A sizzling, contemporary, crisply edited film based in Mozambique, with a dynamic soundtrack and wonderful performances...what else might you want? Though (I suppose) it was probably released in a language other than English the version I enjoyed was very expertly dubbed to English - and in a fashion that enhanced the film and kept the story moving much more quickly than subtitles might have, IMHO. Most of the action takes place in and around Maputo, and the filming captures the bright & beautiful colors of Eastern Coastal Africa, I'm a little shocked by the budget listed on IMDB, the production costs alone would clearly be several times that amount. The hip hop/Afro pop soundtrack is a real treat, never overbearing, offering the sort of freshness I usually look around for as a 'soundtrack' compilation release after I've enjoyed an assembly of sounds like the movie offers. Special mention to Director Mickey Fonseca who has a pretty nice resume on IMDB if you read the fine print, Gil Alexandre, who has the lead role, and Laquino Fonseca, playing an old friend. Overall, my first try with a movie from Mozambique, and now I'm looking for another.
Reviews
36 Reviews
Betty
(2020–2021)
Is it acting or is it real?
26 May 2020
I'm watching the program, loyally, each week. And, I must say, if it's a drama with actors paid to study then perform on a stage, then some simply aren't up to muster. (Some of the acting is just awful.) If it's reality, then I must say it needs sharper editing (please), because some of the scenes reveal those featured in such an unflattering manner as to be cruel. Otherwise, nicely filmed city scenes, sharp camera work and crisp scripts that pretty much remain terse. Too bad about the performances.
The Irishman
(2019)
Good not great, doesn't live up to the hype, but see it anyway.
30 November 2019
My one-sentence, bottom-line, conditional recommendation: The Irishman is worth watching, good but not great, and fails to live up to all the marketing hype. Plan on two sittings, since it is rather long. Fortunately, at home one can insert a pleasant intermission.
Long before the Irishman was released it was announced that high tech would be used to shave many years from the physical appearances of the lead actors, so that the gentlemen concerned would appear much younger, looking like the correct ages for the roles. The results of the efforts are mixed. Deniro and Pacino, for the most part, look younger, though in many scenes they still appear too old in the context of particular moments in the narrative. The high tech fix for Pesci doesn't seem to work, at all.
It is clear to me, from following the marketing for the project, that the appearance of the aging stars was an issue to the producers. The fix, for the rather expensive project, was to alter the looks of the stars with technology. The whole matter begs a question, at least for me: why not hire lower-priced, age appropriate actors?
In addition, the actors concerned might have altered 'looks' but in physical movement, etc. they appear to be their actual ages. I found myself reminded of many roles by Jimmy Stewart, years ago, when he continued to play the 'leading man' part in film after film, even though he might have been better cast as the leading man's grandfather. In other words, a distracting internal inconsistency. In one scene Pesci refers to DeNiro as a 'kid'. It just doesn't work.
Perhaps the strongest part of the movie is the script, deserving an 'A' grade. Supporting actors are all up to task, and the overall production is good, as might be expected from Scorsese. One distraction I could have lived without was the old rock and roll inserted into the soundtrack. This particular Scorsese technique is simply over-used, and only amplifies the age-issues with the film's leads.
Long before the Irishman was released it was announced that high tech would be used to shave many years from the physical appearances of the lead actors, so that the gentlemen concerned would appear much younger, looking like the correct ages for the roles. The results of the efforts are mixed. Deniro and Pacino, for the most part, look younger, though in many scenes they still appear too old in the context of particular moments in the narrative. The high tech fix for Pesci doesn't seem to work, at all.
It is clear to me, from following the marketing for the project, that the appearance of the aging stars was an issue to the producers. The fix, for the rather expensive project, was to alter the looks of the stars with technology. The whole matter begs a question, at least for me: why not hire lower-priced, age appropriate actors?
In addition, the actors concerned might have altered 'looks' but in physical movement, etc. they appear to be their actual ages. I found myself reminded of many roles by Jimmy Stewart, years ago, when he continued to play the 'leading man' part in film after film, even though he might have been better cast as the leading man's grandfather. In other words, a distracting internal inconsistency. In one scene Pesci refers to DeNiro as a 'kid'. It just doesn't work.
Perhaps the strongest part of the movie is the script, deserving an 'A' grade. Supporting actors are all up to task, and the overall production is good, as might be expected from Scorsese. One distraction I could have lived without was the old rock and roll inserted into the soundtrack. This particular Scorsese technique is simply over-used, and only amplifies the age-issues with the film's leads.
Remember
(I) (2015)
Brilliant in parts
17 September 2019
Worth your time to catch the brilliance of Plummer and Landau, two legends on display. Like Atom's films will do it drags at points, as if weighed down by some of the supporting cast. But, this isn't a big budget thriller, just an effective one. Most people will call the ending a shock and they are right.
The Neighbor
(II) (2017)
A surprise, will resonate with you if you let it
27 July 2019
Movies like this probably belong on the Lifetime Channel, to later run o n ION TV, and have a life of insignificance. But, this one is different. In particular, leads Jessica McNamee and Bill Fichtner really deliver the goods. A lot of emotion is explored, some isn't resolved at the end, and you will walk away wondering. That is pretty good stuff for a 90 minute diversion. Bill does small roles in big movies and big roles in small movies and always is really, really good.
About Elly
(2009)
Simply an amazing movie
17 March 2019
Wonderful, nuanced writing combined with cinematography that enforces the drama in almost every scene, it took me away with simply perfect frames. I meant to watch just enough to get to know the movie then found myself glued to it. It is that captivating. Golshifteh Farahani is fantastic, by the way, conveying the most important parts of the movie with her eyes and all that she brings to scenes, before she speaks any lines. It's always a little bit challenging to watch a movie with subtitles. It takes extra effort, one must sit and watch and read. So, you should get an extra reward, an extra pleasure. Don't worry, you will with Elly. Beyond language is emotion and behavior that is common to all of us, of our species. Make sure when you make plans to watch that you set aside enough time. If most movies are fast food then this one is a feast. Plan on taking your time to enjoy.
Hey Hey We're the Monkees
(1996 Video Game)
They were epic, 50+ years ago.
25 February 2019
Maybe there is a lesson with the Monkees and the way critics often treat artists? The Monkees were a rock band in the late 60's. Everyone can agree that they were assembled, by NBC, to capitalize on the young audiences of that era. The four members of the band were brought together, initially, in 'try outs' or auditions and they were selected by the producers, who were looking to make some rather large bucks from the teen and preteen music lovers. In other words, the Monkees didn't put in their dues at the Cavern Club or played an endless string of dive bars, or worse, hoping to be 'discovered'. They came together as a marketing plan. There was a certain cynicism to their assembly, into a band. They were, at least at first, just actors playing roles. But, pretty soon it all changed. They had a string of huge hits, they had a highly-rated TV show, and they went to the top of the pops and stayed on top for a good period of time. They went on tour as the marquee act, and Hendrix opened for them. I was a kid, back then, and let me tell you they were very, very effective communicators of young teen and preteen angst. They sang to us with their singles and albums and they talked to us with their highly-rated television show. Kids like me loved them, and there were a bazillion Boomer kids like me. The week their album Headquarters was released my neighbor got it before me. I remember me, my two brothers and my friend with the album and his younger brother leaning on the back of his folk's buick as we talked about the songs on that album. We were so young and our heroes had released their latest. We talked like old men, though the oldest of us was 13. A few days later somebody's older sister put me down, after she found out that I liked the Monkees. She said I should be listening to Phil Ochs, and educate myself about some other reality. But, I had the monkees running in my head by then and it was all about that guitar break in Saturday's Child or that beautiful vocal in I want to be free, or that Beatlesque middle eight in the last train to clarksville. I moved ahead a long time ago, but that early time with the Monkees was something I will always honor. When I was in High School their song listen to the band grabbed a lot of us and shook us until we realized that our 60's had ended and our 70's had begun and it was a time to reflect. I'm writing this as Peter Tork's death was just announced. I reached back and watched this Movie, Hey Hey we're the Monkees. It's a very solid soundtrack to my youth, and I still enjoy every instant of it. If you want to dip into how it was, then, watch it.
Gemini
(II) (2017)
Could Have Been A Contender...
22 February 2019
By the middle of Gemini I was in love with the movie. I've watched the Katz career progress, through most of his work, and as usual this one is better than the last one...only, this time his product was shining hot by the middle, like cinema jewelry. The influences of Lynch and Hitchcock, more pronounced than ever, were cooking at a delicious pace with Katz's writing and direction. Wow. Well into the movie I realized that most of the scenes were standalone vignettes, almost perfectly filmed, backed up by a haunting score and solid performances from Lola and Zoe. Continuity was maintained as Katz stitched together the scenes and worked toward an ending suitable to conclude all the fantastic beginning, middle and finishing stuff...except...he didn't. The ending will leave you wanting not only more resolution but also a peek back at the body of the movie to see if you just missed the point. Maybe Katz's finish really follows in a suitable way? Nope. It doesn't. Thud. Still...There are moments of excellance, and if you are a viewer like me, then you will really appreciate the techniques on display and the new artistic mastery Katz shows right up to the end. Suspense, solid 'black' humor, and wonderful cinematography. In particular, look for the scene of an open staircase, two people descending at different levels, and the suspense Katz creates. Clearly, Hitchcock would smile at the homage. Lynch might smile, when a chase scene is shown from high overhead the hollywood hills, at a moment when the protagonist simply must escape. Now, about that ending...
Valley of the Boom
(2019– )
Too much talk makes the 90's a bore
23 December 2018
Hybrid Docu-Drama, where some of the prime-movers appear in cameo to describe their exploits, intertwined with actors that act out the same events. The process is brought down a bit by simply too much information, kind of a docu-drama for dummies. Still, the subject matter is fascinating, as were those times. No idea where the thing is headed but my best guess is that a big fat torpedo will be launched at the memory of Microsoft mid-series, since a great deal of the setup seems to be super friendly to the legacy of Netscape and the 'nerds are antisocial brainiacs' fanboy movement. Witness the silly placements of oddly pretentious Arianna Huffington thoughts. I guess finding humor is easier that finding an understanding of the things that make one's life work, 20 years after.
The Last Survivors
(2014)
not bad for a low budget dystopian grinder
27 October 2017
I ran across Last Survivors by accident and I can safely recommend it. It stars Haley Lu Richardson and Booboo Stewart and it's set in Oregon. All about a future without water. So many of the Dystopian films are just poorly done, on small budgets. This one from a few years ago is well done on a small budget and the two leads are kids on their way up. The camera loves them both. The other players are all forgettable, too bad for them, but hey they got a few minutes in the sun with two representatives of the real future. I'm not sure what type of SciFi you like, this isn't a FX extravaganza and it doesn't feature a cameo by any of the living cast members of the original Star Trek. But, it's got a tight script and quite of bit of angst, pathos and violence. Wow, the big three!
Unlocked
(I) (2017)
Fury with bad sound could use some work
26 August 2017
Unlocked probably has great acting, script and a few other things but because of the quality of the sound I'll reserve comment. Perhaps better to say the lack of sound quality, for someone native to my part of the world, the US West Coast.
Highly accented dialogue at (I assume) critical points in the story render the meat of the plot almost impossible to follow. Easy enough to understand the American Actors but for some reason the UK cast members speak in a lot of jargon and slang with too much speed and slurring.
Perhaps the effect is more realistic but as greats like Lord Larry or Cary Grant might have said without effective communication the whole project is pretty much lost.
Too bad, for Apted, Rapace, Bloom et. al., except for above average visuals Unlocked needs to be locked up for a massive overdub. Or, is it time to introduce subs to some UK productions?
Highly accented dialogue at (I assume) critical points in the story render the meat of the plot almost impossible to follow. Easy enough to understand the American Actors but for some reason the UK cast members speak in a lot of jargon and slang with too much speed and slurring.
Perhaps the effect is more realistic but as greats like Lord Larry or Cary Grant might have said without effective communication the whole project is pretty much lost.
Too bad, for Apted, Rapace, Bloom et. al., except for above average visuals Unlocked needs to be locked up for a massive overdub. Or, is it time to introduce subs to some UK productions?
Vincent N Roxxy
(2016)
Romance N Violence with solid acting and score
21 July 2017
Vincent N Roxxy is an interesting reboot of 'Boy meets girl', this time around taking place in the hinterlands of Louisiana. The settings feel authentic and so do the performances of the primary actors Emile Hirsch, Zoe Kravitz, Zoey Deutch, Emery Cohen and Kid Cudi.
The film begins in the big city then quickly moves out into the country, and many moments have a city versus country feel, reflected in both the behavior of the principals and the colorful but rough nature of the country locales, plus the finale that I promise not to spoil.
Hirsch is emerging as one of the more reliable workman of his profession and his performance has all the needed angst and depression that his role calls for. Kravitz is excellent (isn't she always) as the city girl who encounters a new flavor of life but finds that some things continue to taste the same, city and country. Kid Cudi, in just a little more than an extended cameo is genuinely menacing and worthy of our scorn.
As a secondary couple Deutch and Cohen really shine. Both continue to emerge with real heavyweight chops in supporting spots. Not only does Cohen look like a natural to play Hirsh's brother but he offers his character in energetic counterpoint to Hirsh's subdued and 'James Deanesque' troubled young man. (I caught Cohen in 2015's Brooklyn and Stealing Cars, as well as 2016's Detour, and truly enjoyed his work each time.) Zoey Deutch has a small but significant role as a country girl and she almost perfectly fits her scenes, especially at her 'tavern' work place. In a short period of time she has presented herself in essential, disparate projects like this film and 'Why Him' and offered the sort of performances that show real range.
I believe that all five cast members cited are still ascending in stature and will probably have many years of memorable offerings. Though Hirsh probably outranks the other players in professional accomplishments I feel he, too, has great stuff before him.
This sort of love story on a near indie budget is a nice place to see a cast working together, demanding solid effort by all so that the project succeeds. In short order you get to know enough about the characters so that they can manage the whole illusion that such a small drama must become, in order to retain viewer interest.
In such a film I always feel there will be a few dangling script issues and maybe minor continuity errors, but here none of that gets in the way of your meeting the characters before you and becoming interested in them and their lives. Though there is a certain predictability to the ending there are a few major shocks that will last with you, after you are finished viewing. You will remember this film.
The soundtrack, credited to Questlove, is well-integrated for the most part and has a few songs in particular that seemed near perfect, based on the action in the foreground. The 'official' trailer has a representative mix of song samples from the movie. It's good enough that it has me looking for a more, in depth summary of the score. I'm still on that project.
I read a criticism of the movie the other day that was just a little too bizarre. The author insisted that the characters and the scenes were simply not believable. Coming from an area that still has a fair amount of 'rural' living going on I can assure one and all that there are people just like Vincent, Roxxie, and all the others in the film, out and about. In fact, there isn't a short supply of those types.
Without spoiling things I must add that there are some moments of extreme violence. If that sort of thing troubles you then you might steer-clear. However, there are many more scenes with crisp acting and a warmly-filmed landscape that will feel as foreign to many 'city' people as the Dark Side of the Moon.
One of my favorite moments takes place on a Ferris Wheel and there are real 'sparks' between Hirsh and Kravitz, the right kind of 'sparks'. A moment of humility between the brothers, near the conclusion also has an almost sweet sort of warmth to it without an over-do. The last five or ten minutes are gripping and surprising enough that you feel the hand of a professional director.
The film begins in the big city then quickly moves out into the country, and many moments have a city versus country feel, reflected in both the behavior of the principals and the colorful but rough nature of the country locales, plus the finale that I promise not to spoil.
Hirsch is emerging as one of the more reliable workman of his profession and his performance has all the needed angst and depression that his role calls for. Kravitz is excellent (isn't she always) as the city girl who encounters a new flavor of life but finds that some things continue to taste the same, city and country. Kid Cudi, in just a little more than an extended cameo is genuinely menacing and worthy of our scorn.
As a secondary couple Deutch and Cohen really shine. Both continue to emerge with real heavyweight chops in supporting spots. Not only does Cohen look like a natural to play Hirsh's brother but he offers his character in energetic counterpoint to Hirsh's subdued and 'James Deanesque' troubled young man. (I caught Cohen in 2015's Brooklyn and Stealing Cars, as well as 2016's Detour, and truly enjoyed his work each time.) Zoey Deutch has a small but significant role as a country girl and she almost perfectly fits her scenes, especially at her 'tavern' work place. In a short period of time she has presented herself in essential, disparate projects like this film and 'Why Him' and offered the sort of performances that show real range.
I believe that all five cast members cited are still ascending in stature and will probably have many years of memorable offerings. Though Hirsh probably outranks the other players in professional accomplishments I feel he, too, has great stuff before him.
This sort of love story on a near indie budget is a nice place to see a cast working together, demanding solid effort by all so that the project succeeds. In short order you get to know enough about the characters so that they can manage the whole illusion that such a small drama must become, in order to retain viewer interest.
In such a film I always feel there will be a few dangling script issues and maybe minor continuity errors, but here none of that gets in the way of your meeting the characters before you and becoming interested in them and their lives. Though there is a certain predictability to the ending there are a few major shocks that will last with you, after you are finished viewing. You will remember this film.
The soundtrack, credited to Questlove, is well-integrated for the most part and has a few songs in particular that seemed near perfect, based on the action in the foreground. The 'official' trailer has a representative mix of song samples from the movie. It's good enough that it has me looking for a more, in depth summary of the score. I'm still on that project.
I read a criticism of the movie the other day that was just a little too bizarre. The author insisted that the characters and the scenes were simply not believable. Coming from an area that still has a fair amount of 'rural' living going on I can assure one and all that there are people just like Vincent, Roxxie, and all the others in the film, out and about. In fact, there isn't a short supply of those types.
Without spoiling things I must add that there are some moments of extreme violence. If that sort of thing troubles you then you might steer-clear. However, there are many more scenes with crisp acting and a warmly-filmed landscape that will feel as foreign to many 'city' people as the Dark Side of the Moon.
One of my favorite moments takes place on a Ferris Wheel and there are real 'sparks' between Hirsh and Kravitz, the right kind of 'sparks'. A moment of humility between the brothers, near the conclusion also has an almost sweet sort of warmth to it without an over-do. The last five or ten minutes are gripping and surprising enough that you feel the hand of a professional director.
Cigarette Soup
(2017)
low budget war flick contains a bit of shock and awe
14 April 2017
Like most 'found footage' films Cigarette Soup has performances that feel rough and somewhat amateurish. In addition, it tends toward 'preachy' dialogue about some very well worn topics. But, if you find yourself a little stuck in 'watch' mode then pay attention: there are some moments that will simply shock you in a way that will form some new, unpleasant, sticky memories very few low budget war dramas manage to do. Cigarette Soup is worth a try. If you begin it and find that you are losing patience or interest then feel free to turn it off. But, if you keep going you will be deep in vivid thoughts by the end.
A great stand-alone episode and a Santiago feast
3 September 2015
The season three finale is a wonderful episode featuring Saundra Santiago as both her mother and her regular character, Gina Calabrese. Jeroen Krabbé and Shawn Elliott guest as former lovers of Gina's mother, and in supporting roles are the regulars: Crockett, Tubbs, Joplin, etc.
Flashbacks from Cuba in the early 60's provide the opening background for an episode that focuses on lost love and revenge. By the end we have learned a great deal about Gina's 'backstory' and seen one of the strongest performances Santiago provided during her five years on the program.
Krabbé provides the sort of strong performance that many prominent guest stars brought during the life of the program. Elliott does a nice job in a fairly familiar role, but Krabbé really shines in a piece of inspired casting. Much like Liam Neeson, in the first episode of Season Three, Krabbé adds a nice performance in scenes with Santiago's 'Gina' and her normally supporting female character is able to really show her stuff as the lead.
In addition to the regular Jan Hammer soundtrack this episode mixes in some strong torch songs from the 30's. The well-constructed finale fits around a classic tune as the ending matches the tone set in the opening scene. Heroes of the Revolution is yet another example of why Miami Vice was the must see crime show of the 80's. It was and is simply superior television.
For those that aren't familiar with the series this is a good episode to enjoy as a 'stand-alone' item. You don't need to know the history of the characters or be a strict Don Johnson fan. A nice hour of well-written and well-acted cop drama is here for you to experience. You will get a little taste of all the regular characters and a full banquet of Saundra Santiago.
Flashbacks from Cuba in the early 60's provide the opening background for an episode that focuses on lost love and revenge. By the end we have learned a great deal about Gina's 'backstory' and seen one of the strongest performances Santiago provided during her five years on the program.
Krabbé provides the sort of strong performance that many prominent guest stars brought during the life of the program. Elliott does a nice job in a fairly familiar role, but Krabbé really shines in a piece of inspired casting. Much like Liam Neeson, in the first episode of Season Three, Krabbé adds a nice performance in scenes with Santiago's 'Gina' and her normally supporting female character is able to really show her stuff as the lead.
In addition to the regular Jan Hammer soundtrack this episode mixes in some strong torch songs from the 30's. The well-constructed finale fits around a classic tune as the ending matches the tone set in the opening scene. Heroes of the Revolution is yet another example of why Miami Vice was the must see crime show of the 80's. It was and is simply superior television.
For those that aren't familiar with the series this is a good episode to enjoy as a 'stand-alone' item. You don't need to know the history of the characters or be a strict Don Johnson fan. A nice hour of well-written and well-acted cop drama is here for you to experience. You will get a little taste of all the regular characters and a full banquet of Saundra Santiago.
Exodus: Gods and Kings
(2014)
The Biblical epic updated for your pleasure
5 March 2015
A movie need not be a mirror that you gaze into to somehow discover your own soul, the human condition or much of anything at all. It is quite alright to watch a movie for a little harmless entertainment. Ah, but there are those of our species that wish each event could be crafted to teach a lesson, or right a wrong or bend the mind of the uneducated to a certain point of view. They are happiest when they exert a little control over you, citizen! Those people just bore me to tears.
I found this to be an enjoyable 'Biblical Epic' type of film with above average acting, cinematography and direction. I believe that if a person has two hours to spend and wants a little diversion this will do. It is a work that represents the 'spectacular' genre these days and is well worth the time and rental fee.
On the other hand, if a person wants historical accuracy they should probable seek out a documentary and cross their fingers – the era handled by Scott isn't all that well known and there is much disagreement about the Jewish migration out of Egypt. At the time, nobody was taking pictures or tweeting about the experience. As a result, almost all we know about that time is either speculation or mythology or both. (Those that argue about the 'accuracy of this movie really tickle me.) Of course, this movie deals with religious topics. You already knew that I bet. If you are going to watch Exodus for religious reasons look out! If you are really devout, you will find it weak. If you are without religion, you will find it too strong. If you practice the faith of Rameses you will no doubt be offended. Happy entrails to you.
Ff you like to get your religion from someplace other than from a Ridley Scott movie you will be OK on the faith issue. I was neither converted nor offended.
And, if you are looking for cinema that will either reaffirm your political beliefs or teach you something really, really deep then bypass this. It is a movie, not some sort of brain add-on that will make you a better person or symbolically pat you on the back for being so accurate, either left or right, in your politics.
Chris Bale is good as Moses. I know, easy for me to say (I never met Moses) but I think he is good. Bale's character develops and grows as the story goes on and though he's a little young I can buy him as the patriarch. Joel Edgerton is a good Rameses. No, he isn't Egyptian by birth. But, he is all the Rameses I looked forward to and he's appropriately cruddy when the need arises. Pharaohs are a spoiled bunch and Joel conveys that quality well. Maria Valverde is effective in her role as Mrs. Moses. She is a model, by the way, and a woman that is skilled at appearing glamorous. Ben Kingsley gets to play the Ben Kingsley part. I really have no problems with his casting and he does his version of Ben Kingsley quite well.
Several of the named talents have very small, insignificant roles. That is too bad for them, I am sure. But there screen time doesn't harm the movie.
The more spectacular elements of the story are done well. Plagues, parting waters, theological discussions with you-know-who, all pulled off skillfully. Sex is quite muted (less than pre-Hayes stuff)and the gore isn't all that gory (for the most part) so I think it is OK for the kiddies. This isn't history a la Pasolini.
Way back then things were probably quite rotten for many of the residents. This movie shows the conditions without bleeding all over the screen. I think that is a plus. But the sense of struggle for an oppressed minority is effectively conveyed.
In short a rather good movie! If you wish, you can believe those that would rather (ahem) make your thoughts their concern to the point that they direct your behavior. Or, you can trust good old me, I promise that for a modern day Old Testament epic this one is dandy.
I found this to be an enjoyable 'Biblical Epic' type of film with above average acting, cinematography and direction. I believe that if a person has two hours to spend and wants a little diversion this will do. It is a work that represents the 'spectacular' genre these days and is well worth the time and rental fee.
On the other hand, if a person wants historical accuracy they should probable seek out a documentary and cross their fingers – the era handled by Scott isn't all that well known and there is much disagreement about the Jewish migration out of Egypt. At the time, nobody was taking pictures or tweeting about the experience. As a result, almost all we know about that time is either speculation or mythology or both. (Those that argue about the 'accuracy of this movie really tickle me.) Of course, this movie deals with religious topics. You already knew that I bet. If you are going to watch Exodus for religious reasons look out! If you are really devout, you will find it weak. If you are without religion, you will find it too strong. If you practice the faith of Rameses you will no doubt be offended. Happy entrails to you.
Ff you like to get your religion from someplace other than from a Ridley Scott movie you will be OK on the faith issue. I was neither converted nor offended.
And, if you are looking for cinema that will either reaffirm your political beliefs or teach you something really, really deep then bypass this. It is a movie, not some sort of brain add-on that will make you a better person or symbolically pat you on the back for being so accurate, either left or right, in your politics.
Chris Bale is good as Moses. I know, easy for me to say (I never met Moses) but I think he is good. Bale's character develops and grows as the story goes on and though he's a little young I can buy him as the patriarch. Joel Edgerton is a good Rameses. No, he isn't Egyptian by birth. But, he is all the Rameses I looked forward to and he's appropriately cruddy when the need arises. Pharaohs are a spoiled bunch and Joel conveys that quality well. Maria Valverde is effective in her role as Mrs. Moses. She is a model, by the way, and a woman that is skilled at appearing glamorous. Ben Kingsley gets to play the Ben Kingsley part. I really have no problems with his casting and he does his version of Ben Kingsley quite well.
Several of the named talents have very small, insignificant roles. That is too bad for them, I am sure. But there screen time doesn't harm the movie.
The more spectacular elements of the story are done well. Plagues, parting waters, theological discussions with you-know-who, all pulled off skillfully. Sex is quite muted (less than pre-Hayes stuff)and the gore isn't all that gory (for the most part) so I think it is OK for the kiddies. This isn't history a la Pasolini.
Way back then things were probably quite rotten for many of the residents. This movie shows the conditions without bleeding all over the screen. I think that is a plus. But the sense of struggle for an oppressed minority is effectively conveyed.
In short a rather good movie! If you wish, you can believe those that would rather (ahem) make your thoughts their concern to the point that they direct your behavior. Or, you can trust good old me, I promise that for a modern day Old Testament epic this one is dandy.
Time Lapse
(2014)
A highly enjoyable little gem of a science fiction thriller
16 January 2015
Time lapse is a very well-made and entertaining little movie, something that should satisfy the average science fiction/thriller fan. The three leads all perform at a high level. Matt O'Leary as a young artist is appropriately fragile, Danielle Panabaker is not the 'good girl' you might assume from her appearance and George Finn conveys real menace in his portrayal as their friend, sinister from the middle point on.
Settings are simple but effective and the atmosphere is well held together by the staging and the clean production. There won't be any awards for set decoration but it works and isn't a distraction to the story. Unlike many low budget efforts it doesn't have that 'cheap scenery' feeling at all.
The lean script has enough science in it to work, but not too much to make it muddled. You aren't going to cheat on your next physics project by borrowing from this movie but you won't be offended by the theory in play. The good news about the story is that it works and by the end of the experience you will feel entertained with intelligent and clever writing. Your brain will be teased by this film.
There are several dark moments in the movie that show some real Hitchcock influence, though a film maker worker in this milieu is wise to borrow from the master. In addition, from time to time the score swells into a legitimate (though very minor) homage to Bernard Hermann. Again, a very good idea. The windup is complete and clean, revelations during the body of the film become evidence that tickle with satisfaction as it ends.
Low budget, but you aren't going to feel like you are watching some derivative film school project. This is a good movie with young actors creating their own characters. I think almost all viewers will find it artistically fresh. This is the first work I have seen from this director and after seeing Time Lapse I will look for his name for future entertainment, along with the names of his young stars.
When you find a film like this with unknown actors, a director you don't recognize and subject matter that could easily become boring you are forgiven if you don't fully commit to a full viewing when the streaming or broadcast starts. Personally, I gave it 15 minutes to prove itself when I began and was quickly stuck on it until the end. You should allow it to be the only content showing at the moment for you and your co-viewers, this is one to pay attention to in order to really enjoy. But, I think enjoyment is nearly a done deal.
Settings are simple but effective and the atmosphere is well held together by the staging and the clean production. There won't be any awards for set decoration but it works and isn't a distraction to the story. Unlike many low budget efforts it doesn't have that 'cheap scenery' feeling at all.
The lean script has enough science in it to work, but not too much to make it muddled. You aren't going to cheat on your next physics project by borrowing from this movie but you won't be offended by the theory in play. The good news about the story is that it works and by the end of the experience you will feel entertained with intelligent and clever writing. Your brain will be teased by this film.
There are several dark moments in the movie that show some real Hitchcock influence, though a film maker worker in this milieu is wise to borrow from the master. In addition, from time to time the score swells into a legitimate (though very minor) homage to Bernard Hermann. Again, a very good idea. The windup is complete and clean, revelations during the body of the film become evidence that tickle with satisfaction as it ends.
Low budget, but you aren't going to feel like you are watching some derivative film school project. This is a good movie with young actors creating their own characters. I think almost all viewers will find it artistically fresh. This is the first work I have seen from this director and after seeing Time Lapse I will look for his name for future entertainment, along with the names of his young stars.
When you find a film like this with unknown actors, a director you don't recognize and subject matter that could easily become boring you are forgiven if you don't fully commit to a full viewing when the streaming or broadcast starts. Personally, I gave it 15 minutes to prove itself when I began and was quickly stuck on it until the end. You should allow it to be the only content showing at the moment for you and your co-viewers, this is one to pay attention to in order to really enjoy. But, I think enjoyment is nearly a done deal.
Zulu
(2013)
Zulu 2013 is well worth your time to enjoy
21 April 2014
This is a very good movie. There, I said it. Let me say it again: this is a very good movie.
If I can identify one weak point, then I will point to the script that at times introduces some plot elements that rapidly fill in the blanks to advance the story. However, the script more than makes up for that minor problem by revealing complexity to the Whitaker and Bloom characters in a subtle way that makes us truly care about the two cops they portray.
Whitaker is very good, establishing a character then staying true to what he presents initially. If you like watching the mature Forest Whitaker do his thing then you will enjoy this movie.
However, to me this is Orlando Bloom's movie to carry, and he scores big time. If you are one of those that enjoys Orlando then this is a movie for you. All of that time he has spent adding to his bank account with fluffy roles has also brought him to this point where he can truly pull off a major role with skill.
Zulu is set in modern day South Africa and the portrait of that nation isn't pretty at all. Further, it is pretty easy to see that the social problems the film deals with are not only current but real and accurate. Zulu isn't just a who-done-it, but a powerful indictment of the causes of the subject crime embedded deep in 20th century history.
Like all good cop movies there is some redemption at the end so fear not in the middle, if you find yourself a little depressed. Stick it out and you will feel a little redemption yourself, maybe a little hope.
I see that the budget was $20 million and I think the producers got a great deal of worth for their investment. Problematic I guess is distribution of a cop film set in South Africa with some pretty harsh elements, at least to American audiences. Fortunately, for a few bucks in the near future you can watch it online.
Go see it if it at all sounds like your cup of tea, I promise you that you will enjoy it.
If I can identify one weak point, then I will point to the script that at times introduces some plot elements that rapidly fill in the blanks to advance the story. However, the script more than makes up for that minor problem by revealing complexity to the Whitaker and Bloom characters in a subtle way that makes us truly care about the two cops they portray.
Whitaker is very good, establishing a character then staying true to what he presents initially. If you like watching the mature Forest Whitaker do his thing then you will enjoy this movie.
However, to me this is Orlando Bloom's movie to carry, and he scores big time. If you are one of those that enjoys Orlando then this is a movie for you. All of that time he has spent adding to his bank account with fluffy roles has also brought him to this point where he can truly pull off a major role with skill.
Zulu is set in modern day South Africa and the portrait of that nation isn't pretty at all. Further, it is pretty easy to see that the social problems the film deals with are not only current but real and accurate. Zulu isn't just a who-done-it, but a powerful indictment of the causes of the subject crime embedded deep in 20th century history.
Like all good cop movies there is some redemption at the end so fear not in the middle, if you find yourself a little depressed. Stick it out and you will feel a little redemption yourself, maybe a little hope.
I see that the budget was $20 million and I think the producers got a great deal of worth for their investment. Problematic I guess is distribution of a cop film set in South Africa with some pretty harsh elements, at least to American audiences. Fortunately, for a few bucks in the near future you can watch it online.
Go see it if it at all sounds like your cup of tea, I promise you that you will enjoy it.
Winter of Frozen Dreams
(2009)
Good performances, cheap look
4 April 2014
Thora Birch is a pretty good performer. I don't know how she got roped into this project, perhaps boredom? Clearly, not for the money.
Overall, the acting is a bit above average. The story is solid, with a few nice twists. If you are into it for only average plus acting and a neat little screenplay then maybe this is your thing.
But, where the movie truly suffers is in production. Bad lighting, lousy camera work, below average editing, all those little things that might have completed the project nicely are just not very good.
I wonder if the stated budget here is correct, $1,000,000? To be honest, these days that is a bit beneath chump change for a film. But, if that number is true then another mystery solved, Why is Winter of Frozen Dreams so not-very-good? You get what you pay for.
Overall, the acting is a bit above average. The story is solid, with a few nice twists. If you are into it for only average plus acting and a neat little screenplay then maybe this is your thing.
But, where the movie truly suffers is in production. Bad lighting, lousy camera work, below average editing, all those little things that might have completed the project nicely are just not very good.
I wonder if the stated budget here is correct, $1,000,000? To be honest, these days that is a bit beneath chump change for a film. But, if that number is true then another mystery solved, Why is Winter of Frozen Dreams so not-very-good? You get what you pay for.
Watchable on a rainy, boring night
14 March 2014
Sam Rockwell has done some really great work. Not here, but he has, trust me. Ditto Michelle Monaghan, Olivia Wilde and Ray Liotta. And, let me be clear when I tell you that they try very hard to make this a nice little comedy. Sadly, all their hard work is pretty much wasted, and combined with the unnecessary Jane Fonda Narration I found Better Living Through Chemistry to be one of those movies you might watch some rainy, boring night - one of those nights when this is the only possible choice.
Rotten weather tonight? Seen every episode of Two Broke Girls at least twice? Need to save your gray matter for tomorrow's presentation? Great! This is a movie for you.
I think that the below average production really detracts from the film. There is something 'funky' about the sound and the filming is just a little bit off, like it was filmed half digital/half Eastman Kodak. No need for me to be more specific, you will notice. Trust me, again.
Another negative is knowing how much you have enjoyed the leads in the past. Consider Rockwell in Moon, or Monaghan in True Detective, two very strong performances. Rockwell in this movie comes off more like the new Rick Moranis (Honey, I drugged the kids) and I don't recall ever seeing Michelle so tired around the edges. I mentioned that they work hard, right?
This is not some comedic breakthrough, by the way. I do believe it has all been done before, thematically.
Though this is a film about a pharmacist, there is nothing new in this comedy as far as concepts or gags. You have seen it all before. The script isn't at all fresh, a real problem for me. It even has the oddball kid, you know the one that is going his own way or words to that effect. The core concepts that are supposed to work and make us laugh just don't work often enough.
I don't know if this ever made it to the theaters, or went straight to video. If it was in general release it is impossible for me to imagine it generating the sort of buzz to attract many folks to the old movie house.
However, it is watchable. Sound odd? Not really, just don't expect much. And, don't worry about pausing when you need a quick trip to the john, you won't miss much and no new techniques will be introduced.
Trust me.
Rotten weather tonight? Seen every episode of Two Broke Girls at least twice? Need to save your gray matter for tomorrow's presentation? Great! This is a movie for you.
I think that the below average production really detracts from the film. There is something 'funky' about the sound and the filming is just a little bit off, like it was filmed half digital/half Eastman Kodak. No need for me to be more specific, you will notice. Trust me, again.
Another negative is knowing how much you have enjoyed the leads in the past. Consider Rockwell in Moon, or Monaghan in True Detective, two very strong performances. Rockwell in this movie comes off more like the new Rick Moranis (Honey, I drugged the kids) and I don't recall ever seeing Michelle so tired around the edges. I mentioned that they work hard, right?
This is not some comedic breakthrough, by the way. I do believe it has all been done before, thematically.
Though this is a film about a pharmacist, there is nothing new in this comedy as far as concepts or gags. You have seen it all before. The script isn't at all fresh, a real problem for me. It even has the oddball kid, you know the one that is going his own way or words to that effect. The core concepts that are supposed to work and make us laugh just don't work often enough.
I don't know if this ever made it to the theaters, or went straight to video. If it was in general release it is impossible for me to imagine it generating the sort of buzz to attract many folks to the old movie house.
However, it is watchable. Sound odd? Not really, just don't expect much. And, don't worry about pausing when you need a quick trip to the john, you won't miss much and no new techniques will be introduced.
Trust me.
Bad Country
(2014)
Could have been much better
10 March 2014
Bad Country is watchable with some real heavyweight talent and a setting that promises great viewing. But, because of poor character development and overall production it falls far short of anything but average.
No blame to Matt Dillon or Willem Dafoe, both carrying the movie with excellent performances. In fact, Dillon's involvement in almost any project automatically guarantees reliable entertainment. And Dafoe is as gritty and pained as usual, just what you might expect.
But, the script is shallow, the sound editing amateurish, and the overall cinematography average. The final, expected scene can't be saved by the actors when all the technical facets pull together in a below average manner.
This could have been much better. So many elements are in place that Bad Country practically screams for the sort of polish and technique the cast deserves. I have no doubt that in the hands of Mann or Bay demands would have been made and ideas enforced to carry this movie to the box office with some real effect. As it is, by the end I could only wonder what could have been.
Watch it, but don't expect much.
No blame to Matt Dillon or Willem Dafoe, both carrying the movie with excellent performances. In fact, Dillon's involvement in almost any project automatically guarantees reliable entertainment. And Dafoe is as gritty and pained as usual, just what you might expect.
But, the script is shallow, the sound editing amateurish, and the overall cinematography average. The final, expected scene can't be saved by the actors when all the technical facets pull together in a below average manner.
This could have been much better. So many elements are in place that Bad Country practically screams for the sort of polish and technique the cast deserves. I have no doubt that in the hands of Mann or Bay demands would have been made and ideas enforced to carry this movie to the box office with some real effect. As it is, by the end I could only wonder what could have been.
Watch it, but don't expect much.
The Returned
(2013)
Nice little film
9 March 2014
I have been wondering: where do all these zombie films come from? This one comes from Canada. Like everything else, genres come and go in cycles. Fortunately, this is one of the better in the cycle, if it is even a zombie film at all.
Very good news: this isn't a 'found footage' mess, so those of you, that like me prefer real movies, will be pleased.
In an interesting twist a 'new' take is offered on the 'zombies have problems too' theme. Early on we find that a serum that keeps the undead alive and normal is running out. What to do! From there we are treated to a very nice thriller.
In fact, thematically this could easily seen as a thriller and not a zombie movie. If you are one that must wince as you avoid the screen during some of the bloodier flesh-consuming relatives to The Returned don't worry. Very little of that untidy stuff.
For a small budget we get some pretty fair production. Nice camera work, nice score, all filmed in Canada where apparently one gets quite a bit for their money. And, the dreary Canadian background seems very fitting, nice and gray.
Though no one in the cast really stands out they all perform very well together. Unlike other small budget films there isn't that actor or two that is such a 'clinker' that the whole production suffers.
Overall, very watchable, on par with the better made for television stuff. I have read that some feel the ending is a bit shocking, but I can't agree with that at all. The plot is developed nicely by that point and all fits together very well for me.
Very good news: this isn't a 'found footage' mess, so those of you, that like me prefer real movies, will be pleased.
In an interesting twist a 'new' take is offered on the 'zombies have problems too' theme. Early on we find that a serum that keeps the undead alive and normal is running out. What to do! From there we are treated to a very nice thriller.
In fact, thematically this could easily seen as a thriller and not a zombie movie. If you are one that must wince as you avoid the screen during some of the bloodier flesh-consuming relatives to The Returned don't worry. Very little of that untidy stuff.
For a small budget we get some pretty fair production. Nice camera work, nice score, all filmed in Canada where apparently one gets quite a bit for their money. And, the dreary Canadian background seems very fitting, nice and gray.
Though no one in the cast really stands out they all perform very well together. Unlike other small budget films there isn't that actor or two that is such a 'clinker' that the whole production suffers.
Overall, very watchable, on par with the better made for television stuff. I have read that some feel the ending is a bit shocking, but I can't agree with that at all. The plot is developed nicely by that point and all fits together very well for me.
The Counselor
(2013)
Not awful, but was Brad Pitt reading from a teleprompter?
7 March 2014
I am a devoted, long time fan of Ridley, so long and so devoted to his work that it isn't easy for me to offer the sort of criticism I immediately wanted to share after viewing 'the Counselor'. Even worse, I have viewed the Director's Cut only, or in other words the improved version he would like us to see.
The good news, this is a very pretty, stylish and well edited movie. Great photography of things like sunsets and big cats. but, as Brad Pitt might add at the end, don't lose your head yet.
The bad news, where do I begin? How about this: scene after boring scene where characters go on and on and on...yet say in every three sentences what they could have said in one. There must be a formula here, take the minutes of each scene, divide by three and...oh, my...not good news. In addition, much of the dialog is spoken in such a flat and odd cadence that at times it appears the actors are reading from TelePrompTers.
There is a great deal of philosophy offered in the wordy scenes, kind of like what you might expect in a good Kung Fu movie. Huge life lesson stuff, if you know what I mean, where the obvious is overstated and then there are 'gee whiz' moments of silence allowed so that we viewers can ponder the essence of who-knows-what. I am afraid I never got into it, much like those characters speaking line after line in mechanical earnest, like robots issuing instructions for life.
The Director's Cut opens with a scene that is tedious, unnerving and too long. I have read in other reviews that this version has 'extended' scenes that are intended to improve the final product. Don't be fooled as I was. Scene one is just an entrée to a movie with scene after scene where the key players talk too much without effectively advancing something worthy of Mr. Scott's reputation. I kept watching and hoping but it never got any better.
Oh, well, it is pretty
Casting is a real problem. There is no 'lead' actor present in the movie. Yes, the titular character is Mr. Fassbender, but his role never rises to a 'lead' position. Ridley never allows that to happen. Penelope is just window dressing and Javier is as bombastic and quirky as ever, but we all know he will never rise above a super-character actor slot. And, Brad? Well, he is there but don't lose your head expecting him to rise above his supporting role. Then, there is Ms. Diaz. Her role could have been filled by one of several actresses available. A better choice might have been Gong Li, Julia Roberts or one of your recently middle-aged cousins. Instead, Cam got the part and walks through it like someone in a narcolepsy study.
The cast is like a football team without a quarterback, so to speak. Before release I read about the 'powerhouse, dream cast'. Add a lead to the mix, take away the teleprompter and recast Fassbender and Diaz and I might agree.
One might think that the wordy scenes and overbearing dialog would at least paint a very clear picture of what is going on in the movie - OK think again. Transition periods from scene to scene are sometimes 'fill in the blank' for viewers, as the movie progresses. Better take notes if you can, that could really help.
The good news, this is a very pretty, stylish and well edited movie. Great photography of things like sunsets and big cats. but, as Brad Pitt might add at the end, don't lose your head yet.
The bad news, where do I begin? How about this: scene after boring scene where characters go on and on and on...yet say in every three sentences what they could have said in one. There must be a formula here, take the minutes of each scene, divide by three and...oh, my...not good news. In addition, much of the dialog is spoken in such a flat and odd cadence that at times it appears the actors are reading from TelePrompTers.
There is a great deal of philosophy offered in the wordy scenes, kind of like what you might expect in a good Kung Fu movie. Huge life lesson stuff, if you know what I mean, where the obvious is overstated and then there are 'gee whiz' moments of silence allowed so that we viewers can ponder the essence of who-knows-what. I am afraid I never got into it, much like those characters speaking line after line in mechanical earnest, like robots issuing instructions for life.
The Director's Cut opens with a scene that is tedious, unnerving and too long. I have read in other reviews that this version has 'extended' scenes that are intended to improve the final product. Don't be fooled as I was. Scene one is just an entrée to a movie with scene after scene where the key players talk too much without effectively advancing something worthy of Mr. Scott's reputation. I kept watching and hoping but it never got any better.
Oh, well, it is pretty
Casting is a real problem. There is no 'lead' actor present in the movie. Yes, the titular character is Mr. Fassbender, but his role never rises to a 'lead' position. Ridley never allows that to happen. Penelope is just window dressing and Javier is as bombastic and quirky as ever, but we all know he will never rise above a super-character actor slot. And, Brad? Well, he is there but don't lose your head expecting him to rise above his supporting role. Then, there is Ms. Diaz. Her role could have been filled by one of several actresses available. A better choice might have been Gong Li, Julia Roberts or one of your recently middle-aged cousins. Instead, Cam got the part and walks through it like someone in a narcolepsy study.
The cast is like a football team without a quarterback, so to speak. Before release I read about the 'powerhouse, dream cast'. Add a lead to the mix, take away the teleprompter and recast Fassbender and Diaz and I might agree.
One might think that the wordy scenes and overbearing dialog would at least paint a very clear picture of what is going on in the movie - OK think again. Transition periods from scene to scene are sometimes 'fill in the blank' for viewers, as the movie progresses. Better take notes if you can, that could really help.
Prince of the City
(1981)
One of the greatest English language 'cop' dramas ever made
6 March 2014
One of the greatest English language 'cop' dramas ever made.
Lumet and Williams take us along a path where almost everyone one might trust is dirty, the fantasy of the 'war on drugs' is forced to confront the reality of the streets and everyday life, and the closest bonds imaginable between men are fractured by a judicial system that is often itself corrupt and impossible to trust.
Over the years much has been said about this film and its lack of recognition, especially in light of only one academy award nomination and no wins. I can't speak to why that happened, but I can say that a greater set of awards earned is the almost universal recognition of this movie as a truly relevant and brilliant statement still fresh over time.
So many movies from 30 plus years ago are clearly 'showing their age'. Techniques used, scripts employed, acting, even costumes nail most films from c. 1981 to a particular time frame. Viewers must make allowances for the age, a real negative to enjoyment. Not so, Prince of the City. It is as crisp and compelling now as it was when first released. The only real difference between it and contemporary dramas is the ability of people to now enjoy it as a masterpiece and a reference to a great age of directors like Lumet, instead of a 'first run'.
Lumet used a huge supporting cast. How amazing is it that so many near perfect performances are offered by actors that either were never heard of again or slipped into a careers that aren't worth mentioning? To me, that is a little bit of proof of the crazy magic of Prince of the City. For some reason so many people came together and jelled into an ensemble that for 167 minutes can still help us suspend time as we live the story with them. Certainly, the reason has to be the masterful hand of Lumet.
If you haven't seen Prince of the City but enjoy this genre of film then please see it soon. It's long, so give yourself the required time to enjoy it. Extra points to you, if you watch it with one or more friends that not only enjoys 'cop' dramas but also enjoys great direction, smooth acting, and like to discuss film making in general. You will find great joy not only in the movie but in the conversations it will inspire. No doubt two threads of your conversation will emerge: where can I get more Lumet movies and why didn't Treat get more recognition for his work. Question one is easy to answer, check out IMDb. Number two is a question film buffs have been asking for over 30 years without satisfaction.
Lumet and Williams take us along a path where almost everyone one might trust is dirty, the fantasy of the 'war on drugs' is forced to confront the reality of the streets and everyday life, and the closest bonds imaginable between men are fractured by a judicial system that is often itself corrupt and impossible to trust.
Over the years much has been said about this film and its lack of recognition, especially in light of only one academy award nomination and no wins. I can't speak to why that happened, but I can say that a greater set of awards earned is the almost universal recognition of this movie as a truly relevant and brilliant statement still fresh over time.
So many movies from 30 plus years ago are clearly 'showing their age'. Techniques used, scripts employed, acting, even costumes nail most films from c. 1981 to a particular time frame. Viewers must make allowances for the age, a real negative to enjoyment. Not so, Prince of the City. It is as crisp and compelling now as it was when first released. The only real difference between it and contemporary dramas is the ability of people to now enjoy it as a masterpiece and a reference to a great age of directors like Lumet, instead of a 'first run'.
Lumet used a huge supporting cast. How amazing is it that so many near perfect performances are offered by actors that either were never heard of again or slipped into a careers that aren't worth mentioning? To me, that is a little bit of proof of the crazy magic of Prince of the City. For some reason so many people came together and jelled into an ensemble that for 167 minutes can still help us suspend time as we live the story with them. Certainly, the reason has to be the masterful hand of Lumet.
If you haven't seen Prince of the City but enjoy this genre of film then please see it soon. It's long, so give yourself the required time to enjoy it. Extra points to you, if you watch it with one or more friends that not only enjoys 'cop' dramas but also enjoys great direction, smooth acting, and like to discuss film making in general. You will find great joy not only in the movie but in the conversations it will inspire. No doubt two threads of your conversation will emerge: where can I get more Lumet movies and why didn't Treat get more recognition for his work. Question one is easy to answer, check out IMDb. Number two is a question film buffs have been asking for over 30 years without satisfaction.
Doomsday
(I) (2008)
Stop me if you have heard this story before
10 February 2014
The early portion of Doomsday is fairly interesting. A series of historical events sets up the rest of the movie, accompanied by a voice-over just in case you don't get the gravity of the situation.
Next, futuristic cops do their thing, Bob Hoskins shows up playing Bob Hoskins and one of the characters has an interesting ocular situation.
Too bad the movie doesn't continue as it began, a shoot-em-up/detective story set in dark, rainy London later this century. Certainly, that would have been an interesting route, maybe a decent Blade Runner rip off.
Sadly, the movie becomes a second rate Mad Max/28 days later rip off instead. I have read some recommendations that say if you liked Mad Max, then you should like this. I think more accurate is if you liked Mad Max, then go find your copy of that movie and watch it instead. This stinker won't do the job, if that genre is what you desire.
I did find a little amusement in the writer's version of the future, a place of campy acting, overplayed pop music and bad hair cuts. I'm not sure who but somebody clearly had a few laughs over that staging. However, the real joke is on whomever buys and watches this mess.
Next, futuristic cops do their thing, Bob Hoskins shows up playing Bob Hoskins and one of the characters has an interesting ocular situation.
Too bad the movie doesn't continue as it began, a shoot-em-up/detective story set in dark, rainy London later this century. Certainly, that would have been an interesting route, maybe a decent Blade Runner rip off.
Sadly, the movie becomes a second rate Mad Max/28 days later rip off instead. I have read some recommendations that say if you liked Mad Max, then you should like this. I think more accurate is if you liked Mad Max, then go find your copy of that movie and watch it instead. This stinker won't do the job, if that genre is what you desire.
I did find a little amusement in the writer's version of the future, a place of campy acting, overplayed pop music and bad hair cuts. I'm not sure who but somebody clearly had a few laughs over that staging. However, the real joke is on whomever buys and watches this mess.
Insomnia
(2002)
Good, worth your time, but could have been much better
18 January 2014
This could have been such a great movie.
Nolan's direction is definitive. The cinematography is near perfect. The score is inviting without ever descending to a cloying nature. The script, the story, the twists and turns of the writing are constantly engaging and feed the viewer's attention with scene after scene near perfection.
Ms. Swank is wonderful.
However, some of the casting is not as good as it could have been. Imagine Insomnia with Pacino and Williams replaced by Smith and Jones, two less prominent actors just as good as all the other elements of the movie and then you are approaching an IMDb rating of around 8. But, with Al and Robin I give it a 6.
"Heresy!", you say. An understandable reaction, given the elevated reputations of the two leads. I mean, the two mean are like cinematic gods, right? No, not really.
Ever since 'Scent of a woman' Pacino has been offering the same, overacted character no matter what the project. And Robin? Go watch any interview he has given on a talk show over the last 20 years and you will see what to expect from him, because he can't get out of 'character' either, just like Al.
Smith and Jones, two good actors, would have brought interpretations to the roles that would have probably been unique. In fact, I bet their interpretations would have garnered some award buzz. But, in the hands of tired Al and burnt out Robin we get exactly what we should expect from them: two characters that could have been in any other movie.
Still pretty good, still watchable at least once. But, this ain't no classic Chris Nolan fans. I guess the good news is that he probably won't make the same mistake again.
Nolan's direction is definitive. The cinematography is near perfect. The score is inviting without ever descending to a cloying nature. The script, the story, the twists and turns of the writing are constantly engaging and feed the viewer's attention with scene after scene near perfection.
Ms. Swank is wonderful.
However, some of the casting is not as good as it could have been. Imagine Insomnia with Pacino and Williams replaced by Smith and Jones, two less prominent actors just as good as all the other elements of the movie and then you are approaching an IMDb rating of around 8. But, with Al and Robin I give it a 6.
"Heresy!", you say. An understandable reaction, given the elevated reputations of the two leads. I mean, the two mean are like cinematic gods, right? No, not really.
Ever since 'Scent of a woman' Pacino has been offering the same, overacted character no matter what the project. And Robin? Go watch any interview he has given on a talk show over the last 20 years and you will see what to expect from him, because he can't get out of 'character' either, just like Al.
Smith and Jones, two good actors, would have brought interpretations to the roles that would have probably been unique. In fact, I bet their interpretations would have garnered some award buzz. But, in the hands of tired Al and burnt out Robin we get exactly what we should expect from them: two characters that could have been in any other movie.
Still pretty good, still watchable at least once. But, this ain't no classic Chris Nolan fans. I guess the good news is that he probably won't make the same mistake again.
Tell Your Friends