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.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
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)