12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
W.E. (2011)
A fascinating film--half brilliant, half awful.
3 November 2011
Far from the best or worst picture of the year, W.E. is certainly the most intriguing. It tells the story of Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough) and the New York housewife who is obsessed with her in 1998 (played by Abbie Cornish). This is not a straightforward historical film, nor is it trying to be. Instead, the film is a mediation on celebrity, history and the way people search in those realms for meaning in their own lives. For example, Wally in 1998 is trapped in a loveless marriage where she is virtually ignored by everyone, so she imagines Wallis as utterly fabulous, and adored by the man who abdicated for her. "What are you thinking about?" she is asked at one point. She responds, "What it must feel like to be loved that much". Madonna hits that nail right on its head, and this premise is the reason she can't tell the story from a straight historical perspective--celebrities really only exist in our heads. Madonna likely knows this better than anyone. For this reason, Wally waves away her idols alleged Nazi sympathies and the possibility that she and Edward's marriage was not all that it seemed, because in New York in 1998, she needs to believe that love can be eternal. In this context, the much maligned scenes in which Wallis appears to Wally to give advice make perfect sense. All celebrities and historical figures really are figments of our imaginations anyway.

In the end, the theme is that people should not obsess over celebrities, but should "get a life" of their own. This brings us to the films one serious downfall. The audience is forced to spend more than half the movie with Wally, who is beyond boring and unsympathetic. This can be blamed on the script and the performance by Abbie Cornish, who never seems to do any more than pose and read lines. The character was never believable or engaging, and the script must resort to over the top melodrama to move her story along. In short, the 1998 storyline is a mess, and you'd think that a film whose premise is that celebrity-obsessed people need to get a life would have known better than to focus on an obsessed fan with no life.

That said, everything with Wallis is spot on, better even than anything found in "The King's Speech" (2010). Andrea Riseborough, who plays Wallis accomplishes in a single scene what Abbie Cornish couldn't in all of the movie. She makes us admire and care for the woman she's playing. She has a charisma (much like the director herself) that guarantees the indulgence of the audience. She is going to be naughty, and we're going to love her for it.

And thus you have the most interesting movie of the year: half masterpiece, half slog. If the 1931 storyline had been stretched out to 90 minutes, and the 1998 one reduced to 10 or 15, this would have been one of the best films of the year. As it is, it a tremendous curiosity.

I must mention, however, the best scene in the movie, featuring an elderly Wallis and a dying Edward. I shan't give it away except to say that it captures perfectly both the sweetness of enduring love and the sadness, and inevitability of age and death. Where I was laughing derisively at the previous scene, this one had me in tears before it was through. Like I said, a very interesting experience.

I have refrained from mentioning its superstar director, because most critics can't seem to see past their feelings about her as a person. Still, I can't help but note that Madonna is vastly better suited to depict the lifestyles of the rich and fabulous, than the dreary doldrums of us common-folk.
127 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Iron Man 2 (2010)
7/10
A worthy but imperfect sequel
10 May 2010
The makers of Iron Man 2 should be commended for preserving most of the things that made part I so successful, without overdoing anything. Robert Downey Junior is wonderful as ever (though his playboy antics walk a very fine line between amusing and over-the-top). And Gwyneth Paltrow is lovely and charismatic as Pepper Pots, a rare superhero love interest who is attractive, intelligent and dignified in an understated way, which is something you don't often see in action pictures where women's independence is acceptable as an over-the-top novelty.

Unfortunately, the goodwill generated by Paltrow's performance as an effortlessly worthy woman is squandered a bit on Scarlett Johanson, who is physically beautiful, but subscribes to the female-in-an-action-movie norm. She is too skinny to be a viable action hero, and dressed so slinkily that her sole function is clearly that of a sex object.

The biggest problem with this movie is Samel L. Jackson, who has played the same role so many times he kills your suspension of disbelief. The man on screen is clearly Samuel L. Jackson wearing an eyepatch. His presence serves only as a distraction. Don Cheadle is a fine actor, but no better than Terrence Howard, and its a shame the filmmakers couldn't have brought him back.

Otherwise, the film has some problems with logical plotting and characters' motivations aren't always clear (i.e. the brawl between Iron Men at Tony's birthday party). However, it is funny, entertaining, exciting, and subtly thoughtful, with implications about world peace and arms dealing which feels like a breath of fresh air amidst all the current action pictures' assumption that their audiences have a 2nd grade comprehension level.

The bottom line is, if you liked part I, you'll enjoy part II.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Remember Me (I) (2010)
6/10
A good movie with terrible writing hanging off it.
21 March 2010
The acting is pretty solid and the characters are appealing, when they're not being butchered by terrible writing. It is obvious that the writer thought to himself "Hmmm, they've got to get from point A to point B, how can I do that in the least amount of time possible?" The result is that, as your getting to like the characters and feel for their situations, the script goes a$$-backwards for a few minutes, only to right itself. I'll only describe one example--the opening scene, so it really doesn't count as a spoiler. A girl and her mother are waiting on a subway platform. Two men steal the mother's purse then get on the train. For some reason, the door to the subway closes and then opens again, and the thief shoots the mother--FOR NO GOOD REASON. The only explanation for this behaviour is that the man is a psychopath. But since this movie isn't about him, why waste the audience's energy trying to decipher his motivation? The whole scene is pointless.

All the major plot points in this movie develop that way. Yet in between nonsensical behaviour, the characters are quite likable, and we're enjoying watching Tyler and Aly fall in love, and then --

--WHAM! "Hold on! I'm confused. Has he been like this all the time or is it an isolated incident? Why did he do that?"--

--In my attempts to maintain spoiler free I didn't describe the scenario, but lets just say it came out of the blue and exists solely so that Aly can move in with Tyler, and is then forgotten. The movie goes back to functioning rationally, only to be screwed over again and again by ridiculous plot twists to get the ball rolling.

I won't spoil the ending, but I will say it's depressing. Not just sad...depressing. Ultimately, I was glad I saw this movie because when its good it is quite good. Most of the characters are interesting enough that I would have liked the writer to flesh them out, rather than fall back on epic clichés in moments of crisis. I'll tell you again, though. This movie is depressing. Titanic is sad. Shakespeare in love is sad. This movie is depressing. Consider yourself warned.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's not right, but its OK.
18 November 2009
Chris Weitz doesn't seem to take thesource material quite as seriously as Catherine Hardwicke did, so thedull, grainy trying-to-look-edgy photography is gone, and the filmmakers seem to be having more fun with the Volturi, who are immensely entertaining in a campy kind of way. There is also a wonderful sequence where Bella Swann is under water and in more danger than she realizes.

Unfortunately, we don't meet the Volturi until nearly two thirds through the movie, and that little water sequence is a very brief scene in a movie that's more than 2 hours long. For the rest of the film, we have to deal with the supremely mopey Kristen Stewart as, who has turned in fine performances in films such as "Into the Wild" and "Adventureland", but here is playing below her pay-grade. After Edward breaks up with her, she decides her life is over and mopes for what feels like an eternity. This isn't particularly interesting or entertaining. In Twilight, Edward and Bella's romance seemed to be utterly miserable. THere were very few moments of happiness between them, making their infatuation harder to swallow. In New Moon, there are attempts to show that Bella and Edward actually enjoy each other's company, but for the most part they are horribly cheesy (such as a scene where they are jogging together in slow-mo) Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black is charismatic and sweet, but this is undermined by Bella's depression. It's hard (and depressing) to believe that such a "winner" would be devoted to anyone so self-involved. And the fact that he takes of his shirt at any and every opportunity, however contrived, makes it clear that this isn't a movie for discerning audiences, but super soft core porn for female audiences (not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, but it certainly detracts from the supposedly "intense" narrative). In conclusion, this is definitely an improvement on its predecessor and there are some good things, but they are too few and far between to merit a viewing in the cinema.
28 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heat (1995)
6/10
3 hours long and with more holes than swiss cheese!
27 September 2009
I'm surprised by the respect this movie gets. I'll grant you the performances are good, but the script is ludicrous. (1) Why would that artist decide to risk her life and freedom for a two night stand, after he had gotten semi-violent with her? (2)And there is NO WAY police officers would open fire on an open street. (3)There is also NO WAY a mass-murdering bank robber could fool police officers staking out his house with a phony ID.

I realize that its "just a movie", but its a 3 HOUR MOVIE. Someone please explain to me why in 3 hours Michael Mann couldn't find the time to fill in these holes. Though there is some good stuff here (especially Al Pacino's performance), there are so many gross inaccuracies that by the end its hard to suspend your disbelief.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Beautiful but empty (a little like Brad Pitt)
28 November 2008
This movie is beautiful. The sets, the language, the costume...all that is a 10 out of 10. Unfortunately, the dialogue and story are painfully slow and far too self conscious. It's like the writer knew the film was going to be a classic and so made the dialogue as artsy as she/he possibly could. The result is that none of the characters have any humanity, they all seem very conscious of the fact that they are in a movie, playing a part. Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn is quite good, but he doesn't have enough screen time to save this picture.

This movie is just that--a moving picture (the story itself seems irrelevant)

I would recommend seeing this movie while wrapping presents or making dinner, and accepting it as pretty scenery. Otherwise...there's not much here.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Perfect 10
22 November 2008
This movie is perfect...seriously. That's a dangerous thing for a reviewer to say, but there it is. The effects are great (maybe not as ground breaking as they were back in the day, but they work, and they aren't overused). The story is gripping and original. The acting is spot on, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE. There are no "why would he do that" or "why is she so ripped?". This movie is so tightly constructed that the audience can suspend their belief and get thoroughly enraptured in it.

Edward Furlong deserves the "Christian Bale Child Actor of the Year" award. His portrayal of John Connor is vulnerable, intelligent and lovable. Linda Hamilton becomes her character utterly, body (0% body fat) and soul. And Arnold Schwarzenneger appears in the role he was born to play. He is remarkably engaging and (dare I say it?) comedic, for a man playing a machine. His performance is utterly believable. Robert Patrick (who doesn't have much charisma) is perfectly cast as the stone cold killing machine who looks like an everyman.

This movie is thoughtful, exciting and epically good. See it.
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Goonies (1985)
8/10
Keeps Me Young
22 November 2008
The Goonies is a great film for kids. It's basically "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for children, every bit as hilarious and exciting. It's the story of a group of friends (and potential girlfriends) who go searching for pirates treasure in the hopes that they can save their homes from foreclosure in the process. They come into contact with a family of thieves and a disfigured but utterly lovable "Sloth", along with a host of boobie traps that are so wonderfully simple, the spectacular events on screen seem really possible in real life.

Another great thing about the Goonies is that it has a character for every personality type. THere's the cheerleader, the fat kid, the arrogant but witty best friend,the genius, and the idealistic dreamer. In short, there's a character in this movie for every kid to relate to.

Unfortunately, I have heard that if you didn't see this movie as a child, it has substantially less value as an adult. Therefore, buy it for your kids (they'll treasure it forever), and rent it for yourself (just so you know what all the fuss is about)
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Good movie - GREAT TITLE
22 November 2008
There's not a lot to be said about this move, except that its great. Any attempt at a full review would be a huge spoilers risk, as the plot begins unfolding from the first frame, and everything is important after that. It is worth noting that this isn't a sweeping love story like the DVD cover suggests "a love caught in the fire of revolution". Really its a story about a time and place and a Journalist whose love affair with a British agent causes some serious moral dilemmas. THis movie is more about personality and moral dilemmas than it is about love.

The acting is spectacular (though its a shame Sigourney Weaver is really underused), and most people are aware of Linda Hunt's achievement in this film, though just in case you're not, I won't tell you. Her performance is so good, that once people realize how good it is they can't get over it and it diminishes the drama a little bit.

Overall, this picture is intelligent, exciting, and very sexy when it has the chance.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Just Faaabulous!
22 November 2008
I recently discovered that this movie was a box office flop and was panned across the board by critics. Why? I have no idea. I love this movie, maybe because I saw it for the first time when I was very young and thus not grounded in whatever makes everyone else dislike this movie. But not everyone else dislikes this movie. Everyone I know who has seen it (say, 15 people) enjoyed it thoroughly.

It's simple, fun and light hearted. There's no social commentary, or moment of dramatic epiphany, its just a fun escapist romp about what a pampered Beverly Hills Housewife would do if she was stuck in the wilderness.

Shelley long is wonderful. Rather than complain about her surroundings, she is always cheerful and proactive, and consequently never boring. Furthermoe, the wonderfully campy musical numbers and Robin Leech cameo make this a pleasure thats innocent as can be.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Twilight (I) (2008)
4/10
Its not right, but its OK
21 November 2008
A separate review should be written for straight men and women. I have a feeling that nothing will matter to the latter, because Robert Pattinson elevates "gorgeous" to a whole new level. I have never read the books, but at the advance screening, my cousin (female) and I found ourselves bursting into fits of giggles for no reason other than Robert Pattinson's magnetic presence. Yeah, its a big deal. And that, for the most part, was ample distraction from the rest of this mediocre movie.

That being said, the rest of the movie ranged from underwhelming to outright garbage. Even Pattinson's acting, which was spot on in his opening scene became unintentionally funny while he tried to explain to Bella how dangerous he was. This movie had people laughing when I'm sure they weren't supposed to. There is hardly any character development, especially with the villains. James and Victoria kill people and want to eat Bella, so we know they're the bad guys, and yet the actors don't have enough charisma or screen time to give the viewer the illusion for a moment that they're a threat.

The love story falls unapologetically flat on its face. I'm sure they followed the book verbatim, because there would be no other excuse for it-- Edward loves Bella because she smells good (and Bella, naturally, loves Edward because he is Robert Pattinson). That's not enough to justify this supposedly romantic saga. It's basically the equivalent of saying "Edward loves Bella because he loves her." Why? "Well duh, he loves her." Even the screenwriters apparently couldn't come up with a connection between them. There is a scene, which is supposed to show them getting to love each other: He's in her room, and they're talking. It's a montage of them talking, but THEY'RE VOICES ARE MUTED AND ALL YOU CAN HEAR IS MUSIC. The writer actually couldn't find anything for them to talk about together, which makes their romance seem utterly superficial, and the moment Robert Pattinson is off the screen, even giggly female viewers have to admit this movie doesn't have much to offer.

If all you want is to drool over possibly the most beautiful man ever born, go see this movie. But if you want a plausible, touching love story with cool vampires, you'll be disappointed.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Sadly, Jack, the saving grace of the original, ruins this one by being a morally decrepit "hero" you can't cheer for
2 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The biggest disappointment of the summer, because the hero wasn't a hero. Jack sparrow wasn't remotely lovable in this movie (maybe because he sold the man who saved his life to a fate worse than death, and tried to steal his girlfriend in a way that wasn't remotely humorous, like it was in the first film. Another thing that bothered me was his "signing up" hopeful sailors for said fate worse than death under the pretense of joining his crew, which bares an eerie resemblance to the Nazi's telling the Jews they would get showers, when really sending them to the gas chamber. As such, it is dreadfully difficult to cheer for anyone in this movie, and when you thing Jack is dead, you feel like, "Why is everyone so upset, he was horrible", and that is certainly not the Jack we fell in love with four years ago. Plous the pacing is bad, and there are some random parts that totally didn't need to be in the movie, like the part on the island with the natives--funny, but did not add anything to the story but half an hour to spend in an uncomfortable chair.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed