but this film threw me off a bit in regards to how the director included ambiguity throughout what seemed to be a "realist" rather than impressionist film, and yet managed to do it without leaving the viewer merely irritated. My observations on this count were influenced, to some extent, by my viewing of the director interview found on the DVD.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crimson Gold (2003)
8/10
Takes its time, but never boring
28 June 2006
It's positively amazing what you can sometimes get with non-professional actors, basically playing themselves, especially compared to the many times that real actors flub things entirely. This film follows the sad trajectory of a disaffected pizza delivery driver in Tehran, but while his journey is rooted in reality and presented, aside from the cuts from one scene to another, in something much like real time including all the boring waiting periods (and without the comforting style of similar scenes in Chinatown), the story itself is almost fantastical, probably in part because the people Hussein meets are, to no small degree, more symbolic than anything. The story is heartbreaking and the visuals held my interest without being flashy in the least. Most interestingly, director Jafar Panahi provides us with a removed, rational view of modern Iranian society even as he shows his considerable skill in unobtrusively guiding us along with one man's unfortunate journey.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fresh old-school superhero tale
28 June 2006
I thought that Richard Donner's 1978 film, which I recently watched for the second time, came from the right place, but was largely unsuccessful. You would think, then, that I wouldn't get much out of a Superman franchise reboot that is nothing more than a rejuiced version of the Donner films, seeing as how I enjoyed Christopher Nolan's pastiche of all the best Batman elements.

It is perhaps true that Bryan Singer's choice of adaptation can be limiting in that he wasn't able or willing to drop anything that perhaps didn't work ideally. Despite this, the film is an incredible, almost miraculous success. I'm really impressed with how well Singer does at creating good riff on something I didn't find that impressive, as I am with his general ability to sustain an un-ironic "earnest" tone without being overly corny (give or take a few minutes) or excessively anachronistic. The best example is Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor; he took Gene Hackman's Luthor, which I was none too proud of, and made it work (with help from the script I presume). Certainly, there are problems; some scenes go on forever despite their lack of suspense (the filmmakers only get a pass on the "will Superman save them" thing for the first time), and the ending is abrupt in all the wrong ways. Finally, I'm not sure if this will convert you to the pro-Superman camp, but it will satisfy both casual and true believers.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Paradise Now (2005)
8/10
Not just a lecture
21 June 2006
I expected this film to give me a good look at the experiences of two potential suicide bombers, and at Palestine in general, and it certainly did. However, it's not exactly some kind of verité piece either. It's very beautifully shot and contains some rather affecting moments. While the directing is largely unobtrusive, it's not absent either. I did think that there were some aimless patches and that some of the motivation shifts weren't quite clear, which is unfortunate considering that this film is almost entirely about motivations. However, the film succeeds because the director takes a clear eye at a very difficult and disturbing issue, and doesn't choose to preach or condescend to the viewer. It's meaningful, but unlike, say, Hotel Rwanda, it doesn't just coast on its meaningfulness.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Flashes of brilliance
19 June 2006
Perhaps I was just frustrated because this film brings up some ideological issues, but then turns out to be largely visual. Or perhaps I don't respond well to the cloying nostalgic music and acting, even. There was certainly one really strong sequence, taking place in a train station in the final half-hour of the film that actually really bored me at first. I think perhaps that some of what Brian De Palma tried to do for suspense struck me as indicating lack of momentum. Certainly at the beginning of the scene, I found myself largely wondering what I was supposed to think was going on, and I'm not even sure if that was deliberate. It probably contributes to the thrill when the confrontation does ensue, but maybe there's a smoother way to do that, especially when regarding the particularly lethargic.

Certainly, the colors are very rich, and there are some masterful shots, which all shows a good level of artistry. Maybe I just expect my action to be too fast, or maybe this is really more of the Disney version of cops vs. mafia, ambiguous morals and hardcore violence aside. Of course, Costner's inevitable woodenness doesn't help much.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Everything you didn't need to know that badly
6 June 2006
What a tangled web a studio can weave when they realize they desperately need to make some money off of a sequel to a film that didn't need one. That's not to say that this is bad, but it would strike me as an ordinary film even if I hadn't seen the extraordinary film that came before. This "sequel," despite the number, is actually a prequel, but it doesn't so much fill in the blanks as muddy up the waters; it's often confusing, it's not always clear if some of the new backstory really squares with the depictions we saw in the first one, and some of the more glaring questions are left unanswered (possibly for film number three). The young replacements the mole characters, previously played by Tony Leung and Andy Lau, are certainly not up to the task. Thankfully, the movie works because Anthony Wong and Eric Tsang reprise their roles as the respective cop and mob boss, and it is quite interesting to learn about a relationship between them that, from what I recall, was far from obvious before. I certainly wouldn't recommend watching this before the first one, despite the chronology, but I imagine it is worth satisfying the likely thirst for more that you will most likely have after watching the previous film.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not just a cash-in, but marred by the star
6 June 2006
Overall, I quite enjoyed this rendition. What it lacks in thoroughness and in acting (compared to the BBC), it makes up for with production values, which are thankfully not put to use. The cinematography is quite beautiful, especially when regarding the English countryside where some key tableaux occur, and the dinginess of the Bennett home is keenly brought into view in a clearer fashion than I've seen in most Austen interpretations. Finally, Joe Wright has a strong style, with some signature, abrupt reaction shots and other little flourishes I'm not knowledgeable enough to name, and ultimately, this helps the film be a worthwhile contribution rather than a half-assed cash-in type of remake. Kiera Knightley, however, did bug me, especially in the opening part of the film, which made me feel that, despite her age, she might have been better cast as Lydia, someone she probably resembles more closely. Every time she crinkled her nose laughing, she seemed to convey a lack of depth that didn't fit her character. I imagine marketability was, to put it lightly, the main reason for her inclusion.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kings & Queen (2004)
10/10
A tour de force
4 June 2006
It starts out with a woman describing her various marriages, then, after a bit, we meet a man right before he is condemned to a mental hospital. The connections and the backstory aren't clear at the outset, but this is not at all frustrating in this film. Instead, I was captivated from the beginning. The dialogue is all top-notch, very literary but also grounded. The style of the film is quite remarkable; the two plots are expertly intertwined, and the director makes judicious use of a quick-cut technique in which he rapidly shows the viewer two, usually brief, takes of the same action or emotional reaction. The acting is very strong, and the characters are sympathetic but also, well, "complicated." Finally, the story is very poignant and at times crushing, but it also contains a wealth of little charming moments and amusing quirks. I can't really do justice to how good this movie is, though, so really, I can only say that I highly recommend it!
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed