THE STRANGERS (2008) - May 31, 2008
An effective though highly flawed horror film about a couple who go to a country home and are terrorized by a trio of masked invaders. The film does a really good job of maintaining a fairly suspenseful vibe, and uses silence to great effect. The shaky-cam direction does get a bit tiresome, and the drab, yellowish cinematography doesn't help either. The film's biggest issue are the three bad guys, who appear to know that they're horror movie villains ans and act accordingly; they pop up and appear sinister and then disappear in ways that are entirely dictated by the film's direction, and which lack any sort of logic. This might have worked better in another film, but the gritty, fairly realistic tone is at odds with the fun-house theatricality of the three bad guys. The film was essentially entertaining throughout, and it certainly didn't overstay its welcome, but given the premise it should have been so much better. **1/2
Short reviews of all the movies I see, rated out of four. Reviews containing spoilers are marked with an (S).
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Schindler's List
SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993) - May 27, 2008
A very long but well made film about a German who, during the war, opens a factory and eventually winds up saving hundreds of Jews from the concentration camps. It was slow, and probably too long at well over three hours, but it was certainly never boring. The performances were all exceptional, particularly Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Spielberg's direction was also quite good. And -- I never thought I'd say it -- Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was excellent. The stark, high contrast black and white suits the film perfectly; this is easily the best looking Spielberg/Kaminski collaboration. ***
A very long but well made film about a German who, during the war, opens a factory and eventually winds up saving hundreds of Jews from the concentration camps. It was slow, and probably too long at well over three hours, but it was certainly never boring. The performances were all exceptional, particularly Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Spielberg's direction was also quite good. And -- I never thought I'd say it -- Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was excellent. The stark, high contrast black and white suits the film perfectly; this is easily the best looking Spielberg/Kaminski collaboration. ***
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN (2008) - May 26, 2008
Well, that was a bit of a let-down. After the first film, which was such an enjoyable adaptation, my expectations for this were pretty high. But while the first film was reasonably faithful to its book, this one makes a lot of needless changes which really don't make much sense. The film alters the sequence of many of the events from the book, which I can understand for the most part, but it also adds a lot of superfluous stuff, such as political intrigue with the villain (presumably in an effort to make him a more fleshed out character, but it's completely unnecessary). There's also a long battle which comes midway through the movie which only serves to add to its long running time (and in fact as the fight went on, I was starting to think that it was actually the final battle, and that the film was going to end sooner than I thought, which obviously turned out to be far from the truth). There were still a lot of good things in the film -- it was well directed and the performances were all very good (with the possible exception of Ben Barnes, who is essentially good as Caspian, though he seems to be basing his Spanish accent on Ricky Ricardo). But the film dragged quite a bit, particularly in the middle, and lacked much of the sense of wonder from the first one. **1/2
Well, that was a bit of a let-down. After the first film, which was such an enjoyable adaptation, my expectations for this were pretty high. But while the first film was reasonably faithful to its book, this one makes a lot of needless changes which really don't make much sense. The film alters the sequence of many of the events from the book, which I can understand for the most part, but it also adds a lot of superfluous stuff, such as political intrigue with the villain (presumably in an effort to make him a more fleshed out character, but it's completely unnecessary). There's also a long battle which comes midway through the movie which only serves to add to its long running time (and in fact as the fight went on, I was starting to think that it was actually the final battle, and that the film was going to end sooner than I thought, which obviously turned out to be far from the truth). There were still a lot of good things in the film -- it was well directed and the performances were all very good (with the possible exception of Ben Barnes, who is essentially good as Caspian, though he seems to be basing his Spanish accent on Ricky Ricardo). But the film dragged quite a bit, particularly in the middle, and lacked much of the sense of wonder from the first one. **1/2
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) - May 24, 2008 (Second Viewing)
I still think that this is the weakest of the four Indiana Jones films, but I also still think that's it's a rollicking good time, despite its flaws. ***1/2
I still think that this is the weakest of the four Indiana Jones films, but I also still think that's it's a rollicking good time, despite its flaws. ***1/2
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) - May 18, 2008
Not too shabby! Maybe it's because I was expecting the worst and significantly lowered my expectations, but I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit. My biggest fear -- that Spielberg-ruiner Janusz Kaminski's fingerprints would be all over the film -- proved to be mostly unfounded, as he actually did manage to reign himself in and did a decent enough job of aping the look of the first three films. My other fear, that Harrison Ford is simply too old and gruff to convincingly step back into Indiana Jones' shoes, was also happily laid to rest; Ford managed to be as charismatic as ever, and is in good enough shape that he didn't look at all out of place in the usual assortment of fistfights and over-the-top stunts. Shia LeBeouf was another pleasant surprise, and actually turned out to be a fairly good sidekick for Indy. This was far from a perfect film (it's a bit slower than the previous films, and perhaps a tad overlong. Also, the inclusion of some overtly sci-fi elements towards the end felt a bit out of place) -- it is the weakest of the series so far, but not at all by the wide margin I had feared. Good stuff. ***1/2
Not too shabby! Maybe it's because I was expecting the worst and significantly lowered my expectations, but I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit. My biggest fear -- that Spielberg-ruiner Janusz Kaminski's fingerprints would be all over the film -- proved to be mostly unfounded, as he actually did manage to reign himself in and did a decent enough job of aping the look of the first three films. My other fear, that Harrison Ford is simply too old and gruff to convincingly step back into Indiana Jones' shoes, was also happily laid to rest; Ford managed to be as charismatic as ever, and is in good enough shape that he didn't look at all out of place in the usual assortment of fistfights and over-the-top stunts. Shia LeBeouf was another pleasant surprise, and actually turned out to be a fairly good sidekick for Indy. This was far from a perfect film (it's a bit slower than the previous films, and perhaps a tad overlong. Also, the inclusion of some overtly sci-fi elements towards the end felt a bit out of place) -- it is the weakest of the series so far, but not at all by the wide margin I had feared. Good stuff. ***1/2
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Untraceable
UNTRACEABLE (2008) - May 17, 2008
An all around mediocre film, from the ridiculous, frequently cringe-worthy screenplay, to the bland direction (is this really the same guy who did Primal Fear and Frequency??), to the unpleasantly murky, grayish cinematography. The performances are mostly mediocre, though Diane Lane tries her best wring something good out of this crap pile (she's about as good as you can hope for in a movie this bad). The whole movie just feels so contrived and artificial... Blech. *1/2
An all around mediocre film, from the ridiculous, frequently cringe-worthy screenplay, to the bland direction (is this really the same guy who did Primal Fear and Frequency??), to the unpleasantly murky, grayish cinematography. The performances are mostly mediocre, though Diane Lane tries her best wring something good out of this crap pile (she's about as good as you can hope for in a movie this bad). The whole movie just feels so contrived and artificial... Blech. *1/2
Friday, May 16, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE - May 16, 2008 (Fourth or Fifth Viewing)
Like Temple of Doom, this has a hard time measuring up to the high standard set by Raiders, but really, it would have been impossible to top that film. This is probably the strongest of the two sequels, and features all the rollicking action and humour that the series is known for. It's definitely the most light-hearted of the three films, but it works (and special praise must go to the moment where Indy's cohorts think that he's gone off a cliff, and he comes walking up behind them -- I haven't laughed that hard in a long time). Sean Connery is a welcome addition to the series; he definitely has really good chemistry with Harrison Ford. ****
Like Temple of Doom, this has a hard time measuring up to the high standard set by Raiders, but really, it would have been impossible to top that film. This is probably the strongest of the two sequels, and features all the rollicking action and humour that the series is known for. It's definitely the most light-hearted of the three films, but it works (and special praise must go to the moment where Indy's cohorts think that he's gone off a cliff, and he comes walking up behind them -- I haven't laughed that hard in a long time). Sean Connery is a welcome addition to the series; he definitely has really good chemistry with Harrison Ford. ****
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984) - May 15, 2008 (Fourth or Fifth Viewing)
Though not quite a masterpiece on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark, this was still really enjoyable and a much better-than-average summer blockbuster. Steven Spielberg's direction is, yet again, superlative -- the Indiana Jones trilogy should be required viewing for any action director. Spielberg manages to take sequences which would come off as over-the-top under a lesser director and makes them exciting. The film is maybe a bit too silly at times, and a tad darker than I'd necessarily like, but it was still quite good. ***1/2
Though not quite a masterpiece on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark, this was still really enjoyable and a much better-than-average summer blockbuster. Steven Spielberg's direction is, yet again, superlative -- the Indiana Jones trilogy should be required viewing for any action director. Spielberg manages to take sequences which would come off as over-the-top under a lesser director and makes them exciting. The film is maybe a bit too silly at times, and a tad darker than I'd necessarily like, but it was still quite good. ***1/2
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Raiders of the Lost Ark
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981) - May 14, 2008 (Fifth or Sixth Viewing)
Wow! It's easy to forget what an amazing director Steven Spielberg was in his prime, but this is a pretty stunning reminder; I think this is very close to being a perfect film. Certainly, it is a perfect summer blockbuster, and the absolute antithesis to the type of garbage we tend to see these days. Spielberg's direction is almost ridiculously good, with the more dramatic stuff faring just as well as the action (and there isn't a hand-held camera in sight, which would be almost unheard of in a contemporary action film, and which proves beautifully that that hand-held/shaky-cam is absolutely not needed to craft an exciting action scene). Then there's the performances -- there's a reason Indiana Jones is such an iconic character; Harrison Ford's performance has just the right amount of charm, gravitas, and badassery. The other actors are just as good. John William's score (which has to be one of the most recognizable scores of all time) is as effective as it is memorable. Man, what a great film this was. I remembered it being excellent but it was even better than I had remembered. ****
Wow! It's easy to forget what an amazing director Steven Spielberg was in his prime, but this is a pretty stunning reminder; I think this is very close to being a perfect film. Certainly, it is a perfect summer blockbuster, and the absolute antithesis to the type of garbage we tend to see these days. Spielberg's direction is almost ridiculously good, with the more dramatic stuff faring just as well as the action (and there isn't a hand-held camera in sight, which would be almost unheard of in a contemporary action film, and which proves beautifully that that hand-held/shaky-cam is absolutely not needed to craft an exciting action scene). Then there's the performances -- there's a reason Indiana Jones is such an iconic character; Harrison Ford's performance has just the right amount of charm, gravitas, and badassery. The other actors are just as good. John William's score (which has to be one of the most recognizable scores of all time) is as effective as it is memorable. Man, what a great film this was. I remembered it being excellent but it was even better than I had remembered. ****
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Alone
ALONE (2007) - May 10, 2008
Though not quite as good as the directors' previous effort, Shutter (it lacks the sustained tension of that film, though this was more of a drama/horror hybrid), this was still a well made and enjoyable film. About a woman who finds herself haunted by visions of her Siamese twin, who died when they were separated (a procedure which was done at her behest). Though the twin essentially appears as the now-standard long-haired girl of Asian horror, her appearances are brief enough that this doesn't feel like yet another Ring knockoff. ***
Though not quite as good as the directors' previous effort, Shutter (it lacks the sustained tension of that film, though this was more of a drama/horror hybrid), this was still a well made and enjoyable film. About a woman who finds herself haunted by visions of her Siamese twin, who died when they were separated (a procedure which was done at her behest). Though the twin essentially appears as the now-standard long-haired girl of Asian horror, her appearances are brief enough that this doesn't feel like yet another Ring knockoff. ***
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Sleepless in Seattle
SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE (1993) - May 7, 2008 (Second Viewing)
A decent romantic comedy about a guy who goes on the radio talking about how he misses his dead wife, and a woman who hears this and falls in love. Though it is written by Nora Ephron, who also wrote the superior When Harry Met Sally, it lacks much of the wit and charm of that film, coming off as far more conventional. It also doesn't help that Ephron's direction is mediocre, and relies far too much on music to underscore every single emotion in the film. Of course, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are at their charming best here, which definitely helps, though the fact that they barely even meet until the last few minutes of the film makes it somewhat tough to really be rooting for their relationship. **1/2
A decent romantic comedy about a guy who goes on the radio talking about how he misses his dead wife, and a woman who hears this and falls in love. Though it is written by Nora Ephron, who also wrote the superior When Harry Met Sally, it lacks much of the wit and charm of that film, coming off as far more conventional. It also doesn't help that Ephron's direction is mediocre, and relies far too much on music to underscore every single emotion in the film. Of course, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are at their charming best here, which definitely helps, though the fact that they barely even meet until the last few minutes of the film makes it somewhat tough to really be rooting for their relationship. **1/2
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Speed Racer
SPEED RACER (2008) - May 4, 2008
An odd follow-up to the Matrix Trilogy from the Wachowski Brothers, this was an interesting if not entirely successful adaptation of the popular Japanese cartoon. The Wachowskis' direction is aggressively stylish (this is quite possibly the most colourful film in the history of cinema), and for a while it works. But at 129 minutes the film is ridiculously overlong, and by the end the film's bombastic sensory assault gets wearisome. It's surprisingly well acted and it's definitely exciting in parts, but it's just far, far too long. **1/2
An odd follow-up to the Matrix Trilogy from the Wachowski Brothers, this was an interesting if not entirely successful adaptation of the popular Japanese cartoon. The Wachowskis' direction is aggressively stylish (this is quite possibly the most colourful film in the history of cinema), and for a while it works. But at 129 minutes the film is ridiculously overlong, and by the end the film's bombastic sensory assault gets wearisome. It's surprisingly well acted and it's definitely exciting in parts, but it's just far, far too long. **1/2
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Iron Man
IRON MAN (2008) - May 3, 2008
A better-than-average, though flawed, superhero film. For one thing, the film is too long; there's much more setup here than is really needed (the whole first hour probably could have been condensed into 15 minutes). Jon Favreau's direction is very good, if somewhat bland. The film never feels too action-heavy, though it does feel a bit action-light in the first hour (in fact, the first time Tony Stark gets into his real Iron Man suit and dispatches some bad guys, it suddenly occurred to me that, yes, I am watching a superhero movie -- something I had pretty much forgotten up to that point. I guess that's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view). Robert Downey Jr. was just as good as everyone has been saying, though I'm not sure if the film itself was quite up to his level. Certainly, it's nowhere near the ultimate superhero film everyone seems to be proclaiming it to be. ***
A better-than-average, though flawed, superhero film. For one thing, the film is too long; there's much more setup here than is really needed (the whole first hour probably could have been condensed into 15 minutes). Jon Favreau's direction is very good, if somewhat bland. The film never feels too action-heavy, though it does feel a bit action-light in the first hour (in fact, the first time Tony Stark gets into his real Iron Man suit and dispatches some bad guys, it suddenly occurred to me that, yes, I am watching a superhero movie -- something I had pretty much forgotten up to that point. I guess that's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view). Robert Downey Jr. was just as good as everyone has been saying, though I'm not sure if the film itself was quite up to his level. Certainly, it's nowhere near the ultimate superhero film everyone seems to be proclaiming it to be. ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)