Heist movies have been done to death. We all know the basic idea behind them. Someone gets a brilliant plan, something goes wrong and the robber and a negotiator talk for time on end until a conclusion is reached. In Inside Man Lee doesn't actually move far away from this template. There are occasional moments of alteration and decent performances all around by the cast, but even then it often returns to an embarrassing cliche. In the end I found the movie still watchable but a great disappointment of my expectations.
There are some serious questions of morality and ethics brought up, but not a whole lot in the way of satisfactorily answering them. This movie is really about Clive Owen and Denzel Washington so much so that there isn't actually any reason that Willem Dafoe, Jodie Foster, and Chiwetel Ejiofer (an amazing new face in cinema) are in the movie. In as much as the chemistry of Owen and Washington, it is fun to watch but beyond it the movie is missing something. I can't be sure what.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Libertine
Johnny Depp is easily one of the best actors in cinema today and he always does an amazing job, but sometimes he picks roles because he feels they defy convention or the present interesting challenges for him as an actor. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the role is any good. The Libertine is one of those roles it seems like. Depp is crude and sexually overheated and a complete son of a bitch and for me utterly boring.
The point seems to be in this movie to utterly shock you with the actions of the sexually depraved 2nd Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. He was a real life 17th century earl who wrote raucous poetry. Plus is wholly uninteresting, at least as he is represented here. He has an affair with an actress played by the always delightful Samantha Morton and there is even a nice performance by Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife. None of the performances are bad, in fact all of them seem very technically proficient. But the story is so uninteresting that I didn't care. Wilmot states at the beginning that you will not like him and he is write I didn't like him. But I didn't hate him either. I was utterly nothing by him. The complete disinterest that he put in me made me disinterested in his story and everything else. And when it ended, I thought a good two hours of my life were gone and I would never get it back.
The point seems to be in this movie to utterly shock you with the actions of the sexually depraved 2nd Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. He was a real life 17th century earl who wrote raucous poetry. Plus is wholly uninteresting, at least as he is represented here. He has an affair with an actress played by the always delightful Samantha Morton and there is even a nice performance by Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife. None of the performances are bad, in fact all of them seem very technically proficient. But the story is so uninteresting that I didn't care. Wilmot states at the beginning that you will not like him and he is write I didn't like him. But I didn't hate him either. I was utterly nothing by him. The complete disinterest that he put in me made me disinterested in his story and everything else. And when it ended, I thought a good two hours of my life were gone and I would never get it back.
Failure To Be Good
As I've stated several times, I can sit down and enjoy a romantic comedy. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are completely obvious and cliched but usually the chemistry between the stars is interesting and of course the whole business is lighthearted. Sometimes, the filmmakers manage to make awful a fairly easy template to follow. Failure To Launch is on such case. It is a terribly uninteresting and unfunny romantic comedy. It isn't even terribly romantic. There is also a rather stupid inane allusion that if you aren't at peace with yourself, nature isn't at peace with you. This results in several unfunny scenes where an animal attacks Matthew McConaughey.
The story is a disaster of bad movie ideas, so we come to the actors, the only thing that could save this film. McConaughey is still playing that petulant, I don't want to grow up adult, that I've seen him play a thousand times now, or at least it feels that way. Sarah Jessica Parker is boring just like she was in last year's The Family Stone (2005). It seems clear that she shined most and brightest as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex And The City. Zooey Deschanel again plays her standard semi misanthropic Goth type which still has a strange allure for me, but doesn't save a film.
So, bad story: strike one. Unimpressive acting: strike two. Oh and the gratuitous and disturbing scene with a naked Terry Bradshaw. Well if that isn't strike three, what is?
The story is a disaster of bad movie ideas, so we come to the actors, the only thing that could save this film. McConaughey is still playing that petulant, I don't want to grow up adult, that I've seen him play a thousand times now, or at least it feels that way. Sarah Jessica Parker is boring just like she was in last year's The Family Stone (2005). It seems clear that she shined most and brightest as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex And The City. Zooey Deschanel again plays her standard semi misanthropic Goth type which still has a strange allure for me, but doesn't save a film.
So, bad story: strike one. Unimpressive acting: strike two. Oh and the gratuitous and disturbing scene with a naked Terry Bradshaw. Well if that isn't strike three, what is?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Oscar Aftermath
I never predicted winners for the Academy Awards. I never do, because it's not really about the best performance of the year, it's a popularity contest. I picked the people I thought should win, based on that standard that the Academy claims to use: Excellence. I thought Terrence Howard by far had the best performance of the nominated men, but I'm not terribly upset that Philip Seymour Hoffman won. He is talented and was very good in Capote (2005). Clooney's win was clearly not for his performance in Syriana (2005) but for his work on Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), which they decided not to honor unfortunately. Matt Dillon or Paul Giamatti probably should have won, but my own favorite William Hurt was phenomenal for the ten minutes he was on screen.
With regard to actresses, Reese Witherspoon won and I'm happy that it happened, I on a coin flip picked Keira Knightley but after much thought think, Reese Witherspoon had the better performance. It was not, however, better than Felicity Huffman's role in Transamerica (2005). I didn't see all of the female supporting acting noms, so I'll just hope that the Academy was right to give it to Rachel Weisz, but she must have been something to beat out Amy Adams who was the one great thing about Junebug (2005). I'll conclude with the belief that Crash (2005) won more out of white liberal guilt than any actual quality.
With regard to actresses, Reese Witherspoon won and I'm happy that it happened, I on a coin flip picked Keira Knightley but after much thought think, Reese Witherspoon had the better performance. It was not, however, better than Felicity Huffman's role in Transamerica (2005). I didn't see all of the female supporting acting noms, so I'll just hope that the Academy was right to give it to Rachel Weisz, but she must have been something to beat out Amy Adams who was the one great thing about Junebug (2005). I'll conclude with the belief that Crash (2005) won more out of white liberal guilt than any actual quality.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Vamps in the Future?!!?
I confess that when I saw the trailer for Ultraviolet I said to myself, "wow, that looks so bad I have to see it". I had no idea what it was about, in fact based on the early part of the trailer I was almost sure it was Resident Evil 3, but then I remembered that Milla Jovovich's name in Resident Evil was Alice not Violet. As it turns out Ultraviolet is about supernatural creatures, but not zombies, vampires.
As I watched the opening scene, one of the characters calls some recently killed men, "hemophages" and being the Classics dork that I am, I said to myself "blood eaters? so, they are vampires?" And sure enough not much later someone calls them vampires. Now these aren't your typical vampires, these are vampires that are caused by a virus and who can run around in daylight. What is the deal in cinema today that all the supernatural creatures have to be explained by a virus? Zombies are a virus (ala Resident Evil (2002)) and even Vampires are a virus (ala Blade (1998)).
I guess in a futuristic sci-fi film, you can't have ultimate evil. Still the film does combine two genres that I wasn't expecting, vampires and science fiction. Oh and did I mention it combines them badly. This movie is awful. It's so bad that it almost transcends it being terrible and becomes good, but it doesn't. There is technology in this world that is never explained, nor is the chronology of when this is taking place firmly set down. In some ways, mostly the bad ones, it reminded me of last year's Aeon Flux (2005).
That movie too was a ridiculous action fest centered around a disease and an oppressive dictatorial regime. To the credit of Ultraviolet it was actually more entertaining and less annoyingly pseudo-philosophic than Aeon Flux. It provided plenty of fight scenes and gun duels and neat special effects. Some of the special effects however, were horribly bad giving the impression of a mid 90s video game with block figures and all.
In the end all the bad acting, bad f/x, bad storyline and just general awfulness add up to a real winner of a film. It's like a comic book/supernatural/sci-fi geeks wet dream. Which is to say if you aren't all three of those to an extreme, you'll find this movie boring and indulgent.
As I watched the opening scene, one of the characters calls some recently killed men, "hemophages" and being the Classics dork that I am, I said to myself "blood eaters? so, they are vampires?" And sure enough not much later someone calls them vampires. Now these aren't your typical vampires, these are vampires that are caused by a virus and who can run around in daylight. What is the deal in cinema today that all the supernatural creatures have to be explained by a virus? Zombies are a virus (ala Resident Evil (2002)) and even Vampires are a virus (ala Blade (1998)).
I guess in a futuristic sci-fi film, you can't have ultimate evil. Still the film does combine two genres that I wasn't expecting, vampires and science fiction. Oh and did I mention it combines them badly. This movie is awful. It's so bad that it almost transcends it being terrible and becomes good, but it doesn't. There is technology in this world that is never explained, nor is the chronology of when this is taking place firmly set down. In some ways, mostly the bad ones, it reminded me of last year's Aeon Flux (2005).
That movie too was a ridiculous action fest centered around a disease and an oppressive dictatorial regime. To the credit of Ultraviolet it was actually more entertaining and less annoyingly pseudo-philosophic than Aeon Flux. It provided plenty of fight scenes and gun duels and neat special effects. Some of the special effects however, were horribly bad giving the impression of a mid 90s video game with block figures and all.
In the end all the bad acting, bad f/x, bad storyline and just general awfulness add up to a real winner of a film. It's like a comic book/supernatural/sci-fi geeks wet dream. Which is to say if you aren't all three of those to an extreme, you'll find this movie boring and indulgent.
Vamps in Russia
At first I was shocked that the most successful movie in Russian film history is so mediocre. But considering both Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace (1999) and Star Wars: Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith (2005) are in the top ten domestic box office, I guess Americans aren't too savvy either. To its credit, Night Watch (2004) tries hard and sometimes succeeds.
It provides a fantastic dark, dirty atmosphere of a Russian city that is powerful. I felt the desperation that the Warriors of Light were facing in a world that finds it "easier to kill the light within, than it is to overcome the darkness without." However, the story is a bit erratic and the acting wooden. It is a movie that is desperately trying to be more than a big budget action flick which I applaud, but it fails. It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialogue, which didn't make sense anyway because the writer was trying to create his own cosmology.
Most peculiarly, was the head bad guy's playing some bizarre Playstation type game that was apparently predicting the future. I found it a bit odd that the lord of all evil on earth was apparently addicted to video games. There is a reveal near the end of the film which is fully telegraphed from almost the beginning of the movie. There was an interesting dynamic between the main character Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov). The antagonism between them boils over mid film and no doubt will play in the later two films.
The film is open ended due to the fact that the film was conceived in three parts and the sequel is soon on the way. It had a decently put together ending if not entirely original that made me at least curious to see what happens next. Hopefully freed from all the necessary first film expository dialogue it will flow better than this film.
It provides a fantastic dark, dirty atmosphere of a Russian city that is powerful. I felt the desperation that the Warriors of Light were facing in a world that finds it "easier to kill the light within, than it is to overcome the darkness without." However, the story is a bit erratic and the acting wooden. It is a movie that is desperately trying to be more than a big budget action flick which I applaud, but it fails. It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialogue, which didn't make sense anyway because the writer was trying to create his own cosmology.
Most peculiarly, was the head bad guy's playing some bizarre Playstation type game that was apparently predicting the future. I found it a bit odd that the lord of all evil on earth was apparently addicted to video games. There is a reveal near the end of the film which is fully telegraphed from almost the beginning of the movie. There was an interesting dynamic between the main character Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov). The antagonism between them boils over mid film and no doubt will play in the later two films.
The film is open ended due to the fact that the film was conceived in three parts and the sequel is soon on the way. It had a decently put together ending if not entirely original that made me at least curious to see what happens next. Hopefully freed from all the necessary first film expository dialogue it will flow better than this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)