I've never read the manga, but since Death Note was so hyped in Japan I thought I'd give it a chance. After all the concept of the movie is quite interesting. However, I was completely disappointed. Maybe I should have read the manga after all, because after reading other reviews I think a lot of blame for this poor film goes to the director and screen writer of the film. There is lack of character development in many of the minor yet important characters. The main characters don't provoke much feeling as well. Luke (aka death) is an annoying character created to be comic relief (doesn't work) and an excuse for adding computer graphics, but instead becomes an eye sore. After having read that the girlfriend doesn't exist in the manga I don't really see the need to have added her to the movie since her character is completely insipid. The climax scene in which she is in would have been more engaging if I actually cared for her character. Furthermore, the scenes are predictable and cliché as well, which is frustrating. The acting was mediocre, but I place blame on the director for that since the directing is just plain bad. There is a lot that happens in this movie that has little or poorly thought out explanation (like the climax), making most of it unbelievable. The biggest disappointment is that there was so much potential for this movie. However, just wanting to make a quick buck off the manga is the obvious purpose for making the film.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Memories of Tomorrow
(2006)
good acting, weak story
19 June 2007
I have mixed feelings about this film. First, I'll start by saying that Ken Wantanabe is a very talented actor and he is equally talented in this film. However, like many Japanese feature films recently, I feel this film was a bit too contrived.
First I thought it was too long and there were a few unnecessary scenes, but I may have watched the unedited version on DVD. It does hit you at some points emotionally,however, I can't find myself really empathizing with either Saeki or Emiko. Also, I feel that it's not completely realistic of what Alzheimer's is like or any damage to the brain (having brief experience myself), but shows it in a more fantastical way. The film only briefly touches upon things like violence and other complete losses of control.The director did do a good job with the only real violent scene, when Emiko is hit in the head with a dish, by actually depicting it with out showing any real physical violence. However, there were many scenes I watched in disbelief like that the main character could still read a newspaper or post it notes, especially in kanji, with advance stages of Alzheimer's, or he could arrive at the care facility alone by train with no problem, or that his wife could find him in the middle of a forest away from their home with no explanation as to how. Also, the entire scene with Saeki's old pottery teacher is very abstract and has no real purpose in the film. On a positive note this film depicts Emiko's strength and patience and she almost takes over the film as a character.
In the end I think the director's attempt was more to provoke the viewer's feelings, rather than to show the honest devastation of such a disease. I will give it a decent rating because of the acting and the cinematography was beautiful. This film does have an emotional impact, but in a contrived way. In the end I felt sad, but I didn't really learn anything from this film. It's a shame to also have no sense of hope, closure, or understanding when touching upon such a serious topic.
First I thought it was too long and there were a few unnecessary scenes, but I may have watched the unedited version on DVD. It does hit you at some points emotionally,however, I can't find myself really empathizing with either Saeki or Emiko. Also, I feel that it's not completely realistic of what Alzheimer's is like or any damage to the brain (having brief experience myself), but shows it in a more fantastical way. The film only briefly touches upon things like violence and other complete losses of control.The director did do a good job with the only real violent scene, when Emiko is hit in the head with a dish, by actually depicting it with out showing any real physical violence. However, there were many scenes I watched in disbelief like that the main character could still read a newspaper or post it notes, especially in kanji, with advance stages of Alzheimer's, or he could arrive at the care facility alone by train with no problem, or that his wife could find him in the middle of a forest away from their home with no explanation as to how. Also, the entire scene with Saeki's old pottery teacher is very abstract and has no real purpose in the film. On a positive note this film depicts Emiko's strength and patience and she almost takes over the film as a character.
In the end I think the director's attempt was more to provoke the viewer's feelings, rather than to show the honest devastation of such a disease. I will give it a decent rating because of the acting and the cinematography was beautiful. This film does have an emotional impact, but in a contrived way. In the end I felt sad, but I didn't really learn anything from this film. It's a shame to also have no sense of hope, closure, or understanding when touching upon such a serious topic.
Capote
(2005)
exceptional acting, weak story
28 October 2006
I think I need to stop reading books which movies are based on prior to seeing them, because I am almost always disappointed. In this case I read the classic "In Cold Blood" not Capote's biography, so I don't have an exact comparison. However, while In Cold Blood is engaging and very creepy and disturbing, I didn't feel quite the same about this movie. Again lack of character development and detail weaken this movie. It is so much easier to empathize with the criminals, clutter family, friends and locals in Halcomb in In Cold Blood, which is why it is a classic. Since this movie focuses on that time period in Capote's life, I feel many of those involved in the writing of his novel were left out. Also, Perry as described in the novel (having a personality disorder) and Perry depicted in the movie(somewhat sane) seem like two different people. Ironically, Dick who is described as sane yet malicious in the novel seems crazy. I left this movie not really feeling much about anyone. Although Huffman's acting was exceptional, as well as the acting of the supporting actors, I didn't really feel I understood Capote. When comparing it to the book, it doesn't quite answer what the process of writing the book was like. By this I mean mentally. For example, why does he continually lie to Perry about the book? Why is In Cold Blood written differently than what is depicted in this movie?? In a sense, is the movie saying that Capote lied not only to Perry and those he loved, but also his audience? More detail about that would be quite interesting, and maybe show the magnitude of his self absorbency and greed. So I feel if I hadn't read In Cold Blood I probably would have really enjoyed this movie (since I don't know much about Truman Capote himself). Therefore, the best advice is to enter the movie completely ignorant and it's good. However, now I'm only left with questions. So 5 stars for acting -5 stars for depth.
Brokeback Mountain
(2005)
best movie to be released in recent years
27 October 2006
I didn't know what to really expect going into this movie. I saw it a few months ago after all the awards hoopla. Generally a cynic, I have to say I was taken completely by surprise. The movie is very slow moving compared to most major movies nowadays. At the beginning I wondered if I would be able to stand sitting through all of it. However, it became completely enthralling. I really was drawn into the characters of Ennis and Jack. Heath Ledger's acting was superb. It's rare to empathize so deeply with a character in movies these days, like you do with Ennis. The cinematography was beautiful. Seeing it on the big screen I really felt I was sitting on the Wyoming mountain watching them. This is one of those movies you want to continue watching forever, and are sad when it ends.
Girl with a Pearl Earring
(2003)
Better luck next time
27 October 2006
This is definitely an art film. Beautiful cinematography, but not much plot. I think having read the book prior to seeing the movie spoiled it for me. There were so many touching parts of the book, which were omitted and I think vital to understanding the main characters and the time period. This movie needed much more character development to gain my attention. Other than the beautiful costumes and scenery, I was quite bored. I normally like Johansson as an actress, but found her quite annoying in this movie. Griet was portrayed to be too insipid. Who wants to watch an insipid main character for 2 hours? Also, annoying were the multiple accents in the movie. This movie needed a lot more consistency. I feel this was a poor adaption of the book. I can only hope someday someone will create a better movie of it.
Shallow Hal
(2001)
Below average romantic comedy
27 October 2006
OK, I think we all know going into this, that this is a romantic comedy. Hence, there is no real need to take much of it seriously. However, I found it hard after watching the movie to not feel disappointed and not feel a bit offended. I like the actors in the film, making it watchable, but for most this is not their best. The movie tries to make a moral statement, and fails miserably. The moral I got was: pretty women are shallow, superficial, and scheming, so be careful of them; ugly women are intelligent, but deeply insecure. The moral about men is that they are ego maniacs, and if they have money the pretty women will want them. Oh, and it takes hypnotism (or maybe the Farrelly Brothers think this movie) for men to realize this. The irony is I think the moral is to not be shallow (hence the title). However, it is shallow on so many levels.If they hadn't had so many over the top stereotypes, then I guess trying to be moralistic is fine. However, there are a bunch and then flimsy ending which really doesn't deliver much credibility. So the film comes off a bit schizophrenic to me. As someone commented, it seems the Farrelly Brothers felt uncomfortable with the subject, and tried to justify it with some sort of moralistic ending.Other disappointments were that the humor stunk, childish and just a bunch of cheap laughs, but not witty. As someone stated, Jason Alexander is basically recreating George. And shockingly, Anthony Robbins makes a guest appearance. I presume he read the script before hand. Despite being a motivational speaker, I believe he is smart enough, but yet didn't find anything wrong with it? I guess he feels PR and an extra buck will go a long way. The only good things were the cast and Paltrow's acting, but again surprised she would agree to do this movie. Unlike, movies like "There's Something about Mary", which some may think is offensive and full of stereotypes, they don't really try to be moralistic. Therefore, they succeeding in being funny. I would have enjoyed the movie much more,if it hadn't gone the moral route and just stuck to being a comedy(romantic or not).
Tell Your Friends