Change Your Image
NewFreedomRider
Not into gimmicks and massive special effects, gratuitous blood and gore and so on without the above requirements.
Have little experience with silent films so I really can't comment. Anything after that is fair game, although it becomes harder very year to find films that meet my criteria.
I enjoy reading reviews here, but skip over those that are obviously contrarian or are dripping with intellectual snobbery. Who has time for that?
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Drive (2011)
Violence and brutality for it's own sake; shallow character development
Not certain why this film got such high ratings. Yes, it was well - acted, not only Gosling but all the supporting cast. So from that point of view it's fun to watch.
The story itself has some definite promise, but the screenplay struggles for coherence. It's quite difficult to follow "driver", the story flips from stunt driving to getaway driver to racing, it really doesn't make a lot of sense; in my mind, this is just lazy writing and an inability to tell a story in a way that doesn't make your head hurt.
The biggest downside for me was the ultra-violent, gruesome scenes which were entirely unnecessary to tell this tale. These scenes appear to be inserted simply for shock value and to appeal to the blood/violence loving crowd, including a woman getting her brains blown out with a shotgun, multiple scenes of abdominal stabbings, one scene in which Cranston's arm is sliced open with a razor - the list goes on. This ventured far too close to the snuff film category for my tastes. Really the biggest gripe is that these horrific scenes distracted from what could have been a great movie.
Finally, we never really get any depth of character from Gosling or Mulligan. They were more or less pretty faces, and the "relationship" between Gosling and Mulligan is totally incomprehensible and unbelievable.
A friend recommended Drive to me as one of the greatest films of all time. Now I must really question this person's judgment. (Well, I did already).
It's not a zero, I decided to give it a 5 out of 10. It's worth spending two hours on the movie just for the brilliant acting apparent in isolated scenes - but if you are expecting a good story or any deep character development, you will be sadly disappointed.
Funny Games (2007)
Zero value here
"Funny Games" follows the adventures of two politely psychopathic young men who prey on families in their vacation homes.
During the course of this film, a family of three is captured, bound and tortured in various ways; finally all are killed. The husband and 8 year boy old die by shotgun; the wife dies by drowning, tied and pushed from a sailboat into a lake.
The film veers between bizarre narrative interaction between the young murderers and the audience and the completely illogical behavior of the family. It's almost impossible to set aside your disbelief for this scenario.
The main thrust is to reiterate again and again that human beings are either mindlessly psychotic animals, or stupid dolts begging for destruction; and to do this in a "art school" way that makes the movie largely unwatchable.
With that being said, this movie is not recommended for anyone. It is a sick film which is far, far worse for the human psyche than any XXX pornography. "Funny Games" is simply the twisted expression of an irresponsible filmmaker. The movie is without any positive features whatsoever.
Self-indulgent junk.
Precious (2009)
Great film with powerful performances
Best drama of 2009 so far, for me.
The performances in this movie are very, very good; Sidibe and Mo'Nique are unforgettable. Precious' classmates are also exceptional in their supporting roles. One role I felt was weak was Paula Patton as the teacher "Blu Rain"; she seemed a bit miscast, and her character was not consistent.
I think the reason that this movie worked for me is that is was NOT a sentimental, teary-eyed rendering of Precious' abusive situation - it could easily have gone down that path. The interesting thing about the movie to me was that every player (with the possible exception of the father, whose character was never developed) was a complex personality capable of evil and good.
I was surprised at the reasoning behind the poor reviews that some have given this movie. One complaint was that this film exploits blacks and their situation, as a "stereotypical African American welfare story". At no time in the movie did I really think much about the fact that they were black - to me that simply the setting for the real story. Sure, the setting is a black ghetto, and Precious is a young black teenager, but the central theme is about sexual and physical abuse and the destruction that it causes. Unfortunately that scenario plays out in many places, it is far from being isolated to black ghettos. So I am sorely puzzled by that criticism. I have seen my fair share of exploitation films - and this isn't one of them.
Another criticism was that there was no clear purpose to the film. This is even more confusing; the clear purpose of the film is to illustrate the horrific nature of abuse, and to draw the viewer into the a deeper understanding of both the victim and the abuser.
Even though this is not easy material, I would recommend this movie to any adult. If you are looking for something light-hearted or superficial, this might not be the movie for you.
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Slumdog Millionaire with 8 Oscar nominations? Huh?
Last night we went to see what the fuss was all about.
While Slumdog is fairly entertaining, I found the overall package to fall far short of an "instant classic". My main gripe with this film was that the plot mechanisms were very contrived, in many cases incredibly predictable.
By the time we got to the second flashback, the scene was pretty much set. There will be some horrific disaster or injustice; and then, there will be some miraculous turn of events to contrast with the evil. This formula was repeated again and again; I suppose the thinking was that this was an analogue of the Indian experience itself. I thought that it was simply clumsy and self-serving.
Another annoyance was the injection of Western arrogance into the film; for example, the "three musketeers" scene which of course was just a contrivance to set up the dramatic final question. Two Indian children whose mother had just been brutally murdered, who had just seen a man burned to death in front of them, would be prattling on about the characters in an Alexandre Dumas novel? Really? What in the world was this director thinking? Did he really think that anyone could watch this scene with a straight face?
The subplot with Salim as a gangster was quite unbelievable and discontinuous with the rest of the film. This could have been a good concept for a different film, where this plot could have be more fully developed, but it did not fit well in this movie. Another contrivance, and one that did not work well, I thought it was very awkward.
With that being said, there is still enough entertainment value to rate this film 6 stars. It was worth the matinée price that I paid, but I am not certain it would have been worth full admission.
Best Movie of the year? Spare me. That outcome simply shows how meaningless the Oscars have become.