Change Your Image
alex_imdb
Reviews
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Enjoyable if you can come to terms with how phony it is.
A fairly watchable movie. The story is pretty tense, as it is common for the "I lost my memories" stories, besides, the idea of soldiers having strange memories and contradicting dreams about the wartime is a gold mine, and it fits just about right in the current political situation. So what do we do? We dig the gold. Right? Nevertheless, after about 15 minutes you can figure out what's happening, and 5 minutes after that you hear it all said in plain English, so there's no much intrigue about it. But between director, cameraman and editor, with some help from the actors, they managed to keep the movie watchable till its end.
The acting is very good, Denzel Washington is amazing depicting a paranoidal soldier, but Meryl Streep's character is so much one-sided that I see nothing to talk about there: good performance, but it would fit better in a comic book adaptation. It's a shame they didn't use Meryl's dramatic talent more, they could have. I think it's about the script and directing.
One thing I'd like to mention: there's a strange theatrical feeling about this movie, kind of similar to Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". Something grotesque and out of place. Like the director was consciously but subtly trying to convert this somewhat serious script into a farce.
Probably it's because this is a remake of something pretty much old, and here and there you can see the old dusty skeleton under the new flashy clothing. Bizarre. The "secret laboratory" scenes looked like a stylistic tribute to the 60ies' James Bond movies, or probably to the original "...Candidate".
All in all, the movie is pretty solid for a remake, though the farce notes make it look not as serious as it could have been. And it is enjoyable if you can come to terms with how phony it is. I give it a 6 out of 10.
Van Helsing (2004)
A pleasant surprise if your expectations weren't high
I was looking forward to watch Van Helsing, probably because there was not much going on around or probably just to keep up to date. I had little expectations about it, the synopsis didn't attract me much, but I wanted something new, so I watched it.
I was pleasantly surprised that the opening scene wasn't introducing the main character, and that the author managed to keep the intrigue during the next couple of scenes (c'mon, it isn't something written by the Cohen brothers or Kaufmann, so let's treat it in its weight category!). Of course, I had to filter a fair amount of BS, but that's normal for a heroic flick like that, so bring it on.
The CGI was pretty good, sometimes very good, sometimes annoying - up to the standards in any case, though no matrixish bullet time or whatever. But what for? There's already lots of movies with splashing water circled all around by the virtual camera, just pick a title from the shelf.
The plot, as I've already said, isn't worth mentioning. The salad the Mummy's daddy Stephen Sommers has done out of seemingly all the monster fiction and comic books found on his shelf looks like an unsuccessful marriage of Mary Shelley's mattress dwelling bedbug and Ian Flemming's bastard nephew's chihuahua's flee. And I could probably live much better without the hero/sidekick vs villain/sidekick cliché, but then it would take the author to actually think a lot, so hey, gimme the action, babe and nevermind the self-proclaimed intellectuals! If you have a weak stomach - try not to watch this movie after meal. Some parts are really gross stomach-wise, lots of viscous blob being splattered and lots of squishy looking things jumping around. Yuck.
All in all, I enjoyed the movie, it made my evening, so if you don't get tired easily of meaningless plots, can filter BS at some fair ratio and like to watch an action-packed movie with a sometimes creative camera work - go for it. I'd give it a 6 out of 10, it's a solid entertainment flick.
Ying xiong (2002)
Breathtaking cinematography, good fights, interesting story. Arguable final.
My eyes (or whatever else part of anatomy that's responsible for perceiving aesthetics) that's been starving for quite some time for something aesthetically nourishing, swallowed this movie in nearly orgasmic spasms. Chinese do know about aesthetics. Dixi.
The story is interesting and managed to surprise me a few times (usually it's 1 or 2, so "a few" is more than good), although the parallels with Rashomon was striking and made it taste of recycled polythene. On the other hand, what isn't recycled after 10000 years of our attempts to civilization, so I just shut up.
Once, only once the movie made me wanna say "oh, boy, why in the world would you need THAT?!", it was at the end of the movie.
You remember those awkward moments when while visiting a foreign country you're invited to see a local school children choir singing for you in your language a typical folk song from your country, which they make sound like a message from an alien civilization to the Supreme Council of Guinean tree frogs, and everyone's smiling their teeth out and looking for traces of approval in your face, and you're ready to harakiri yourself with a ladle just to escape this realm of overpowering cutesy that looks feels and sounds like a baby shower at Sailor Moon's?
OK, so that's how I felt while watching this final scene. Gosh, why make it THAT obvious?... First I just frowned in disgust and thought that I didn't need it at all, I'm enough interested in Oriental culture to not need it at all. Then I thought that maybe there's lots of Western people who in fact need this as a message of intercultural communication (aliens and tree frogs?) or whatever it was... So, well, OK, let it be.
Anyway, even the last scene couldn't spoil the aesthetic fiesta I had while watching this movie. I'd give it 9 out of 10 and buy a DVD when it's released at last.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
One step down: back to Hollywood standards.
I've just watched it, and have some mixed feelings about it. First of all, the creators continued the good tradition started in the first flick, which is adapting a book by simply trashing its guts and leaving the cover: those who've read "The Bourne Supremacy" will find (once again) that the movie has nothing in common with the original book, aside of a rather arbitrary coincidence of names (not places).
Secondly, I am not ready yet for this bright new and fancy editing style which looks as if the editor's pit bull had found the film the day before it was edited. The action scenes are (IMHO) impossible to watch. At least I couldn't make out what was happening from that short glimpses of blurry images filmed by a seemingly epileptic camera man, where the overwhelming sound of kicks and blows is the only reference to the scene's story line. Very big disadvantage next to the first movie, where the camera was also shaky, "documentary-like", but the key fight sequence was clear and therefore very impressive; Kali is an impressive martial art, but in order to understand how impressive it is you have to see the "chain sequences" and appreciate the beauty and efficiency of the movements. That was done pretty good in the "The Hunted" and the latest "The Bourne Identity". I was expecting a better fights from the second part, I got none.
I also found some lack of intelligent script writing, as compared to the first part: a low blow to the film's credibility. Bourne's creativity suffered a heavy loss, the tricks look trivial, and the car chase is just what it could be in any standard Hollywood flick: a lineal runaway with lots of (very loudly) crashed metal, not much of a brain work. Or maybe it's just because I, once again, couldn't figure it out in the middle of this dog-beaten cut-n-paste editing. Anyway, I could find no logic in the chase scene's final, and it was yet another blow to the movie's credibility.
As a Muscovite, though, I was really pleased to see my city once again in a Hollywood production :) And I even was lucky enough to catch a glimpse of my home! It definitely affects my objectiveness. Some Hollywood actors actually spoke a passable Russian (Karel Roden is really good, and when Matt Damon speaks in short phrases, it sounds really good), but Karl Urban sucks. Maybe because he says most of the long phrases...
I've been waiting for this movie for quite a long, I was going to enjoy it and I actually have. In spite of the fact that at times the lack of action on the screen was in a clear contradiction with the all tense and thundering music score, and in spite of the Bourne's downgrade from a 50-million-worth precise weapon to a linear-thinking stuntmaster.
So, to watch or not to watch? It's a good movie, but the only 2 reasons to watch it in a theater are (IMHO) - either you just can't wait for the DVD release (like it was in my case) or you want to hear the really good sound effects _that_ loud.
I give it 6 out of 10, and remember that my judgment is affected by the sights of my homeland.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
It looked like they were desperately trying to write the superhero somewhere in their adolescent drama
For me, it was a hard work to sit this film through, after this slow and long opening and all. I know I'm probably just being a smartass or whatever, but I struggled to find something to be interested in.
I mean, there's no much action in it (I hoped to relax and watch a sfx flick - duh! Nowhere near it!), and there's this (IMHO) overwritten personal story that doesn't state much, either (it probably does for what it is: an adolescent movie; but it lacked freshness and therefore was plain DULL).
At last - I found one interesting thing: at about the half of the movie, it suddenly occurred to me that the script writers didn't seemed to LIKE the whole superhero thing at all! Like "oh, well, yeah, I forgot- he's a superhero... OK, let's put an action scene here, what's it that the producer wanted there? The train chase? OK, here you are, now let's get back to the REAL people!" Or something to that extent.
I mean, it looked like they were desperately trying to write the superhero somewhere in their adolescent drama, and I saw this bizarre picture of the whole writers crew jumping on the film roll trying to fit the bloating here and there superhero in, like people do with the traveling bag when there's too much stuff in it.
At the end, I could clearly see two separate movies that mixed about as good as lemon juice and an 85W motor oil. So my conclusion was: they didn't manage to marry the two stories, maybe because they got so far in the realistic part of the first one that the second one looked like it didn't belong.
I understand that it's probably the most difficult part of writing a superhero script, but as difficult as it is - it should be done. I could barely watch the "main theme" of the film, although it struck me that there were some pretty bold secondary characters (say, the landlord's daughter - what a pearl!), and there wasn't much of the action movie, so I got bored.
It probably is a good movie, but if puts me out of the 3 sigmas of the Gaussian distribution of its target category. I enjoyed some parts of it, and I'd give it a solid 4, or not so solid 5 out of 10.
Cold Creek Manor (2003)
The real masterpiece of unexpected: I couldn't ever expect to see a movie THAT PREDICTABLE in my LIFETIME!!
*Although I don't think so, this might contain SPOILERS (as if there was something to spoil there). It's up to you whether to read it or not.*
This movie kept me guessing right to its end! I was feverishly trying to figure out what in the WORLD will they DO to finish this seemingly standard "bad neighborhood" movie in some decent way.
I'd figured 3 interesting enough ending and was biting my nails trying to see a glimpse of one of them in the plot. As the end of the movie was approaching, I was desperate - I couldn't figure what would happen in the end! "What a great movie", - thought I, - "I'm completely lost! At last a thriller that will surprise me!"
And then it happened.
I couldn't in my LIFETIME figure out that they would use the most OBVIOUS, most VULGAR and INSIPID plot possible, the one I hadn't even think about after having watched the opening, for it would be just plain GROSS!
Maybe that was the idea?... Sort o a double-crossing?... huh?...
I LAUGHED when in the "making of" documentary (I rented the DVD) the director said something like "you cannot let the audience to be ahead of you". I laughed and I turned the thing off immediately.
What a waste. Three BIG actors + Juliette Lewis in one tasteless flick. Am I missing something, people?...
it's 1/10. Avoid seeing it.
Man on Fire (2004)
Visually annoying, sometimes touching, but generally disappointing
Wow, man, what's all that jazz for? You can use a TV set with this movie rolling as a freakin' electra lamp for a rave party! The images change one another as if you were watching a Honda advertisement, only the thing's almost 2 hours long... This flickering, which I suppose may be considered a "stylish approach", was what made me definitely angry, and I watched the movie with much less pleasure than I could've. Bad move, Tony.
But what REALLY surprised was the little Dakota Fanning's playacting. I haven't seen "I Am Sam" yet, so I don't know how good she was there, but in this movie she's IMPRESSIVE. And, of course, Christopher Walken as supporting actor is marvelous, no surprises here. The rest of the movie I just can't remember, so I suppose there was nothing worth of mentioning there.
To summarize: visually annoying, sometimes touching, but generally disappointing. In my opinion, Dakota Fanning's part in this movie is worth watching it, but then I might just be biased as I haven't seen (or can't remember) her in other movies.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
What a script!
Now, at last some gold among the manure! It's been quite some time since I've truly enjoyed a movie script!
This one is sarcastic, inventive, and both cocky and self-mocking, which is a great deal for a movie script. Not many writers/producers/directors in Hollywood dare to say "yeah, that's a bullshit, of course, and it's been done before, naturally, but what the hell, it's a great movie so shut the **** up and watch it!" When after about 15-20 minutes of the movie you start to think it's just another "Vanilla Sky"/"Abre Los Ojos", the authors tell you "yeah, you got it right, man, but that's life so there's no 3rd millennium wonders with mirror floors here, only a dirty entrance with narrow corridors behind it, and a secretary printing that officially-looking yellow cartons that you probably thought was a sign of wealth on a desktop printer."
I've always believed that Jim Carrey was a great actor, rubber face notwithstanding, and this movie proves I wasn't too much wrong. In general, the actors do a great job and it's a pleasure to watch it.
The only bad (or, better said, not so good) thing about the movie that I can think about now (one day after having it watched) is the most obvious one: it's a marathon movie. In other words, if you don't have enough patience and if the first 20 minutes of the movie didn't get you really interested - you'll quit the race after the minute 25, breathless. The movie is way too long and slow-paced in the middle section, the adventures, although very witty and pretty interesting, become unbearable as a bubble gum after three hours of chewing on it. It starts to feel more like Montmartre than Beverly Hills, which probably has something to do with the fact that the director/co-writer (and the other co-writer, too) are French.
Anyways, it's another Charlie Kaufmann's script, pretty fresh, sufficiently ironic, solidly directed and (IHMO) brilliantly playacted. If it wasn't so chewed-on in the middle - it would beat his previous movie - "Adaptation", which still remains at the top of my personal list of best scripts in contemporary cinema.
If you like interesting movies and mind games, and if you aren't allergic to any of the above mentioned ingredients - than go for it, it's a GREAT movie!
The Alamo (2004)
Good thing to watch, once you've made it past the first 30 or so minutes of it.
One more movie about the Alamo martyrs. A solid, traditional, Hollywood war movie, with all of the usual attributes like heroic monologues backgrounded by an orchestra brass section on the soundtrack that's crawling closer with every fatalistic word, a good good guy and a bad good guy that reveals his "goodness" as the movie unfolds, slow motion dramatic moments, lots of dust and lots of uniformed people running at the camera. In general - as always - a group recall of personal life stories against the battle background. I guess there's no other way of telling a war story in cinema.
The subdivision "good guys / bad guys" is, well, startling: the good guys are mostly heroes and men of honor, while the bad guys are generally miserable, disgusting and look like walking displays of mortal sins. It makes the rare moments when the bad guys are beaten rather satisfying, but it also (IMHO) decreases the realism a good deal: in real life the bad guys are far less repelling, you even never know whether you end up as one of them (or maybe you already have?). I guess it's about dramatizing the story or something like that. There's surely a name for it, I just don't know it yet.
Speaking of realism: despite the really big scale of the battle (won't say "huge" cause even the "Brave Heart" is huger than this), there's practically no blood in the movie, so I figure that the complete realism wasn't the point, or at least wasn't the emphasis of the story.
In any case, all war movies are similar (see above), so what really makes the difference are the details. And the special mention goes to Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett! Billy Bob is amazing here, I don't care much about what he says or what he does (that's all in the script) but it's all about how he says or does it. He manages to create an absolutely lovable character, and fairly believable as well. Excellent work. The young Patrick Wilson is also pretty good as William Travis, for some reason he reminds me of a young Kevin Costner.
Another interesting thing to mention is the specially rigged camera that makes quite a few curious shots. But the potentially impressive shot with the cannonball flying over the fort's wall is just too slow for my taste, they could've made it more dynamic. Anyway, in the LOTR-3 a similar shot was done much, much better.
The pace of the movie is slow at the beginning, probably too slow, and aggravated by this terrible piano that appears here and there in the soundtrack and makes the whole thing not only slow but moody and boring (this is subjective, of course). However, after about 30 minutes of making you want to kill the pianist, the movie starts uphill and gets interesting.
To summarize: it's a war movie with the standard set of corresponding character types and scenes, with a good deal of touching, romantic moments (the word "romantic" doesn't necessarily mean "related to a romance"), and is a good thing to watch, once you've made it past the first 30 or so minutes of it. Strong playacting and some interesting shots make it even more appealing. I'd give it solid 7 out of 10, basically, for the playacting.
Walking Tall (2004)
Walking Tall (aka Talking Wall). I wouldn't call it a movie at all.
OK, I wouldn't call it a movie (unless you consider any sequence of images such a thing). I have to confess, I really like The Rock's charisma, it seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what's going on around him, so it's kinda make him a stability center, a point of reference, rather than an actor in a plot; aside of that, he's pretty natural in front of the camera, which makes the rest of the cast look a little out of key.
A standard "soldier returns back home" story gets out of hands when the darn soldier kicks the bad guys out of the sheriff's office and it becomes clear that he has no idea whatsoever of what to do next. So he starts to act (IMHO) like a complete degenerate. Namely, doing almost exactly what the bad guys had been doing before he'd kicked them out. Well, that could work in early 80s (and it did) but I don't buy it today, sorry. I seem to be in a minority here, but during the back lights and the truck tearing-apart scenes I felt like I was watching a fascist propaganda movie.
If it wasn't for this lack of sense of reality and time, it could be a normal kick-ass flick with some fun moments (the phrase "you stabbed me with a potato peeler!" IMHO is worth the rest of the script) and a linear, pretty stupid story. I'd give it 3 out of 10, just for the pleasure of seeing Rock's playacting.