Change Your Image
rosie_smash
Reviews
Marie Antoinette (2006)
Pointless
So, I tried to go into this film with an open mind. I was already biased against it because I really didn't like Lost in Translation, and the trailer for MA was terrifyingly bad. However, it was getting good reviews and I saw a clip on Jon Stewart that made me think it might not be that bad. Well, the clip was good, but that was about it. So, let us go through piece by piece and say why this film just did not work.
Acting: Terrible. Awful. With the exception of Steve Coogan and Rose Byrne all the acting was dreadful. I quite like Kirsten Dunst, but she just couldn't make me care at all for her character. Jason Schwartzman - who I have also liked in other films was a complete mess. I am still trying to figure out how he was trying to play the king. Was he a confused teenager or did he have some kind of mental disorder? Yeesh.
Also, the accents were very jarring. Sometimes it can work when all the characters have accents that they are not supposed to have. Coppola said that Amadeus was an inspiration for her. That film worked despite all the historical inaccuracies because it had a good script . . . which leads us to . . .
Script: Ummm, was there one? If there was, it was about 5 pages long. And it was there to serve as a bit of narrative to let the audience know that things were bad in MA's marriage. There must have been about 5 letters from her mother telling her that she had to have an heir. This was pointless after the first letter and was maybe supposed to raise tension . . . except it just got really repetitive and annoying. The person with the most lines was probably Steve Coogan, and his lines were mostly exposition. "Oh, Your Majesty, you might not want to buy another pair of shoes because the people have no food and are starting to turn against you." Very poorly written, wooden dialogue, except for some scenes that seemed as though the actors were just ad-libbing, which would make sense considering the script was so bad.
Plotting in general: This film basically serves as a 2 hour advertisement for the Shopping Network, and a travelogue for France. The opulence is well filmed, you leave with images of the dresses etc. in your mind, and to give Coppola credit, she does beautiful scenery shots, but in the end, all you have witnessed is 2 hours of vapid shallow self-indulgence that really does no justice to the social setting. Without showing the audience the conditions that the poor lived in, we don't care that MA lives in luxury. It just looks neat. I guess that's what it boils down to: You just don't care. The funny thing is, the person I saw this with knew nothing about that time in history, and she was all excited because Coppola kept insisting that it was not going to be a history lesson, but rather really accessible for "young people" - don't even get me started on how insulting that is to said "young people" - but I had to explain practically everything to her after the film because the politics and social aspect are given so little time that if you didn't have any idea of the history you would be completely lost and - again - not care. I don't care about anachronisms and I'm not a purist - like I said, I liked Amadeus a lot - but with a film in a historical setting more than 10 minutes explanation is required for some people. The only thing that did bother me was the implication that the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution, when it was the other way around. That's just historically important.
So, I guess that's it. 2 hours of characters you don't care about doing things that are in no way put into any context to make them appear wrong . . . so you don't care. What a waste of a great historical story, usually good actors, and honestly, cinema in general.
Batman Begins (2005)
A New Beginning
This film is a great throw back to Tim Burton's original, and in many ways surpasses it. Here, Gotham city is back to it's Gothic atmosphere and thankfully, as far away from the campy nature of Batman and Robin.
The story of Batman's origins makes for a prefect film. Why this regular man, with no actual superpowers, becomes the Dark Knight is a great story. From the beginning, when Bruce Wayne is training with Ducard, to his transformation into Batman, the story is given a realistic edge to it that makes the characters all the more interesting. The reasons behind Wayne's choice to become Batman are made completely plausible through flash backs to his childhood. It's difficult to say more without ruining the plot, but it's actually a very interesting look at how fear can rule people's lives.
The action in the movie is reminiscent of The Bourne Identity, and earlier action flicks like Speed. There are great car chases and fight scenes. One fight scene in particular has a horror movie edge to it. The action mixed with the interesting story make this an excellent film.
Christian Bale makes a great Batman and a great Bruce Wayne, and not at all difficult on the eyes. I think he tops Michael Keaton and, since the film itself kind of rests on the shoulders of the actor playing Batman, it speaks to how good Bale is in that the movie is so good. Gary Oldman is fantastic as Lieutenant Gordon. It's nice to see him not play a psychopath . . . Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Liam Neeson (Ducard) also offer great performances. Cillian Murphy, who I have only previously seen in 28 Days Later - and who also auditioned for the role of Batman, but ended up being cast as Doctor Crane/The Scarecrow - proves that he is going to be an actor to watch for in the coming years.
The only person who falls short in this cast is Katie Holmes. She is by no means bad in the movie, but compared to the huge talent that surrounds her, she just can't quite compete. It's too bad that a better actress couldn't have been cast, but she is the only weak point of this film, and as I said, she's not even that bad.
So, I give this movie a 10 because Batman has always been my favourite comic book hero and this film made the movie franchise great again. Go see it!
Décalage horaire (2002)
Fun Little Flick
Let me just say that I know right off the bat that this is a "2 star" movie, but I liked it. Jean Reno and Juliette Binoche are just really fun to watch. The acting is great and the script is good, which makes the movie entertaining as well. It's billed as a romantic comedy, but I don't think it was. It definitely had funny bits, but it's more about these two people who meet in an airport while there is a big strike and are both trying to leave their pasts behind and what ends up happening to them. I wouldn't say that you should trample over people to get to this film, but if you're in the mood it's a decent little flick. Mostly if you like the actors involved . . . which I do.
The Golden Bowl (2000)
Really Not Good At All
This film was pretty bad. Uma Thurman was painfully bad in a hysterical over-the-top performance, Jeremy Northam - who I usually love - had this really weird Italian accent going on and Kate Beckinsale and Nick Nolte, while giving decent performances, were just boring. It's a combination of boring characters and characters which are just awful and not in the fun Dangerous Liaisons kind of way that make this film kind of painful in a "I can't believe I stayed up until 2:00am watching this crap" way. I only gave it a 3 because some of the scenery is very pretty to look at. If you are a huge Henry James fan, then you might want to give it a try, otherwise, run! Run far away!!
Shattered Glass (2003)
Good Film
Very interesting film. Hayden Christensen gives a great performance, and the inner workings of the writing and editorial staff of a magazine are fun to watch. I will say that I found it disappointing that all of these side characters were introduced and then forgotten about and, as I think they were real people, it would have been nice to know what happened to them. Also, when Stephen Glass is just about to be discovered as a plagiarist and he is trying to stay one step ahead of everyone, there needed to be way more tension and there just wasn't. It was still very entertaining, if a bit slow at times, and I would definitely recommend it.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Life in the Franchise Again
I was very skeptical going into this film. Episodes 1 and 2 were so disappointing that I wasn't holding out much hope for Revenge of the Sith. I can honestly say now that I am so glad I went to the theatre to see this.
The opening scene is classic Star Wars: a big space battle with lots of ships and explosions. Fortunately, the rest of the movie follows the beginning. There is a lot more action in this film, more than the first two combined. It made me remember why I liked Star Wars as a kid. The adventure was back for the first time in the prequels. The special effects are, as always, spectacular. Visually, this is a film to be seen on the big screen.
The story is much better. There is actually *gasp* emotion in this film. Anakin's transformation is sad and actually quite psychologically creepy. While there is not much gore in this film, I can definitely see why it got a higher rating. Some of the notions are really disturbing. I said that the adventure was back, but the tone is definitely quite sad throughout. The mix of the adventure and the emotion is what makes this film succeed where Eps 1 and 2 failed.
The acting is also much better. Ewan McGregor does an excellent job portraying a young Obi-Wan. He actually sounds like Alec Guiness. Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen are also much better this time around. Anakin doesn't whine throughout this film. Ian McDiarmid is wonderful as Palpatine. The way he changes his body and voice as his character is revealed is amazing to watch. He probably gives the best performance of the film.
The script, however, is still pretty bad. It's unfortunate because, with a better script all of the prequels could have been improved drastically.
This film is worth seeing. It is full of action and adventure and is genuinely very emotional. It will redeem faith in George Lucas and the Star Wars franchise.
Closer (2004)
Closer
Closer is one of the most interesting films I have ever seen. The four main characters are not really nice people - especially not to each other - and yet they are very intriguing. The story is basically about 4 people who happen to meet each other under very weird circumstances. The story continues through several sexual betrayals that are dealt with very bluntly and realistically. That is really all I can say about the plot without giving too much away.
Two of the performances from this movie have been nominated for several awards and they were definitely deserving. Natalie Portman plays, in my opinion, the most interesting character - Alice - and it is the first time I have seen her in a very "adult" role. She holds her own amongst established actors that are all older than she is. Clive Owen, as Larry, is unbelievable. He is, at the same time, the character that delivers the harshest lines - they make you want to squirm in your seat due to their personal nature - and yet he is also a character that you find you want to succeed. The best scenes in the film are between these two actors and I think they deserved all of the awards they received (and should have gotten more!)It is worth it to see Closer just for their acting.
Jude Law is good, but his character, Dan, is just not the most interesting one. I found that I didn't really invest too much in him. Unfortunately, the big problem for me was Julia Roberts as Anna. She, once again, plays her typical "Julia Roberts" character, although in this case she doesn't smile at all. She is so boring that myself and the person I watched the film with couldn't understand why the men were so interested in her. Her character has a little "kink" that I didn't even realize until Clive Owen's character spells it out later in the film. I know I am in the minority when it comes to Julia Roberts. I just don't think she is all that good. She's certainly not terrible, but when compared to the excellence of the other three in Closer she becomes a massive drag factor to the film.
Like I said, the people in this film do awful things to each other an yet I found myself really interested in their stories. While there is no sex on screen that I can remember, the dialogue is very sexually graphic and very personal. If you have problems with this then Closer is not the film for you. I, however, thought it was one of the best written, best acted, most intriguing movies I have seen in a very long time. Excellent film!
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Phantom It Up
OK, let's just be honest. If you HATE Andrew Lloyd Webber then you will probably not like this film. Sure, it is melodramatic and over-the-top . . . and that's why I liked it. Joel Schumacher, who I usually think should be kept as far away from a movie camera as humanly possible, seems to understand that there is no way that this story could be adapted to the screen without opulence, and he does a good job.
The acting is generally pretty good. Minnie Driver is great as La Carlotta. A Prima Donna in her prime. Patrick Wilson does the best that he can with Raoul, a rather bland character if you ask me. Emmy Rossum has a wonderful singing voice, but she tends to play Christine with only one facial expression.
Gerard Butler plays the Phantom, and while many have criticized his singing, I found that it really worked for the film. It might seem weird to say this, but it seemed more realistic and emotional . . . and it had a nice edge to it. Another thing that he was criticized for - although I can't understand why - is that he is too good looking. Now, if this was a film being adapted from the Gaston Leroux novel then yes, the Phantom being attractive would be a very bad thing, but this is Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera (says so right in the title) and his stage musical has always given the Phantom a bit of a sexual side so really it was cast very well. I will say that it does make the love triangle kind of hard to believe because the Phantom is SO attractive and Raoul is, well, not so much . . . but that is just my opinion.
So, yes, this film has it's cheesy moments (count the number of dramatic cape swishes!) but it really needs to be over-the-top because the musical on which it is based is as well. But it is an enjoyable film. The costumes and set are wonderful to watch and the Gothic atmosphere is great. Fun story, good acting, good singing, nice visuals . . . entertaining film!
Dear Frankie (2004)
Lovely Film
This is one of the nicest films I have ever seen. All of the characters are interesting and portrayed excellently. Emily Mortimer plays her character so well. She shows such emotion while keeping her actions so restrained. It was so enjoyable watching her. Jack McElhone shows himself to be a talented young actor, as do all of the children. Gerard Butler is perfect as The Stranger and shows so much warmth and love when he comes to know Frankie. I've been a fan of his for quite some time and it is nice to see him finally get some recognition for his talent and be in a film that is worthy of it. The beautiful shots of Scotland are worth seeing as well. It's not really scenic, but there is something about the way the film is shot that will make you want to go there.
The plot is a bit contrived, but that didn't bother me while I was watching it. If you like films like Little Voice or Saving Grace then you will love this film. I left smiling!
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
So Long and Thanks For All the Fish
This movie was hysterical. Rarely so I get to go to a film in which the entire audience is laughing out loud throughout. I should start off by saying that I have read the books and this movie by no means stays completely true them plot wise, but that being said it certainly captures the humour and spirit. Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect as Arthur Dent. He embodies the baffled Englishman who just wants a cup of tea. Mos Def and Zooey Deshanel are both very good as well, but the guy who seems to be having the time of his life is Sam Rockwell as Zaphod. He is so funny; he steals every scene that he's in. Also worth mentioning are Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast and Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin the perpetually depressed robot.
If it seems that this is something you can only enter into if you have knowledge of the Douglas Adams universe, don't panic. I saw this with a friend who has never read the books and she thought that this was hilarious. Go see it and have a great time!
P.S. (2004)
Entertaining . . . But Could Have Been Better
This film has a really interesting premise and a very talented cast to back it up, but something is definitely missing. I thoroughly enjoyed Laura Linney, and Topher Grace is fast becoming a young actor worth watching. Gabriel Byrne is also very intriguing playing Linney's ex-husband and close friend . . . with an interesting confession to make. I did like this film, but there were aspects of it that were not so good. Marcia Gay Harden was very annoying as Linney's old friend. The scene with her was painful. Also, there were some issues with continuity, however I will say that I watched the deleted scenes after watching the film and they would have really helped the film to become a great one as opposed to merely a good one. All in all, I was entertained and would say that this movie is worth watching, but try and watch the deleted scenes as well.
Sin City (2005)
Oddly Good
I wasn't sure that I would like this film going into it, but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. I had a blast at this film. Some of it was quite disturbing, but I was honestly expecting much worse from some of the negative reviews I have read. The best storyline - and the one that had me laughing as well as cringing - was Dwight's. Clive Owen is great. I think "Yeesh" is now my favorite word. Mickey Rourke was funny too. The guy goes through a lot in a short time. Elijah Wood has a small, albeit very creepy, role. It's neat to see him doing quirky roles after LOTR. The only weak points in the film are that the actresses, in general, aren't very good. I don't know if this is due to the roles they play or just the acting. Either way, they weren't great. Also, Hartigan's storyline wasn't as enjoyable as the other ones, but that's just my opinion. All in all an enjoyable film with some excellent dark hum our. Check it out.