www.dani19.com
Please go to this site from now on. This blog will no longer be updated.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hard Target (1993)
Hard Target was one of John Woo's earlier attempts in Hollywood, and generally is a good B-movie. It wasn't the type of big budget summer blockbusters he later made (such as M-I:2), and the whole film effuses a raw and less polished style.
The film stars Jean-Claude Van Damme, one of the less successful action stars of the late 80s - early 90s. He doesn't have much acting talent, judging by the few films I've seen, but he certainly can fight, and fight with real style, and that's what matters in a John Woo film.
The plot is mildly interesting, though perhaps unoriginal - a bunch of serious bad-asses are running a business which lets millionaires (or anybody willing to pay a few hundred thousand dollars) hunt down people in the literal sense. Things go wrong when Van Damme gets involved, investigating the death of one the victims whose daughter hires him. The bad guys of course decides to forcefully stop the investigation, which turns into another hunting game, with Van Damme as the target. But as the target suggests, Van Damme is too hard a target for them.
What's slightly more interesting, is the action. Woo uses Van Damme fairly well, showing off his kicks perhaps a few times too many, but that's perhaps the point anyway - stylish action films are always somewhat over-the-top. Which is why some of the more wacky scenes such as standing hands-free on a bike and shooting are especially enjoyable. Some of the showdown scenes, which were later reused in Face/Off, present some rare nostalgia value too.
A film like Hard Target is destined to enjoy a small cult following. It has that kind of a in-your-face style, unapologetic in making violence into great masculine entertainment. However, for other audiences who don't want just senseless action, this film has little viewing value.
6/10
The film stars Jean-Claude Van Damme, one of the less successful action stars of the late 80s - early 90s. He doesn't have much acting talent, judging by the few films I've seen, but he certainly can fight, and fight with real style, and that's what matters in a John Woo film.
The plot is mildly interesting, though perhaps unoriginal - a bunch of serious bad-asses are running a business which lets millionaires (or anybody willing to pay a few hundred thousand dollars) hunt down people in the literal sense. Things go wrong when Van Damme gets involved, investigating the death of one the victims whose daughter hires him. The bad guys of course decides to forcefully stop the investigation, which turns into another hunting game, with Van Damme as the target. But as the target suggests, Van Damme is too hard a target for them.
What's slightly more interesting, is the action. Woo uses Van Damme fairly well, showing off his kicks perhaps a few times too many, but that's perhaps the point anyway - stylish action films are always somewhat over-the-top. Which is why some of the more wacky scenes such as standing hands-free on a bike and shooting are especially enjoyable. Some of the showdown scenes, which were later reused in Face/Off, present some rare nostalgia value too.
A film like Hard Target is destined to enjoy a small cult following. It has that kind of a in-your-face style, unapologetic in making violence into great masculine entertainment. However, for other audiences who don't want just senseless action, this film has little viewing value.
6/10
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The Pursuit of Happyness
I went into the theater with absolutely zero knowledge what the film was about; I was simply accompanying a friend. Though I confess I did feel somewhat awkward walking into such a film with another guy while most of the audience were couples, the film more than compensated me for that slightly peculiar feeling.
The Pursuit of Happyness, starring the charismatic Will Smith, is essentially another example of the American Dream. Smith plays Chris Gardner, a salesman for a bone density scanner back in the good old early 80s. He's having tough luck pushing his product, which supposedly had slightly better effects than an X-ray but was far more expensive. Gardner can't come up with money for the bills, and one day is inspired by the people working at a stock brokerage. He thought they all looked so happy.
He applies for an internship at Dean Witter; meanwhile, his partner (Thandie Newton) leaves him, because she simply couldn't cope with the burden and stress. Gardner is left with his 5 year old son. He gets kicked out of his apartment because he's 3 month behind in rent.
He does get the internship opportunity (despite showing up for the interview dressed like "a garbage man"), but the 6 month internship offers no salary. He would have to figure out a way to outshine his fellow interns, take care of his son, and most importantly make sure they somehow could have a place to stay.
Of course, he eventually succeeds (which the ending credits duly show by showing off his later financial success), though the process was nothing short of dire situations. The film is unapologetic in its realism: we see them living in a motel (getting kicked out of that too), a homeless shelter, and even the men's room of the subway station.
Will Smith shows charm, maturity and depth in his role. His make-up doesn't show off his good looks and usual charm (he seems haggard and worn-out most of the time), but his character is still deeply likable, both out of his intensity to succeed, and his strong love for his son. He portrays the character's feelings clearly without overdoing it, and the film is basically his one-man show, which he carries and delivers fairly well.
Of course, his pursuit of "happyness", as the word is intentionally misspelt, could arguably be called the pursuit of money (which some have duly pointed out in cynicism), and even though he achieves financial success, it's arguable whether that would lead to real happiness. But nobody could deny that economic security is the basis for most people's happiness: let's face it, few people could be happy if they lived on the street, which is where Gardner is from.
This film certainly isn't anything special, but it tells a good story which effectively communicates. Some may deem it as cheesy material - which is a matter of personal opinion depending on how you view such dramas - but it could be very enjoyable to others.
7/10
The Pursuit of Happyness, starring the charismatic Will Smith, is essentially another example of the American Dream. Smith plays Chris Gardner, a salesman for a bone density scanner back in the good old early 80s. He's having tough luck pushing his product, which supposedly had slightly better effects than an X-ray but was far more expensive. Gardner can't come up with money for the bills, and one day is inspired by the people working at a stock brokerage. He thought they all looked so happy.
He applies for an internship at Dean Witter; meanwhile, his partner (Thandie Newton) leaves him, because she simply couldn't cope with the burden and stress. Gardner is left with his 5 year old son. He gets kicked out of his apartment because he's 3 month behind in rent.
He does get the internship opportunity (despite showing up for the interview dressed like "a garbage man"), but the 6 month internship offers no salary. He would have to figure out a way to outshine his fellow interns, take care of his son, and most importantly make sure they somehow could have a place to stay.
Of course, he eventually succeeds (which the ending credits duly show by showing off his later financial success), though the process was nothing short of dire situations. The film is unapologetic in its realism: we see them living in a motel (getting kicked out of that too), a homeless shelter, and even the men's room of the subway station.
Will Smith shows charm, maturity and depth in his role. His make-up doesn't show off his good looks and usual charm (he seems haggard and worn-out most of the time), but his character is still deeply likable, both out of his intensity to succeed, and his strong love for his son. He portrays the character's feelings clearly without overdoing it, and the film is basically his one-man show, which he carries and delivers fairly well.
Of course, his pursuit of "happyness", as the word is intentionally misspelt, could arguably be called the pursuit of money (which some have duly pointed out in cynicism), and even though he achieves financial success, it's arguable whether that would lead to real happiness. But nobody could deny that economic security is the basis for most people's happiness: let's face it, few people could be happy if they lived on the street, which is where Gardner is from.
This film certainly isn't anything special, but it tells a good story which effectively communicates. Some may deem it as cheesy material - which is a matter of personal opinion depending on how you view such dramas - but it could be very enjoyable to others.
7/10
Sunday, March 11, 2007
300 (2007)
300 is a visual feast and a new kind of epic film. Lord of the Rings may have started it all, but 300 is such film-making at its most visually glorifying best.
The plot is simple, a fictional adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, in which Spartan King Leonidas and his men faced a Persian army far superior in numbers. As the title suggests, Leonidas only had 300 men with him, but he was determined to fight to the last man to protect his nation. Thus we have one of the most famous last stands in history.
Much of the film's plot and its narrative are typical Hollywood film-making. What makes the film so lavishly enjoyable, though, is its rich cinematography and cgi. The film is color desaturated, and therefore conveys a moody tone of myth and fantasy. Many of the film's scenes can be taken out and pose for a Renaissance art on Greek myth. The rich lighting conveys the clear theme of legendary heroism.
And then there are the intense and bloody action sequences. The film is not the least bit shy when it comes to depicting the full spectrum of a gory battle, as we see plenty of limbs and decapitations, as well as plenty of blood splattered (artfully) all over the screen. The dark enemies they face - from ninja like warriors to giants to elephant beasts and the like, are all symbolic and vivid.
Clearly, you could say that the film is certainly not about building rich and deep characters. It strives purely to give us a full cinematic experience in epics. That being said, I was slightly disappointed that I was not emotionally stimulated enough - the visuals are there, but the storytelling certainly lacks a bit of the Peter Jackson magical touch. That's why I give it a 7 - but this is one film that any avid action lover should not miss.
7/10
The plot is simple, a fictional adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, in which Spartan King Leonidas and his men faced a Persian army far superior in numbers. As the title suggests, Leonidas only had 300 men with him, but he was determined to fight to the last man to protect his nation. Thus we have one of the most famous last stands in history.
Much of the film's plot and its narrative are typical Hollywood film-making. What makes the film so lavishly enjoyable, though, is its rich cinematography and cgi. The film is color desaturated, and therefore conveys a moody tone of myth and fantasy. Many of the film's scenes can be taken out and pose for a Renaissance art on Greek myth. The rich lighting conveys the clear theme of legendary heroism.
And then there are the intense and bloody action sequences. The film is not the least bit shy when it comes to depicting the full spectrum of a gory battle, as we see plenty of limbs and decapitations, as well as plenty of blood splattered (artfully) all over the screen. The dark enemies they face - from ninja like warriors to giants to elephant beasts and the like, are all symbolic and vivid.
Clearly, you could say that the film is certainly not about building rich and deep characters. It strives purely to give us a full cinematic experience in epics. That being said, I was slightly disappointed that I was not emotionally stimulated enough - the visuals are there, but the storytelling certainly lacks a bit of the Peter Jackson magical touch. That's why I give it a 7 - but this is one film that any avid action lover should not miss.
7/10
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
I like to watch a black and white film now and then, because film-making was so different back then in the golden era, and also because the films that last to this day have stood the test of time. The Maltese Falcon, starring the great Humphrey Bogart, is one such great film, and often hailed as one of the definitive films of the Film Noir genre.
The Maltese Falcon is a great mystery thriller. Bogart is private detective Sam Spade, a smooth talking veteran of the streets. It is his profession to dig up the dirt of human society, and he can smell a lie a mile off. One morning, the femme fatale in question - Mary Astor as Brigid O'Shaughnessy - walks in and asks the detective and his partner to follow a man whom the woman claims is holding her sister. Spade soon finds out that O'Shaughnessy is lying, but at the cost of his partner's death. The man they follow also quickly ends up dead, and a lot of suspicion is cast onto Spade.
What begins from here is an intricate mystery that expands and develops so smoothly I was rather disappointed that it was all over so quickly. Indeed, the film is just as smooth as Bogart's character, who utilizes all his wit to play other characters against each other to his benefit. Sometimes he is too smart for his own good, as he ends up unconscious in one scene due to his foes joining together. But he soon picks himself up again, and is back on the trail - the trail, that is, which leads to the Maltese Falcon, a statuette of great value and the centerpiece of all the characters' attention.
There are no sophisticated stunts or long and thrilling action sequences. What The Maltese Falcon relies on, is solely a gripping plot and wonderful characters. The film successfully flushes out a handful of distinct characters, all of whom are instantly fascinating. At the center of it all is Bogart's Spade, who's smart and witty, but perhaps with a soft spot for the girl. Astor's O'Shaughnessy truly exemplifies the phrase femme fatale, which has been used all to often to describe girls that are anything but mysterious. To our delightful frustration, we never know when she's really telling the truth, or it's just another well-conceived lie. Then there's Joel Cairo, played by Peter Lorre, who is perhaps the film's most funny and interesting character, who makes an impression (and steals the show from Bogart) right from his first scene. Finally there's Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper Gutman, a 300 pound criminal mastermind, who'll stop at nothing to obtain the statuette. And of course there's also a whole bunch of other supporting characters, in smaller but still vivid roles.
To sum it up, The Maltese Falcon is a great film built upon a host of strong characters and a witty plot that never fails to amaze with every turn. Some 66 years after it was made, it still makes great entertainment. A true classic for all film lovers.
9/10
The Maltese Falcon is a great mystery thriller. Bogart is private detective Sam Spade, a smooth talking veteran of the streets. It is his profession to dig up the dirt of human society, and he can smell a lie a mile off. One morning, the femme fatale in question - Mary Astor as Brigid O'Shaughnessy - walks in and asks the detective and his partner to follow a man whom the woman claims is holding her sister. Spade soon finds out that O'Shaughnessy is lying, but at the cost of his partner's death. The man they follow also quickly ends up dead, and a lot of suspicion is cast onto Spade.
What begins from here is an intricate mystery that expands and develops so smoothly I was rather disappointed that it was all over so quickly. Indeed, the film is just as smooth as Bogart's character, who utilizes all his wit to play other characters against each other to his benefit. Sometimes he is too smart for his own good, as he ends up unconscious in one scene due to his foes joining together. But he soon picks himself up again, and is back on the trail - the trail, that is, which leads to the Maltese Falcon, a statuette of great value and the centerpiece of all the characters' attention.
There are no sophisticated stunts or long and thrilling action sequences. What The Maltese Falcon relies on, is solely a gripping plot and wonderful characters. The film successfully flushes out a handful of distinct characters, all of whom are instantly fascinating. At the center of it all is Bogart's Spade, who's smart and witty, but perhaps with a soft spot for the girl. Astor's O'Shaughnessy truly exemplifies the phrase femme fatale, which has been used all to often to describe girls that are anything but mysterious. To our delightful frustration, we never know when she's really telling the truth, or it's just another well-conceived lie. Then there's Joel Cairo, played by Peter Lorre, who is perhaps the film's most funny and interesting character, who makes an impression (and steals the show from Bogart) right from his first scene. Finally there's Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper Gutman, a 300 pound criminal mastermind, who'll stop at nothing to obtain the statuette. And of course there's also a whole bunch of other supporting characters, in smaller but still vivid roles.
To sum it up, The Maltese Falcon is a great film built upon a host of strong characters and a witty plot that never fails to amaze with every turn. Some 66 years after it was made, it still makes great entertainment. A true classic for all film lovers.
9/10
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
There are only two times when British super-spy James Bond fell in love: once, at the very start of his career as 007, as portrayed in the most recent Bond flick Casino Royale; the other, is in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where Bond goes one step further and even gets married (although he also got married in You Only Live Twice, a somewhat arguable false marriage).
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
Heroes are made, not born, and throughout human history, it has always been war - the apex of human conflict - that makes the most number of heroes. Flag of Our Fathers, a World War II drama about the legendary battle of Iwo Jima, is at its center a complex discussion of heroism.
The narrative is a structurally convoluted one, but it primarily follows two lines, jumping from one to another in a series of random flashbacks. The first line is revolved around a photograph that is now part of American history - the flag being planted atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The picture is an instant hit with the American public, and the war government decides to use it to raise war funds. In doing so, they pull out the 3 soldiers who were on that photo and still alive, and send them touring around the country promoting the war bonds. But the 3 soldiers share a guilty conscience, as they know some uncomfortable truths about the famous photo: (1), it wasn't a photo of the first flag that was planted, but instead the replacement flag; (2), the name list of the soldiers who were in that photo is erroneous. The 3 soldiers also understand what they are doing is important for the men in the front, though, and they dutifully play along with the lies, making themselves heroes to the mass public.
The second line of the narrative, is logically about the battle of Iwo Jima itself. We witness a beach landing that is in the proud tradition of Saving Private Ryan. The fighting is bloody and intense, and many young Americans were simply massacred on the beachhead. The film doesn't really show us how the battle progresses, how the Americans eventually take the island, which gives the violence portrayed a further sense of senselessness - why are these men dying there, what are they fighting for?
We eventually see the moment of the photograph, and the reality is in stark contrast with the propaganda. The process was simple, no difficulties involved, and the men were surprisingly ordered to take a swim and enjoy themselves afterwards.
As with any war film, there is a big cast, but the film basically focuses on building 3 characters - the 3 soldiers who returned to do the war bond tour. The 3 characters are quite distinct, and I won't go into a detailed narrative here, but their life stories (which is also told in a extended final act of the film) are quite insightful and interesting in and of themselves.
As I mentioned at the start of this, Flag of Our Fathers is a discussion of heroism. The 3 soldiers didn't see themselves as heroes at all, but it was useful and somewhat necessary for them to be made heroes to America. The real heroes, as they said time and time again, are those who died at Iwo Jima, who couldn't return to tell their tales. After the war, the 3 heroes of yesterday found themselves going back to ordinary lives, either living with their personal demons or nowhere as successful as they thought they would be (with all that publicity). They are quickly are quietly forgotten. Also conveniently forgotten are the families of the boys who never got their 15 minutes of fame, who died on that black-sanded beach in the middle of nowhere - the real heroes, it seems, are always nameless. And they never saw themselves as heroes - they just did whatever they thought was necessary, whether it was killing the enemy in grueling hand-combat, or standing by their buddies throughout inferno.
Flag of Our Fathers is not a perfect film. Director Clint Eastwood perhaps tries to tell too much, and as a result the film is stuffed with all sorts of messages. Towards the end, the film sometimes feels a bit too long, trying to tie up too many loose narratives. But these flaws are acceptable, and for the most part this is a gritty and engrossing film, and a proud addition to the many great World War II films of past.
8/10
The narrative is a structurally convoluted one, but it primarily follows two lines, jumping from one to another in a series of random flashbacks. The first line is revolved around a photograph that is now part of American history - the flag being planted atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The picture is an instant hit with the American public, and the war government decides to use it to raise war funds. In doing so, they pull out the 3 soldiers who were on that photo and still alive, and send them touring around the country promoting the war bonds. But the 3 soldiers share a guilty conscience, as they know some uncomfortable truths about the famous photo: (1), it wasn't a photo of the first flag that was planted, but instead the replacement flag; (2), the name list of the soldiers who were in that photo is erroneous. The 3 soldiers also understand what they are doing is important for the men in the front, though, and they dutifully play along with the lies, making themselves heroes to the mass public.
The second line of the narrative, is logically about the battle of Iwo Jima itself. We witness a beach landing that is in the proud tradition of Saving Private Ryan. The fighting is bloody and intense, and many young Americans were simply massacred on the beachhead. The film doesn't really show us how the battle progresses, how the Americans eventually take the island, which gives the violence portrayed a further sense of senselessness - why are these men dying there, what are they fighting for?
We eventually see the moment of the photograph, and the reality is in stark contrast with the propaganda. The process was simple, no difficulties involved, and the men were surprisingly ordered to take a swim and enjoy themselves afterwards.
As with any war film, there is a big cast, but the film basically focuses on building 3 characters - the 3 soldiers who returned to do the war bond tour. The 3 characters are quite distinct, and I won't go into a detailed narrative here, but their life stories (which is also told in a extended final act of the film) are quite insightful and interesting in and of themselves.
As I mentioned at the start of this, Flag of Our Fathers is a discussion of heroism. The 3 soldiers didn't see themselves as heroes at all, but it was useful and somewhat necessary for them to be made heroes to America. The real heroes, as they said time and time again, are those who died at Iwo Jima, who couldn't return to tell their tales. After the war, the 3 heroes of yesterday found themselves going back to ordinary lives, either living with their personal demons or nowhere as successful as they thought they would be (with all that publicity). They are quickly are quietly forgotten. Also conveniently forgotten are the families of the boys who never got their 15 minutes of fame, who died on that black-sanded beach in the middle of nowhere - the real heroes, it seems, are always nameless. And they never saw themselves as heroes - they just did whatever they thought was necessary, whether it was killing the enemy in grueling hand-combat, or standing by their buddies throughout inferno.
Flag of Our Fathers is not a perfect film. Director Clint Eastwood perhaps tries to tell too much, and as a result the film is stuffed with all sorts of messages. Towards the end, the film sometimes feels a bit too long, trying to tie up too many loose narratives. But these flaws are acceptable, and for the most part this is a gritty and engrossing film, and a proud addition to the many great World War II films of past.
8/10
The Prestige (2006)
2006 certainly seems to be a "magical" year, with two period pieces about tricks and deceptions released simultaneously. While The Illusionist, the first one to come out, appealed slightly more to the critics (judging by the reviews on Rottentomatoes), The Prestige, the latter of the two, offers a more entertaining viewing experience, though it will leave you feeling slightly cheated. But then again, that's the point of magics anyway, right?
Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman are in fine form as the leads, two young magicians bitterly rivaled against each other at the end of the 19th century. Their rivalry is a bloody one - it all started when Borden (Bale) takes a risk performing a trick which leads to the death of Angier's (Jackman) young wife. Angier does some foul play with Borden's tricks in return, leading to Borden losing two fingers. However, Borden is soon back on the stage, with a trick that Angier cannot figure out. And hence the rivalry intensifies, as both men utilize everything they have to get the upper hand against each other, including a tempting young woman played by the beautiful Scarlett Johansson.
To be true, The Prestige is more about rivalry than magic, and that rivalry comes in many forms. The most apparent rivalry is the professional one, where both men try to outsmart each other. But that rivalry extends beyond just their profession, and into their lives, where that most sacred thing of all, love, is also part of the game. And then as an interesting side-note, there's also the real-life rivalry between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, which is part of the complicated plot that writer/director Christopher Nolan is offering.
Nolan, who's previous works include Batman Begins and Memento, likes a story told in a complicated manner (as those two titles suggest), and he couldn't resist that temptation here. The Prestige is quite cleverly packaged, with lots of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks). That doesn't mean the film is beyond comprehension, because it's easily accessible, and the tempo is masterfully controlled throughout the film's two hour length, without any real lag. There is one flaw with the plot (as the film at one point ventures into science fiction), which some critics view as serious enough to jeopardize the whole film, but I see it as forgivable, as it somewhat fits with the film's hidden theme.
Indeed, in retrospect, the entire film is built upon a very simple idea, illustrated by the first trick that the film demonstrates - the best tricks employ the most simple ideas, and in the case of The Prestige, that means the best tricks are real. It's the consequences that we have to deal with.
8/10
Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman are in fine form as the leads, two young magicians bitterly rivaled against each other at the end of the 19th century. Their rivalry is a bloody one - it all started when Borden (Bale) takes a risk performing a trick which leads to the death of Angier's (Jackman) young wife. Angier does some foul play with Borden's tricks in return, leading to Borden losing two fingers. However, Borden is soon back on the stage, with a trick that Angier cannot figure out. And hence the rivalry intensifies, as both men utilize everything they have to get the upper hand against each other, including a tempting young woman played by the beautiful Scarlett Johansson.
To be true, The Prestige is more about rivalry than magic, and that rivalry comes in many forms. The most apparent rivalry is the professional one, where both men try to outsmart each other. But that rivalry extends beyond just their profession, and into their lives, where that most sacred thing of all, love, is also part of the game. And then as an interesting side-note, there's also the real-life rivalry between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, which is part of the complicated plot that writer/director Christopher Nolan is offering.
Nolan, who's previous works include Batman Begins and Memento, likes a story told in a complicated manner (as those two titles suggest), and he couldn't resist that temptation here. The Prestige is quite cleverly packaged, with lots of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks). That doesn't mean the film is beyond comprehension, because it's easily accessible, and the tempo is masterfully controlled throughout the film's two hour length, without any real lag. There is one flaw with the plot (as the film at one point ventures into science fiction), which some critics view as serious enough to jeopardize the whole film, but I see it as forgivable, as it somewhat fits with the film's hidden theme.
Indeed, in retrospect, the entire film is built upon a very simple idea, illustrated by the first trick that the film demonstrates - the best tricks employ the most simple ideas, and in the case of The Prestige, that means the best tricks are real. It's the consequences that we have to deal with.
8/10
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Human beings easily forget, even if what we are forgetting are horrible atrocities. And sometimes not only do we forget easily, but we also turn a blind eye altogether. Hotel Rwanda, a chilling drama about the Rwandan genocides that occurred in the early 1990s, is a slap to the cheek to all of us who chose to ignore what was happening.
The film stars Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina, a well-off Rwandan manager of a international hotel. He is smooth talking and has the street smarts, allowing him to store up favors with all kinds of powerful people in case times go bad, and of course he makes sure business is good. Paul is a Hutu, the ethnic group that is dominant in Rwanda. His wife is a Tutsi, a smaller minority which was once the ruling class. There is bitter hatred between the two groups, because the Hutus were once oppressed, but now the tables have been turned.
As we soon find out - sooner than Paul, who is reluctant to believe - the Hutu militias are planning a systematic wipe-out of the Tutsis. It soon becomes very real, as Paul's neighbors are murdered brutally. Paul takes his family, and many other Tutsi neighbors, to the hotel.
The hotel soon becomes a refuge shelter, crammed with Tutsis in hiding. The white people are soon evacuated, of course, and Paul's hopes of the UN keeping order soon turns into despair, as Colonel Oliver (the ever-so brilliant Nick Nolte), the commander of the UN forces, tells him that the western countries aren't sending more troops and he could at most spare 4 men, who aren't allowed to fire unless being fired upon. "You're dirt," Colonel Oliver stutters to Paul in total despair, in one of the film's most powerful scenes. Nobody cares about their lives at all.
Yet Paul doesn't give up. Not because he is unselfishly altruistic, but because he loves his family so much. Indeed, Paul's biggest motivation in his efforts is his family, and it's simply basic human empathy he is showing while he cares for those others in need.
Paul eventually prevails, saving his family and some 1,000 others. But many others are not so fortunate, as we are reminded in the ending credits that over 1 million people were killed, while the rest of the world stood by and watched. Indeed, such a failure is not only a failure for the western democracies, but for all countries of the world.
Hotel Rwanda is powerfully made, mainly because of Don Cheadle. He shows many different layers of his character's inner world, and in one most memorable scene, he demonstrates that even something as simple as doing his tie can effuse such emotion.
That being said, the film could certainly have been taken to a even higher level. I felt that the overall portrayal, while effective, did not fully stimulate our conscience. Many have raised Schindler's List as a film with a similar theme, and indeed this film could learn something from Mr. Spielberg's masterpiece. Still, Hotel Rwanda deserves praise, and is a film everyone should see, so that we might learn a lesson, and not turn a blind eye to nor forget such atrocities.
8/10
The film stars Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina, a well-off Rwandan manager of a international hotel. He is smooth talking and has the street smarts, allowing him to store up favors with all kinds of powerful people in case times go bad, and of course he makes sure business is good. Paul is a Hutu, the ethnic group that is dominant in Rwanda. His wife is a Tutsi, a smaller minority which was once the ruling class. There is bitter hatred between the two groups, because the Hutus were once oppressed, but now the tables have been turned.
As we soon find out - sooner than Paul, who is reluctant to believe - the Hutu militias are planning a systematic wipe-out of the Tutsis. It soon becomes very real, as Paul's neighbors are murdered brutally. Paul takes his family, and many other Tutsi neighbors, to the hotel.
The hotel soon becomes a refuge shelter, crammed with Tutsis in hiding. The white people are soon evacuated, of course, and Paul's hopes of the UN keeping order soon turns into despair, as Colonel Oliver (the ever-so brilliant Nick Nolte), the commander of the UN forces, tells him that the western countries aren't sending more troops and he could at most spare 4 men, who aren't allowed to fire unless being fired upon. "You're dirt," Colonel Oliver stutters to Paul in total despair, in one of the film's most powerful scenes. Nobody cares about their lives at all.
Yet Paul doesn't give up. Not because he is unselfishly altruistic, but because he loves his family so much. Indeed, Paul's biggest motivation in his efforts is his family, and it's simply basic human empathy he is showing while he cares for those others in need.
Paul eventually prevails, saving his family and some 1,000 others. But many others are not so fortunate, as we are reminded in the ending credits that over 1 million people were killed, while the rest of the world stood by and watched. Indeed, such a failure is not only a failure for the western democracies, but for all countries of the world.
Hotel Rwanda is powerfully made, mainly because of Don Cheadle. He shows many different layers of his character's inner world, and in one most memorable scene, he demonstrates that even something as simple as doing his tie can effuse such emotion.
That being said, the film could certainly have been taken to a even higher level. I felt that the overall portrayal, while effective, did not fully stimulate our conscience. Many have raised Schindler's List as a film with a similar theme, and indeed this film could learn something from Mr. Spielberg's masterpiece. Still, Hotel Rwanda deserves praise, and is a film everyone should see, so that we might learn a lesson, and not turn a blind eye to nor forget such atrocities.
8/10
Babel (2006)
Babel has received a lot of praise (and nominations), and I couldn't resist the temptation of internet piracy. After watching it though, I felt I might not need to break another law and buy the pirated DVD, because the film simply isn't that good.
There are quite a few films whose success are at least partially based on their structure and methodology (sorry to bring up a professional term from my own field of expertise...). Momento immediately jumps to mind, as perhaps the most structurally successful film I've ever seen. The whole film is all about its clever story-telling. Then we have films like last year's Crash, which is based on the surprising collusions of the characters' fates, as we learn that the separate story-lines are inextricably woven together.
Director Alejandro González Iñárritu's earlier effort, 21 Grams, is about solving the puzzle of the seemingly unconnected characters' relationships. With Babel, he shows even bigger ambition, by trying to tell 4 stories at the same time. Of course, these four stories are related - they have to be, right? - but that's one of the film's weaker points, because whereas in 21 Grams and Crash the separate lines clashed together resulting in excellent analyses of human nature, here in Babel they are just superficially linked. Most of the links are revealed quite early on, and there isn't any further development to the stories' inter-relationships (only simple references here and there such as TV news clips to remind us that the stories are happening parallel to each other). To me, this suggests that the film's structure has no real meaning except for the sake of being so, and that's my biggest complaint with this film.
That's a shame, because separately the stories are quite interesting anyway. It might be interesting if Babel was just a series of 4 short stories, not woven together but just shown one after the other. While this deprives the film of its current eye-catchy structure, it will force us to appreciate the stories for what they are really worth. As it is, everything in the film has a faint trace of pretension, a show cleverly put together in the name of art instead of haunting portrayals of real life tragedies.
The film boasts some big names, but you'll find them surprisingly modest - Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are immediately likable as a couple trying to patch up their marriage on a exotic Middle East tour. What really steals the show, though, aren't the familiar faces (including Gael García Bernal from The Motorcycle Diaries), but the ensemble cast as the Moroccan goatherd family - the two kids, their father - who are at once truly believable. The rest of the cast, in the separate stories, also deserve praise for their efforts.
As for the cinematography and editing, it is equally excellent. There are some great sequences here and there throughout the film, making the film technically speaking hard to criticize. However, this only further emphasizes the film's shortcomings in its content and theme.
In the end, Babel is still a decent effort and a fine film. It is technically brilliant to watch, but it doesn't really tell us much in its lengthy (it's a long film that feels long, long) prose.
7/10
There are quite a few films whose success are at least partially based on their structure and methodology (sorry to bring up a professional term from my own field of expertise...). Momento immediately jumps to mind, as perhaps the most structurally successful film I've ever seen. The whole film is all about its clever story-telling. Then we have films like last year's Crash, which is based on the surprising collusions of the characters' fates, as we learn that the separate story-lines are inextricably woven together.
Director Alejandro González Iñárritu's earlier effort, 21 Grams, is about solving the puzzle of the seemingly unconnected characters' relationships. With Babel, he shows even bigger ambition, by trying to tell 4 stories at the same time. Of course, these four stories are related - they have to be, right? - but that's one of the film's weaker points, because whereas in 21 Grams and Crash the separate lines clashed together resulting in excellent analyses of human nature, here in Babel they are just superficially linked. Most of the links are revealed quite early on, and there isn't any further development to the stories' inter-relationships (only simple references here and there such as TV news clips to remind us that the stories are happening parallel to each other). To me, this suggests that the film's structure has no real meaning except for the sake of being so, and that's my biggest complaint with this film.
That's a shame, because separately the stories are quite interesting anyway. It might be interesting if Babel was just a series of 4 short stories, not woven together but just shown one after the other. While this deprives the film of its current eye-catchy structure, it will force us to appreciate the stories for what they are really worth. As it is, everything in the film has a faint trace of pretension, a show cleverly put together in the name of art instead of haunting portrayals of real life tragedies.
The film boasts some big names, but you'll find them surprisingly modest - Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are immediately likable as a couple trying to patch up their marriage on a exotic Middle East tour. What really steals the show, though, aren't the familiar faces (including Gael García Bernal from The Motorcycle Diaries), but the ensemble cast as the Moroccan goatherd family - the two kids, their father - who are at once truly believable. The rest of the cast, in the separate stories, also deserve praise for their efforts.
As for the cinematography and editing, it is equally excellent. There are some great sequences here and there throughout the film, making the film technically speaking hard to criticize. However, this only further emphasizes the film's shortcomings in its content and theme.
In the end, Babel is still a decent effort and a fine film. It is technically brilliant to watch, but it doesn't really tell us much in its lengthy (it's a long film that feels long, long) prose.
7/10
Banlieue 13 (2004)
My interest in Banlieue 13 arose from the particular sport it featured: free-running. By that I'm referring to the fast paced stunts that are getting more and more screen exposure in recent years (the latest and perhaps most famous being the the first half hour stunts in the Casino Royale, the latest Bond flick).
According to Wikipedia, Banlieue 13 stars some of the sports' most famous athletes. And since the film is produced by Luc Besson, I was expecting some grossly over-the-top stunts. In that aspect, I've to say I was somewhat disappointed at the shortage of long running sequences. That's not to say there aren't many action sequences - indeed, there's a boatload of them - but I was looking for specifically the fluid free-running sequence. Perhaps I should check out some sports videos instead.
That being said, the film is interesting enough to provide some good solid entertainment, Luc Besson style. While I'm not a huge fan of the charismatic French film-maker, his films that I've stumbled across are generally fun to watch, and this one is no exception. The plot is irrelevant, as usual, and just creates enough excuses for the protagonists to fight their way through all sorts of chaos. Most of the stunts are finely choreographed and well-executed, but my main complaint would be that truly memorable stunts are far and few between.
In the end, this film is simply good action entertainment, and it seldom pretends to be otherwise. Worthwhile watching.
7/10
According to Wikipedia, Banlieue 13 stars some of the sports' most famous athletes. And since the film is produced by Luc Besson, I was expecting some grossly over-the-top stunts. In that aspect, I've to say I was somewhat disappointed at the shortage of long running sequences. That's not to say there aren't many action sequences - indeed, there's a boatload of them - but I was looking for specifically the fluid free-running sequence. Perhaps I should check out some sports videos instead.
That being said, the film is interesting enough to provide some good solid entertainment, Luc Besson style. While I'm not a huge fan of the charismatic French film-maker, his films that I've stumbled across are generally fun to watch, and this one is no exception. The plot is irrelevant, as usual, and just creates enough excuses for the protagonists to fight their way through all sorts of chaos. Most of the stunts are finely choreographed and well-executed, but my main complaint would be that truly memorable stunts are far and few between.
In the end, this film is simply good action entertainment, and it seldom pretends to be otherwise. Worthwhile watching.
7/10
Friday, February 23, 2007
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
At a glance, Little Miss Sunshine seems very ordinary. It's a road film. It's about a family with communication barriers, each member of the family immersed in their specific problems and issues. And by the end of this road trip, they will ultimately find what their family means to them, through a series of bizarre and comical events.
All that sounds like a load of cliche, but this film is far from that. Little Miss Sunshine builds on those very familiar themes, and manages to bring some new flavour to them. The result is a film that is at once funny and sad, sarcastic yet emotional, and undoubtedly a enriching film experience.
At the heart of this family, we have Olive (aka Little Miss Sunshine), a darling young girl played by Abigail Breslin. Don't be fooled by Ms. Breslin's youthfulness - she easily steals the show from her adult contemporaries. Olive isn't the typical slim little beauty pageant (in fact, she has a bit of a pouting belly), but that doesn't stop her from madly enthusiastic about the Little Miss Sunshine competition. She has a teenage brother, Dwayne (Paul Dano), who reads Nietzsche and wants to be an air force pilot, and who by the way has taken a vow of silence until he achieves that goal.
The father of those two kids, Richard (Greg Kinnear) is sort of a success guru, with his own original 9 steps of success. Unfortunately, his own career can't exactly be called a success. Still, he's happily married to Sheryl (Toni Collette), who's brother Frank (Steve Carrell) is a renowned Proust scholar and also a gay who had just attempted suicide (unsuccessfully). Olive's grandpa, the last member of the family, is deftly played by Alan Arkin, and still has a taste for drugs and porn.
When you mix this bizarre assortment of personalities together, the result is a recipe for chaos and disaster. To make it short, the family goes on a road trip to sunny California, so that Olive could attend the Miss Sunshine competition. The timing is quite bad though, because the family is in the middle of a financial and emotional crisis (due to myriad reasons). They eventually decide to go, though, for the sake of Olive, and the trip becomes a emotional roller-coaster, full of the flavours of life.
As I mentioned earlier, this film takes many familiar recipes and cooks out some refreshingly new flavours with them. For one thing, the characters are not just your average weird family - they are both eccentric and flawed, and despite their eccentricity we can connect with them. And secondly, the plot is certainly not afraid of spoiling the family picture mood (since it's not a family picture), and there are several quite unexpected developments along the way. Thirdly, the film contains some great humour, whether it's the deeply sarcastic look at children's beauty contests, or the hilarious events along the road (an encounter with a dirty - in the porn sense - police officer, for instance).
In the end, not much needs to be said about this film - it's a film that needs to be experienced, to feel the variety of flavours it offers. Just be prepared to be really emotionally stirred.
8/10
All that sounds like a load of cliche, but this film is far from that. Little Miss Sunshine builds on those very familiar themes, and manages to bring some new flavour to them. The result is a film that is at once funny and sad, sarcastic yet emotional, and undoubtedly a enriching film experience.
At the heart of this family, we have Olive (aka Little Miss Sunshine), a darling young girl played by Abigail Breslin. Don't be fooled by Ms. Breslin's youthfulness - she easily steals the show from her adult contemporaries. Olive isn't the typical slim little beauty pageant (in fact, she has a bit of a pouting belly), but that doesn't stop her from madly enthusiastic about the Little Miss Sunshine competition. She has a teenage brother, Dwayne (Paul Dano), who reads Nietzsche and wants to be an air force pilot, and who by the way has taken a vow of silence until he achieves that goal.
The father of those two kids, Richard (Greg Kinnear) is sort of a success guru, with his own original 9 steps of success. Unfortunately, his own career can't exactly be called a success. Still, he's happily married to Sheryl (Toni Collette), who's brother Frank (Steve Carrell) is a renowned Proust scholar and also a gay who had just attempted suicide (unsuccessfully). Olive's grandpa, the last member of the family, is deftly played by Alan Arkin, and still has a taste for drugs and porn.
When you mix this bizarre assortment of personalities together, the result is a recipe for chaos and disaster. To make it short, the family goes on a road trip to sunny California, so that Olive could attend the Miss Sunshine competition. The timing is quite bad though, because the family is in the middle of a financial and emotional crisis (due to myriad reasons). They eventually decide to go, though, for the sake of Olive, and the trip becomes a emotional roller-coaster, full of the flavours of life.
As I mentioned earlier, this film takes many familiar recipes and cooks out some refreshingly new flavours with them. For one thing, the characters are not just your average weird family - they are both eccentric and flawed, and despite their eccentricity we can connect with them. And secondly, the plot is certainly not afraid of spoiling the family picture mood (since it's not a family picture), and there are several quite unexpected developments along the way. Thirdly, the film contains some great humour, whether it's the deeply sarcastic look at children's beauty contests, or the hilarious events along the road (an encounter with a dirty - in the porn sense - police officer, for instance).
In the end, not much needs to be said about this film - it's a film that needs to be experienced, to feel the variety of flavours it offers. Just be prepared to be really emotionally stirred.
8/10
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Happy Feet (2006)
Happy Feet, for the most part, is a charming animation feature film. It is a jovial, boisterous adventure, and it packs quite a few moral themes. It also asks some very hard questions. Unfortunately, it only gives some very easy answers.
The film is about that adorable bunch of emperor penguins. The proud tribe has been living in Antarctica for ages, and they have formed honorable traditions. One such tradition, is that every emperor penguin must have a "heart song", a song which not only defines its character, but also plays a crucial part in finding its true love. Mumble, our protagonist penguin in question, suffers a fatal flaw in this respect: he'd rather dance than sing, and his dancing skills are so much better than his broken voice. As is true with many truly talented individuals in our human society, Mumble's special talents are not appreciated by his fellow peers, except his childhood friend (and love interest), Gloria, who possesses the best singing skills the tribe has seen in some time.
To keep it short, Mumble's eccentricity eventually results in him being outcast from his tribe, getting blamed as the cause of the food shortage along the way (it's troubled times for the tribe as their fish supply is drastically declining). Mumble decides to embark on a quest to find the real cause of the fish drought, and therefore clear his name. He suspects that "aliens" which are far more intelligent than them are behind all this. His suspicions are soon validated, as he encounters the "aliens" (humans, of course). Mumble defiantly and somewhat naively hopes to explain to the aliens that their actions are hurting his species, but ends up in a zoo instead.
Up to this point, Happy Feet is at its triumphant best. The hard questions asked about our morality and selfishness are inescapable, and the "quest" sequence is beautifully executed, with some epic scenes (somehow reminding me of Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King, as Fredo begins his final march upon Mount Doom).
What goes from there, however, is a let-down. Indeed, the film-makers could hardly be scrutinized for offering a series of childish answers building up to the happily ever after ending - this is a children's film, and there are no easy answers to those questions, after all - but it does leave a strong taste of disappointment.
Despite the let-down, Happy Feet deserves applause. It is a proud achievement, and you'll undoubtedly be thinking about some of those questions hours after the film has ended.
7/10
The film is about that adorable bunch of emperor penguins. The proud tribe has been living in Antarctica for ages, and they have formed honorable traditions. One such tradition, is that every emperor penguin must have a "heart song", a song which not only defines its character, but also plays a crucial part in finding its true love. Mumble, our protagonist penguin in question, suffers a fatal flaw in this respect: he'd rather dance than sing, and his dancing skills are so much better than his broken voice. As is true with many truly talented individuals in our human society, Mumble's special talents are not appreciated by his fellow peers, except his childhood friend (and love interest), Gloria, who possesses the best singing skills the tribe has seen in some time.
To keep it short, Mumble's eccentricity eventually results in him being outcast from his tribe, getting blamed as the cause of the food shortage along the way (it's troubled times for the tribe as their fish supply is drastically declining). Mumble decides to embark on a quest to find the real cause of the fish drought, and therefore clear his name. He suspects that "aliens" which are far more intelligent than them are behind all this. His suspicions are soon validated, as he encounters the "aliens" (humans, of course). Mumble defiantly and somewhat naively hopes to explain to the aliens that their actions are hurting his species, but ends up in a zoo instead.
Up to this point, Happy Feet is at its triumphant best. The hard questions asked about our morality and selfishness are inescapable, and the "quest" sequence is beautifully executed, with some epic scenes (somehow reminding me of Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King, as Fredo begins his final march upon Mount Doom).
What goes from there, however, is a let-down. Indeed, the film-makers could hardly be scrutinized for offering a series of childish answers building up to the happily ever after ending - this is a children's film, and there are no easy answers to those questions, after all - but it does leave a strong taste of disappointment.
Despite the let-down, Happy Feet deserves applause. It is a proud achievement, and you'll undoubtedly be thinking about some of those questions hours after the film has ended.
7/10
落叶归根(2007)
《落叶归根》被称作是贺岁喜剧，我看完后多少感到费解。如果说春节档期的上映时间，一方面与电影的“归根”有着时间上的相似处，姑且被贴上贺岁的称号还是合理的，那么称其为喜剧在我看来则比较离谱了。
这 并不是说这部影片没有幽默的元素；相反，片子里的幽默题材有很多，无论是以“假仗义”为教训的郭德刚，抑或其他出场的各个名角大腕，还是各式各样的代步工 具，情节和场景的设计上都有着几分搞笑和讽刺的意味。然而对我来说，故事本身的悲剧性，主人公一而再、再而三地被生活戏耍，已经超出了喜剧的范畴，而实实 在在地就是悲剧。
大概从假哭丧真吃喝那一幕开始，我便再也笑不出来了（之前觉得真正好笑的地方也不多）。情节本身的悲剧性，从那里已经完全压过了其荒诞性，因而任何更进一步的发展对我来说就只是加深其悲剧程度。
影 片有很多值得商榷的地方，比如那些龙套角色，大多给我的感觉是流于形式的肤浅。无论是夏雨的喜欢喝咖啡的户外爱好者，还是胡军的那个莫名其妙的为爱昏了头 脑的货车司机，他们的角色都是彻头彻尾的“跑龙套主义”，只是给这些明星一个出场的机会而已。从这个层面来说，如果这些角色不是这些名角来演的，反倒可能 会真有些意思，因为那时我们会关注的不是夏雨胡军之流，而是那些角色本身。当然了，如果我们评价的眼光是局限在喜剧幽默层面，那么那些龙套角色倒也无可非 议了。
7/10
这 并不是说这部影片没有幽默的元素；相反，片子里的幽默题材有很多，无论是以“假仗义”为教训的郭德刚，抑或其他出场的各个名角大腕，还是各式各样的代步工 具，情节和场景的设计上都有着几分搞笑和讽刺的意味。然而对我来说，故事本身的悲剧性，主人公一而再、再而三地被生活戏耍，已经超出了喜剧的范畴，而实实 在在地就是悲剧。
大概从假哭丧真吃喝那一幕开始，我便再也笑不出来了（之前觉得真正好笑的地方也不多）。情节本身的悲剧性，从那里已经完全压过了其荒诞性，因而任何更进一步的发展对我来说就只是加深其悲剧程度。
影 片有很多值得商榷的地方，比如那些龙套角色，大多给我的感觉是流于形式的肤浅。无论是夏雨的喜欢喝咖啡的户外爱好者，还是胡军的那个莫名其妙的为爱昏了头 脑的货车司机，他们的角色都是彻头彻尾的“跑龙套主义”，只是给这些明星一个出场的机会而已。从这个层面来说，如果这些角色不是这些名角来演的，反倒可能 会真有些意思，因为那时我们会关注的不是夏雨胡军之流，而是那些角色本身。当然了，如果我们评价的眼光是局限在喜剧幽默层面，那么那些龙套角色倒也无可非 议了。
7/10
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Illusionist (2006)
The Illusionist, starring Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti, is a entertaining period piece about magic and tricks, and holds a few tricks of its own in its well-woven plot.
Norton is Eisenheim, a "illusionist" who suddenly appears in Vienna and gains instant fame performing some sensational magic tricks. Like the tricks he performs, there is more to Eisenheim than what he reveals. Giamatti plays Chief Inspector Uhl, the grunt man for the Crown Prince Leopold (excellently played by Rufus Sewell), who is in charge of looking after the Prince's interests, which includes among other items, a Duchess named Sophie (Jessica Biel). Unfortunately Sophie is also happens to the childhood friend AKA first love of Eisenheim.
The premise therefore is simple: Eisenheim is back to claim his love, but both class (he comes from a peasant family) and politics (Leopold's ambitions which include Sophie as part of his plan) stand in his way. There are literally countless works of literature (and other art forms) telling similar tales.
The story may be simple, but the plot certainly isn't. Indeed, the success of The Illusionist hinges on its convoluted plot which serves as a puzzle for the audience. There isn't anything groundbreakingly original in the way the film solves this puzzle - again, we've literally seen the same kind of puzzles in many other films before, from The Usual Suspect to the very recent Inside Man and The Unknown. But the film still manages to pull off its trick relatively easily, thanks to a good script and decent editing.
With regards to the acting, I have to say I was somewhat disappointed with Norton's performance. Norton is a top-notch actor, with a very respectable resume featuring works such as American History X and Fight Club, but in this film his presence just feels dry. Perhaps its fitting with Eisenheim's character to be solemn and grim-faced all day long, but that's not very interesting to watch. And in the few scenes he's supposed to show emotion, the emotion feels fake and insincere.
Giamatti is pleasantly entertaining to watch. His character is more outward, and you can see the genuine struggle he is enduring between his conscience and his fear / greed. Rufus Sewell is also strong as Leopold, playing the barbaric prince effortlessly. These supporting actors make the whole film feel sincere and enjoyable.
In the end, The Illusionist is quite a good film. There are times when it drags (especially during the middle), and the recipe (mystery drama with a shock revelation at the end) has been used too many times before, but it still works.
7/10
Norton is Eisenheim, a "illusionist" who suddenly appears in Vienna and gains instant fame performing some sensational magic tricks. Like the tricks he performs, there is more to Eisenheim than what he reveals. Giamatti plays Chief Inspector Uhl, the grunt man for the Crown Prince Leopold (excellently played by Rufus Sewell), who is in charge of looking after the Prince's interests, which includes among other items, a Duchess named Sophie (Jessica Biel). Unfortunately Sophie is also happens to the childhood friend AKA first love of Eisenheim.
The premise therefore is simple: Eisenheim is back to claim his love, but both class (he comes from a peasant family) and politics (Leopold's ambitions which include Sophie as part of his plan) stand in his way. There are literally countless works of literature (and other art forms) telling similar tales.
The story may be simple, but the plot certainly isn't. Indeed, the success of The Illusionist hinges on its convoluted plot which serves as a puzzle for the audience. There isn't anything groundbreakingly original in the way the film solves this puzzle - again, we've literally seen the same kind of puzzles in many other films before, from The Usual Suspect to the very recent Inside Man and The Unknown. But the film still manages to pull off its trick relatively easily, thanks to a good script and decent editing.
With regards to the acting, I have to say I was somewhat disappointed with Norton's performance. Norton is a top-notch actor, with a very respectable resume featuring works such as American History X and Fight Club, but in this film his presence just feels dry. Perhaps its fitting with Eisenheim's character to be solemn and grim-faced all day long, but that's not very interesting to watch. And in the few scenes he's supposed to show emotion, the emotion feels fake and insincere.
Giamatti is pleasantly entertaining to watch. His character is more outward, and you can see the genuine struggle he is enduring between his conscience and his fear / greed. Rufus Sewell is also strong as Leopold, playing the barbaric prince effortlessly. These supporting actors make the whole film feel sincere and enjoyable.
In the end, The Illusionist is quite a good film. There are times when it drags (especially during the middle), and the recipe (mystery drama with a shock revelation at the end) has been used too many times before, but it still works.
7/10
Sunday, February 11, 2007
You Only Live Twice (1967)
You Only Live Twice is Connery's fifth outing as Bond, James Bond, and though the film is not a breakthrough compared to previous efforts such as From Russia With Love or Goldfinger, the film is still a solid Bond film, and proves to be surprisingly enjoyable.
First off, there's the beautiful theme song and score. You Only Live Twice, sang by Nancy Sinatra, is a romantic ballad that sets the tone of the film perfectly. Indeed, as the theme recurs throughout the film, we are reminded what a romantic action film this is: the purpose of the film is not just to stop a world war, but to let us see James Bond exploring exotic locations, encountering exotic adventures (and women, of course) along the way. There are many instances where the music combined with the scene tells us that this film is all about that romantic adventurous spirit, such as the scene when Bond is at the roof of the building at the docks, fighting a dozen foes as he tries to escape. The camera pulls up - it's a helicopter shot - and the grand music hits in: it's not suspenseful at all, but just bold and adventurous, romantically so.
Secondly, it's the wacky gadgets and the plot overall. A SPECTRE vessel that can capture US and USSR spaceships? A jolly Little Nellie that's a copter which could be carried around in 4 suitcases? A cigarette that's really a mini-rocket? A Japanese intelligence boss that travels around Tokyo in his private subway? These devices fit the overall spirit of the film so well that we can forget how obviously silly they are, and be content enough to just enjoy the pleasant entertainment they provide.
And let's not forget Bond, or the Bond girls, this time really cute Asian girls.
Indeed, whatever misgivings we have about the film, they only occur after we regain consciousness from the hypnotic entertainment that is You Only Live Twice. Simply great entertainment, Bond style.
8/10
First off, there's the beautiful theme song and score. You Only Live Twice, sang by Nancy Sinatra, is a romantic ballad that sets the tone of the film perfectly. Indeed, as the theme recurs throughout the film, we are reminded what a romantic action film this is: the purpose of the film is not just to stop a world war, but to let us see James Bond exploring exotic locations, encountering exotic adventures (and women, of course) along the way. There are many instances where the music combined with the scene tells us that this film is all about that romantic adventurous spirit, such as the scene when Bond is at the roof of the building at the docks, fighting a dozen foes as he tries to escape. The camera pulls up - it's a helicopter shot - and the grand music hits in: it's not suspenseful at all, but just bold and adventurous, romantically so.
Secondly, it's the wacky gadgets and the plot overall. A SPECTRE vessel that can capture US and USSR spaceships? A jolly Little Nellie that's a copter which could be carried around in 4 suitcases? A cigarette that's really a mini-rocket? A Japanese intelligence boss that travels around Tokyo in his private subway? These devices fit the overall spirit of the film so well that we can forget how obviously silly they are, and be content enough to just enjoy the pleasant entertainment they provide.
And let's not forget Bond, or the Bond girls, this time really cute Asian girls.
Indeed, whatever misgivings we have about the film, they only occur after we regain consciousness from the hypnotic entertainment that is You Only Live Twice. Simply great entertainment, Bond style.
8/10
Thunderball (1965)
Thunderball is the fourth Bond film featuring Sean Connery. Many feel that it was the poorest Bond film starring Connery, but I think it's still a fine film, perhaps not as groundbreaking as the first 3 films, yet nonetheless royally entertaining.
The reason for that is mainly because of the stunning action. Most of the action in Thunderball takes place underwater, and the action sequences are both original and brilliantly captured on celluloid. Indeed, I think Thunderball is the first Bond film in the series that stands out from other films because of its action. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps debatable (later Bond films often had the tendency of becoming more and more "superficial"), but for this film it works.
The plot follows the successful standard set by Goldfinger, featuring an over the top scheme by SPECTRE to seriously damage the western democracies while getting a boatload of money on the way. SPECTRE plans to do this by using two atomic bombs they successfully stole from a NATO bomber. 007 picks up a scent and eventually tracks down the bombs, just in time, as always.
The usual Bond elements are in place. The villain is menacing enough, though perhaps not as memorable. The Bond girls are fantastic looking. Bond's gadgets are nice and imaginative. The song and score, while not top notch, more than fulfill their roles. In short, if you're a fan of 007, you should not miss this film.
8/10
The reason for that is mainly because of the stunning action. Most of the action in Thunderball takes place underwater, and the action sequences are both original and brilliantly captured on celluloid. Indeed, I think Thunderball is the first Bond film in the series that stands out from other films because of its action. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps debatable (later Bond films often had the tendency of becoming more and more "superficial"), but for this film it works.
The plot follows the successful standard set by Goldfinger, featuring an over the top scheme by SPECTRE to seriously damage the western democracies while getting a boatload of money on the way. SPECTRE plans to do this by using two atomic bombs they successfully stole from a NATO bomber. 007 picks up a scent and eventually tracks down the bombs, just in time, as always.
The usual Bond elements are in place. The villain is menacing enough, though perhaps not as memorable. The Bond girls are fantastic looking. Bond's gadgets are nice and imaginative. The song and score, while not top notch, more than fulfill their roles. In short, if you're a fan of 007, you should not miss this film.
8/10
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Goldfinger (1964)
Third time's a charm. And that's just the case with this film. Goldfinger is the definitive Bond film: an imaginative (and necessarily over the top) plot, a great title song and score, rich settings, interesting girls (come on, when will you ever come across a girl named Pussy Galore?), entertaining villains (both Mr. Goldfinger and his muscle man, Oddjob), and who else but Sean Connery as 007.
The plot is silly in an entertaining sort of way: Goldfinger decides to rob Fort Knox, but instead of taking the gold reserve, he would rather destroy it, so that his own gold would appreciate in value (talk about economics and incentives...). Bond slowly catches on to this bigger plot as he is sent to investigate Goldfinger's other shady albeit smaller-in-ambition deals in Europe.
On the "technical" side, some of the action scenes are truly memorable, e.g. Bond ejecting his fellow passenger from his Aston Martin, or fighting on a plane at high altitude. The film looks and feels entertainingly ambitious, and it's the first demonstration of the complete Bond formula that was born in Dr. No and shaped by From Russia With Love. Not much more needs to be said - this is Bond, James Bond.
8/10
The plot is silly in an entertaining sort of way: Goldfinger decides to rob Fort Knox, but instead of taking the gold reserve, he would rather destroy it, so that his own gold would appreciate in value (talk about economics and incentives...). Bond slowly catches on to this bigger plot as he is sent to investigate Goldfinger's other shady albeit smaller-in-ambition deals in Europe.
On the "technical" side, some of the action scenes are truly memorable, e.g. Bond ejecting his fellow passenger from his Aston Martin, or fighting on a plane at high altitude. The film looks and feels entertainingly ambitious, and it's the first demonstration of the complete Bond formula that was born in Dr. No and shaped by From Russia With Love. Not much more needs to be said - this is Bond, James Bond.
8/10
From Russia With Love (1963)
From Russia With Love, the second Bond film, takes a great leap ahead from the humble beginnings of the most popular spy series set by Dr. No.
In Dr. No, there were only very primitive traces most of the later famous Bond formula. In the second film of the series, that formula is fleshed out in much more color. Bond is issued his first gadget, a sophisticated briefcase which is put to great use later on. The bond girl, played by Daniela Bianchi, can be both innocent and naughty, and is a delight to watch. Bond's sidekick Kerim Bey, played by Pedro Armendáriz, is another delight, stealing the show with his witty lines and humorous personality that serves as comic relief.
And there are plenty of villains, some genuinely nasty. Donald Shaw is quite frightening as the psychopath killer that outsmarts Bond for most of the film. This is a villain much more compelling than some of the other muscle men to be found in later Bond films.
In terms of plot and action, this film also does a much better job than its predecessor. Though some of the action sequences are inferior by today's standards, there is some authentic suspense created in the final act on the train. The momentum is gradually built up, and there's a gruesome showdown between Connery and Shaw. Connery is especially likable because of the finer details of Bond's character that he crafts and shows.
7/10
In Dr. No, there were only very primitive traces most of the later famous Bond formula. In the second film of the series, that formula is fleshed out in much more color. Bond is issued his first gadget, a sophisticated briefcase which is put to great use later on. The bond girl, played by Daniela Bianchi, can be both innocent and naughty, and is a delight to watch. Bond's sidekick Kerim Bey, played by Pedro Armendáriz, is another delight, stealing the show with his witty lines and humorous personality that serves as comic relief.
And there are plenty of villains, some genuinely nasty. Donald Shaw is quite frightening as the psychopath killer that outsmarts Bond for most of the film. This is a villain much more compelling than some of the other muscle men to be found in later Bond films.
In terms of plot and action, this film also does a much better job than its predecessor. Though some of the action sequences are inferior by today's standards, there is some authentic suspense created in the final act on the train. The momentum is gradually built up, and there's a gruesome showdown between Connery and Shaw. Connery is especially likable because of the finer details of Bond's character that he crafts and shows.
7/10
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Dr. No (1962)
After the recent viewing of the latest Bond film, Casino Royale, I was so interested in viewing the earlier Bond films that I did something which was so typical and irrational of me: I went out and bought the complete 20 disc DVD set.
With that, I got down to business of watching the series 1 by 1, in chronological order. Dr. No, therefore, is the first film on the list.
Watching this film, I realized how much the action genre has evolved over the years. By contemporary standards, Dr. No probably can't even be characterized as an action film (of course you might argue that it's just an adventure film anyway, but I say action because typically all Bond films unquestionably fall into this genre). There is very little action to speak of, and none raises my adrenaline level at all, thanks to the excellent work done in the last few decades by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer and good old Arnie, current governor of California. And by today's standards, certainly most of the film's action look downright silly and boring. The climax, is especially worth mentioning, as it feels more like an anti-climax rather than a final confrontation between Bond and his arch-enemy, the man of the film's title.
Still, all the above criticism is not to simply label the film as trash, instead, my point is simply to state how much the action genre has evolved over the years since 1962. And certainly this film deserves credit for that, since it led to the series that eventually helped to shape the look and feel of the modern action film.
And this criticism certainly doesn't mean that the film is not enjoyable, which it definitely is, albeit the cause of that enjoyment is not the suspense created but the simple pleasure of drowning in nostalgia. We see the elaborate sequence of shots that leads to Connery's first appearance on screen as 007, accompanied by the now world renowned theme playing moodily in the background. Indeed, this opening appearance certainly got me smiling with satisfaction. Equally deserving praise is the entrance scene of Ursula Andress, the first ever Bond girl (and considered by many still to be the most definitive Bond girl). Dr No, played by Joseph Wiseman, is still one of the best Bond villains ever, though his screen time was unsatisfactorily far too limited.
At the end of the day, the greatest pleasure in watching this film is probably akin to watching your child's first baby steps. It's certainly far from perfect, but it's the opening moments of the world's favorite secret agent.
6/10
With that, I got down to business of watching the series 1 by 1, in chronological order. Dr. No, therefore, is the first film on the list.
Watching this film, I realized how much the action genre has evolved over the years. By contemporary standards, Dr. No probably can't even be characterized as an action film (of course you might argue that it's just an adventure film anyway, but I say action because typically all Bond films unquestionably fall into this genre). There is very little action to speak of, and none raises my adrenaline level at all, thanks to the excellent work done in the last few decades by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer and good old Arnie, current governor of California. And by today's standards, certainly most of the film's action look downright silly and boring. The climax, is especially worth mentioning, as it feels more like an anti-climax rather than a final confrontation between Bond and his arch-enemy, the man of the film's title.
Still, all the above criticism is not to simply label the film as trash, instead, my point is simply to state how much the action genre has evolved over the years since 1962. And certainly this film deserves credit for that, since it led to the series that eventually helped to shape the look and feel of the modern action film.
And this criticism certainly doesn't mean that the film is not enjoyable, which it definitely is, albeit the cause of that enjoyment is not the suspense created but the simple pleasure of drowning in nostalgia. We see the elaborate sequence of shots that leads to Connery's first appearance on screen as 007, accompanied by the now world renowned theme playing moodily in the background. Indeed, this opening appearance certainly got me smiling with satisfaction. Equally deserving praise is the entrance scene of Ursula Andress, the first ever Bond girl (and considered by many still to be the most definitive Bond girl). Dr No, played by Joseph Wiseman, is still one of the best Bond villains ever, though his screen time was unsatisfactorily far too limited.
At the end of the day, the greatest pleasure in watching this film is probably akin to watching your child's first baby steps. It's certainly far from perfect, but it's the opening moments of the world's favorite secret agent.
6/10
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
An Inconvenient Truth takes a serious hard look at one of the most controversial topics today: global warming. It does so by letting Al Gore, a famous activist on this issue, to present his presentation on the big screen - essentially the whole film is just Gore making his presentation.
That may sound very boring, but believe me it's not. In fact, one of the most annoying problems I had with this film is that it took too many detours away from the presentation, talking about Gore's childhood life and other events in his life that made him such an activist on the issue. These detours not only look and feel cheesy, they often diluted the core message of the film, by drawing in other hot issues such as the 2000 US election. These scenes do nothing more than cheesily make Gore look like a saint, and make the whole film look like political propaganda.
That being said, when the film is paying 100% to Gore's presentation, it works 100%. Gore shows his fine speech skills, and the presentation is crisp and clear (which I especially appreciate due to my own profession). The arguments and supporting data are masterfully organized, making the message strong and penetrating. Even though I see myself as one the "so-called skeptics" that Gore refers to with disdain, I find his arguments compelling enough to force myself to think hard. And that just goes to show what a great presentation it is.
In fact, if I had my way with it, I would just show the presentation from start to finish. That's probably the best way to to show it and the only way to do justice to the material, since it's so good. As it is, the film is distracted by those side scenes in between. Still, it's not a film you want to pass.
8/10
That may sound very boring, but believe me it's not. In fact, one of the most annoying problems I had with this film is that it took too many detours away from the presentation, talking about Gore's childhood life and other events in his life that made him such an activist on the issue. These detours not only look and feel cheesy, they often diluted the core message of the film, by drawing in other hot issues such as the 2000 US election. These scenes do nothing more than cheesily make Gore look like a saint, and make the whole film look like political propaganda.
That being said, when the film is paying 100% to Gore's presentation, it works 100%. Gore shows his fine speech skills, and the presentation is crisp and clear (which I especially appreciate due to my own profession). The arguments and supporting data are masterfully organized, making the message strong and penetrating. Even though I see myself as one the "so-called skeptics" that Gore refers to with disdain, I find his arguments compelling enough to force myself to think hard. And that just goes to show what a great presentation it is.
In fact, if I had my way with it, I would just show the presentation from start to finish. That's probably the best way to to show it and the only way to do justice to the material, since it's so good. As it is, the film is distracted by those side scenes in between. Still, it's not a film you want to pass.
8/10
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Casino Royale (2006)
I must have seen my first Bond movie when I was 8 or 9, while living in the U.K., the proud home of James Bond. I confess I can't really remember what that first movie was, except that I enjoyed it a lot, and most of the others that I saw. I remember the channels would show a Bond film every few months, and every film was like a little festival for the whole family: we would note down in advance when it would be shown, and then sit there mesmerized for 2 hours in front of a little TV. It was pure magic.
As I grew up, and came back to China, I became more distant from Bond. In my mind I had always viewed the Bond films I had seen as classic action films, not to be compared with the contemporary action films. I also became quite critical of the recent additions to the franchise, feeling that there was nothing special about them. We had whole new waves of better action films, some of which featured great spies, from True Lies in the mid-90s to the more recent Jason Bourne series. The Bond films were becoming simply showcases for cars, watches, and some girls. The magic was lost, it seemed.
Then came Casino Royale. I had read some rave reviews before-hand, so I knew this film is great. It also meant I had very high expectations. With those expectations, I decided to go to the cinema and see it on the big screen. The first ever Bond film I saw in a movie theatre. And it was one great ride.
Okay, enough with the sentimental stuff. Casino Royale features James Bond in his first mission after acquiring the 007 status, so chronologically you could say the story here happened before the other films. (However the film is set in the present day, which might cause some confusion to those not so familiar with the character.) This premise immediately brings one interesting element into the film: what events in his early career made James Bond the spy he became?
The film opens with depicting the mission that Bond carried out to acquire his 007 status - his first and second kills. The kills are not done as cleanly as Bond would've probably had liked, and it perhaps suggests that the soon-to-be-famous spy is not entirely an expert at his game yet. As the film really starts after this short intro and the opening credits, we see him making a few more spectacular blunders, learning lessons along the way.
The better part of the first hour is devoted to those "spectacular blunders", and indeed they are spectacular, coming in the form of two very lengthy action sequences. The first utilizes the free-running sport (also called Parkour, and getting more and more screen exposure these days), and is a visual feast to watch, and is perhaps the best action sequence of the whole film.
After Bond finishes these two action scenes, the film moves on to some serious story telling, with the main plot - Bond playing some very high stakes at Casino Royale - set in motion. The female interest, Vesper Lynd, is also introduced. Lynd is in charge of looking over the government's interests, in terms of the money being used by Bond to play at the table. From this part onwards, the film's core plot gradually evolves, and the story-telling is masterfully paced. There are some action scenes now and then - this is a Bond film, after all - but what really drives the film is the plot and the interaction between Bond and Lynd. Along the way, the film leaves some hints here and there for the careful audience, and we soon find out that indeed all is not what it seems, as the film eventually builds up to its haunting conclusion.
I had doubts previously whether Daniel Craig could be Bond. I felt his looks and demeanor were comparatively different from that of Connery's or Brosnan's. Indeed, this Bond is not the polished gentleman (who could be rough some times, but as a rule, very polished) but instead a more fired-up and passionate person. He is more physical, and to a certain extent you could say there's an untamed beast inside this man, beneath the cold looks and cool expressions. This might not be the Bond that some audiences expect, but it's perfectly fitting for the plot, and Daniel Craig just nails it home.
Lynd, played by Eva Green, is also excellent. She handles the subtle emotions very well: right from their first scene, Lynd appears to be quite skeptical of Bond, but beneath the sarcasm you could always sense that they were in fact (fatally) attracted to each other.
If I have any complaints, it's probably that the film feels somewhat imbalanced between the opening half which was decidedly more action driven and the second half which was story driven. I felt that perhaps the film was trying too hard to prove itself of its name, and wanted to win the audience quickly with some complex action scenes. Then again, this isn't really much of a complaint rather than a personal wish to see even more of the story.
As a end note, the last few years featured some popular characters returning to the screen, such as Batman Begins and Superman Returns. What those films had in common with Casino Royale was fundamentally a reconstruction of the characters as we know them. These films successfully expand their characters, giving them more depth and/or history, and also contributes to the prior works involving these characters, as we can now see them in a new light.
9/10
As I grew up, and came back to China, I became more distant from Bond. In my mind I had always viewed the Bond films I had seen as classic action films, not to be compared with the contemporary action films. I also became quite critical of the recent additions to the franchise, feeling that there was nothing special about them. We had whole new waves of better action films, some of which featured great spies, from True Lies in the mid-90s to the more recent Jason Bourne series. The Bond films were becoming simply showcases for cars, watches, and some girls. The magic was lost, it seemed.
Then came Casino Royale. I had read some rave reviews before-hand, so I knew this film is great. It also meant I had very high expectations. With those expectations, I decided to go to the cinema and see it on the big screen. The first ever Bond film I saw in a movie theatre. And it was one great ride.
Okay, enough with the sentimental stuff. Casino Royale features James Bond in his first mission after acquiring the 007 status, so chronologically you could say the story here happened before the other films. (However the film is set in the present day, which might cause some confusion to those not so familiar with the character.) This premise immediately brings one interesting element into the film: what events in his early career made James Bond the spy he became?
The film opens with depicting the mission that Bond carried out to acquire his 007 status - his first and second kills. The kills are not done as cleanly as Bond would've probably had liked, and it perhaps suggests that the soon-to-be-famous spy is not entirely an expert at his game yet. As the film really starts after this short intro and the opening credits, we see him making a few more spectacular blunders, learning lessons along the way.
The better part of the first hour is devoted to those "spectacular blunders", and indeed they are spectacular, coming in the form of two very lengthy action sequences. The first utilizes the free-running sport (also called Parkour, and getting more and more screen exposure these days), and is a visual feast to watch, and is perhaps the best action sequence of the whole film.
After Bond finishes these two action scenes, the film moves on to some serious story telling, with the main plot - Bond playing some very high stakes at Casino Royale - set in motion. The female interest, Vesper Lynd, is also introduced. Lynd is in charge of looking over the government's interests, in terms of the money being used by Bond to play at the table. From this part onwards, the film's core plot gradually evolves, and the story-telling is masterfully paced. There are some action scenes now and then - this is a Bond film, after all - but what really drives the film is the plot and the interaction between Bond and Lynd. Along the way, the film leaves some hints here and there for the careful audience, and we soon find out that indeed all is not what it seems, as the film eventually builds up to its haunting conclusion.
I had doubts previously whether Daniel Craig could be Bond. I felt his looks and demeanor were comparatively different from that of Connery's or Brosnan's. Indeed, this Bond is not the polished gentleman (who could be rough some times, but as a rule, very polished) but instead a more fired-up and passionate person. He is more physical, and to a certain extent you could say there's an untamed beast inside this man, beneath the cold looks and cool expressions. This might not be the Bond that some audiences expect, but it's perfectly fitting for the plot, and Daniel Craig just nails it home.
Lynd, played by Eva Green, is also excellent. She handles the subtle emotions very well: right from their first scene, Lynd appears to be quite skeptical of Bond, but beneath the sarcasm you could always sense that they were in fact (fatally) attracted to each other.
If I have any complaints, it's probably that the film feels somewhat imbalanced between the opening half which was decidedly more action driven and the second half which was story driven. I felt that perhaps the film was trying too hard to prove itself of its name, and wanted to win the audience quickly with some complex action scenes. Then again, this isn't really much of a complaint rather than a personal wish to see even more of the story.
As a end note, the last few years featured some popular characters returning to the screen, such as Batman Begins and Superman Returns. What those films had in common with Casino Royale was fundamentally a reconstruction of the characters as we know them. These films successfully expand their characters, giving them more depth and/or history, and also contributes to the prior works involving these characters, as we can now see them in a new light.
9/10
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Rules of the game
Basic explanation of what the scores mean.
The score for each film is given on a ten point scale. The scores reflect how much I like the film, and how much artistic value I feel the film has. Usually the score is a mixture of these two feelings, i.e. films that score high should appeal to my artistic taste, and therefore should be a film that I like. However there would be special cases where I like a film strongly despite it being mediocre artistically speaking, or a film that I acknowledge to be of high artistic value but just not my cup of tea. So in the end these scores are just my overall personal opinions.
The scores can be basically interpreted as follows:
8-10 Great films:
10 - Masterpiece/personal all-time favorite. A film that stands tall among all films, or is of special personal significance to me, deeming it to be the best of the best in my opinion.
9 - Excellent/personal favorite. A film that comes close to being flawless, is at the very top of its genre, or just a film that I love so much without any other reason.
8 - Great. A film that exceeds average expectations and fulfills its goal very well.
4-7 Varying degrees of mediocrity:
7 - Good. A film that basically meets expectations and doesn't have huge problems. The general enjoyable entertainment that you expect.
6 - Average. No major issues, but no highlights either. The typical mediocre film.
5 - Below average. slightly worse than average, often due to some obvious issues such as cheesy plots and over-the-top acting.
4 - Poor. A film that isn't enjoyable, contains some very cliched or low taste material. A waste of my time.
1-3 Trash to be avoided at any time. The specific score doesn't matter much at this stage. The film is just pure trash, with a score of 1 probably meaning the worst film ever (which is unlikely though, since there are so many bad films...). Typically I don't give these kind of scores, because I screen the films I watch, and the obviously bad ones are usually filtered out already. However, this doesn't mean in the future I won't stumble across bad films.
The score for each film is given on a ten point scale. The scores reflect how much I like the film, and how much artistic value I feel the film has. Usually the score is a mixture of these two feelings, i.e. films that score high should appeal to my artistic taste, and therefore should be a film that I like. However there would be special cases where I like a film strongly despite it being mediocre artistically speaking, or a film that I acknowledge to be of high artistic value but just not my cup of tea. So in the end these scores are just my overall personal opinions.
The scores can be basically interpreted as follows:
8-10 Great films:
10 - Masterpiece/personal all-time favorite. A film that stands tall among all films, or is of special personal significance to me, deeming it to be the best of the best in my opinion.
9 - Excellent/personal favorite. A film that comes close to being flawless, is at the very top of its genre, or just a film that I love so much without any other reason.
8 - Great. A film that exceeds average expectations and fulfills its goal very well.
4-7 Varying degrees of mediocrity:
7 - Good. A film that basically meets expectations and doesn't have huge problems. The general enjoyable entertainment that you expect.
6 - Average. No major issues, but no highlights either. The typical mediocre film.
5 - Below average. slightly worse than average, often due to some obvious issues such as cheesy plots and over-the-top acting.
4 - Poor. A film that isn't enjoyable, contains some very cliched or low taste material. A waste of my time.
1-3 Trash to be avoided at any time. The specific score doesn't matter much at this stage. The film is just pure trash, with a score of 1 probably meaning the worst film ever (which is unlikely though, since there are so many bad films...). Typically I don't give these kind of scores, because I screen the films I watch, and the obviously bad ones are usually filtered out already. However, this doesn't mean in the future I won't stumble across bad films.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
The Devil Wears Prada (2006) is and is not several things. It takes a critical look at the fashion industry in a satirical manner, but it is not a satire; it involves some romantic elements, but it is not strictly a romantic comedy; in the end it is a conventional story of a girl trying to live her life the way she wants to, but it isn't exactly just cliche. In sum, it's a very entertaining film neatly packaged (fashionably packaged), and it sells without pushing the audience too hard.
The film stars Meryl Streep as a goddess in the fashion industry, editor in chief of a highly influential fashion magazine. Anne Hathaway is a fresh graduate out of college who wants to be a journalist. She is totally ignorant about fashion, but ends up being Streep's personal assistant. The job basically involves everything from fetching Streep's dry cleaning, getting her coffee, to buying lots and lots of designer clothes, and of course taking in a huge amount of scrutiny and insult from Streep along the way. Hathaway decides to do it anyway, because it promises the opportunity of getting into virtually any publication with Streep's recommendation. And such is the film's basic story.
What goes on from here doesn't really contain too many surprises. Hathaway's ignorance to fashion obviously provides a great opportunity to throw out some satirical scenes, including one where Streep is duly insulted after Hathaway points out that the two green belts they are having a fuss over is virtually the same. Streep ends up giving a long speech about the importance of fashion, which I guess basically summarizes how pretentious the fashion industry is.
Of course, Hathaway eventually becomes very into fashion herself. Because of her heavy work she becomes more and more distant from her old friends, and more importantly, her boyfriend. The film devotes some further time developing her struggle between her career and her life, and she ends up making a choice.
Being a feel-good movie, what that choice is probably goes without saying. Indeed, pretty much everything in this film is very conventional, yet it is all very elegantly designed and executed, and you couldn't help but like it.
One reason for this is Anne Hathaway. She is perfectly in control and ideally cast for the role. Most of the time she doesn't need to do much but show off her looks in an innocent manner, and the audience will sympathize with her character emotionally. This is not criticizing her acting; it's just that for these kind of warm-hearted films, picking the right actress is half the job done - remember Meg Ryan and Sleepless in Seattle (or When Harry met Sally, for that matter)?
Another reason is that the film does not try to overachieve and be what it's not. It is not a satire. It is not a romantic comedy. It is a straightforward film about a girl and her choice in life. Her work, her romantic life, are all just part of this choice and not its entirety (in fact, so little of the film's time is devoted to her relationship with her boyfriend). In essence, you could say that it is a coming of age film. The fashion industry is just the medium for her maturity.
8/10
The film stars Meryl Streep as a goddess in the fashion industry, editor in chief of a highly influential fashion magazine. Anne Hathaway is a fresh graduate out of college who wants to be a journalist. She is totally ignorant about fashion, but ends up being Streep's personal assistant. The job basically involves everything from fetching Streep's dry cleaning, getting her coffee, to buying lots and lots of designer clothes, and of course taking in a huge amount of scrutiny and insult from Streep along the way. Hathaway decides to do it anyway, because it promises the opportunity of getting into virtually any publication with Streep's recommendation. And such is the film's basic story.
What goes on from here doesn't really contain too many surprises. Hathaway's ignorance to fashion obviously provides a great opportunity to throw out some satirical scenes, including one where Streep is duly insulted after Hathaway points out that the two green belts they are having a fuss over is virtually the same. Streep ends up giving a long speech about the importance of fashion, which I guess basically summarizes how pretentious the fashion industry is.
Of course, Hathaway eventually becomes very into fashion herself. Because of her heavy work she becomes more and more distant from her old friends, and more importantly, her boyfriend. The film devotes some further time developing her struggle between her career and her life, and she ends up making a choice.
Being a feel-good movie, what that choice is probably goes without saying. Indeed, pretty much everything in this film is very conventional, yet it is all very elegantly designed and executed, and you couldn't help but like it.
One reason for this is Anne Hathaway. She is perfectly in control and ideally cast for the role. Most of the time she doesn't need to do much but show off her looks in an innocent manner, and the audience will sympathize with her character emotionally. This is not criticizing her acting; it's just that for these kind of warm-hearted films, picking the right actress is half the job done - remember Meg Ryan and Sleepless in Seattle (or When Harry met Sally, for that matter)?
Another reason is that the film does not try to overachieve and be what it's not. It is not a satire. It is not a romantic comedy. It is a straightforward film about a girl and her choice in life. Her work, her romantic life, are all just part of this choice and not its entirety (in fact, so little of the film's time is devoted to her relationship with her boyfriend). In essence, you could say that it is a coming of age film. The fashion industry is just the medium for her maturity.
8/10
Monday, January 29, 2007
Unknown (2006)
Unknown (2006) is built on not entirely novel concepts: 5 people wake up in a abandoned warehouse, all having suffered temporary memory loss. They don't remember who they are or how they got there, but they do realize that they are in danger, since one of them is tied up and one has been shot. They know they should try to get out soon, since some other people are coming back to the warehouse, and they obviously have not lost their memories.
Since they don't know who they are, they obviously don't know who's on who's side. For most of the first hour of the film, this basic premise keeps the movie rolling along. As the plot develops, we are given clues in the form of memory flashbacks that occur to each of the characters. These new revelations create tension among the characters, as they find out that they can't trust each other, and yet they must rely on each other if they want to get out.
Admittedly, all of the above said are not original ideas. There are many films that play around with the idea of memory loss, and there are lots of films that are dependent on cleverly structured plot twists in general. For Unknown to work, it must show that it's twists are interesting and believable, which generally speaking, the film more or less achieves. However, the film feels unimaginative on the whole, as its twists and turns are also based on cliched themes. The plot could certainly have played out a bit bolder and less conventional, which would definitely benefit this film, since the film aspires, and fails, to be a cool and darkish crime thriller.
One reason that the film is likable is its predominantly male cast. The film features actors such as Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Barry Pepper, Joe Pantoliano and Peter Stormare, which is more than enough to support the film's acting needs. Bridget Moynahan provides some feminine support for the film, but is generally uninteresting, except during the very last twist, where there's a small scene featuring her and Caviezel.
Indeed, given the acting talent available, the film certainly doesn't do enough. Running at only 80+ minutes, it feels more like an extended episode out of a TV series than a full length feature film. I felt a lot more could be done in terms of beefing up the characters a bit more.
Overall, since the film is so short anyway, it wouldn't be a waste of time to see it. Just don't expect too much, and it'll be quite enjoyable.
6/10
Since they don't know who they are, they obviously don't know who's on who's side. For most of the first hour of the film, this basic premise keeps the movie rolling along. As the plot develops, we are given clues in the form of memory flashbacks that occur to each of the characters. These new revelations create tension among the characters, as they find out that they can't trust each other, and yet they must rely on each other if they want to get out.
Admittedly, all of the above said are not original ideas. There are many films that play around with the idea of memory loss, and there are lots of films that are dependent on cleverly structured plot twists in general. For Unknown to work, it must show that it's twists are interesting and believable, which generally speaking, the film more or less achieves. However, the film feels unimaginative on the whole, as its twists and turns are also based on cliched themes. The plot could certainly have played out a bit bolder and less conventional, which would definitely benefit this film, since the film aspires, and fails, to be a cool and darkish crime thriller.
One reason that the film is likable is its predominantly male cast. The film features actors such as Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Barry Pepper, Joe Pantoliano and Peter Stormare, which is more than enough to support the film's acting needs. Bridget Moynahan provides some feminine support for the film, but is generally uninteresting, except during the very last twist, where there's a small scene featuring her and Caviezel.
Indeed, given the acting talent available, the film certainly doesn't do enough. Running at only 80+ minutes, it feels more like an extended episode out of a TV series than a full length feature film. I felt a lot more could be done in terms of beefing up the characters a bit more.
Overall, since the film is so short anyway, it wouldn't be a waste of time to see it. Just don't expect too much, and it'll be quite enjoyable.
6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)