Right off the bat, I enjoyed this episode the first time I watched it. Then I viewed it again... because I had this uneasy feeling that I did miss something, there was some kind of disconnect, a lack of continuity somewhere. Kind of got it.
To state the obvious, the episode starts nearly at the end of the story with Chakotay being held by Paris in sickbay, and the Doctor trying to convince Chakotay that he has to hold on, that the aliens are trying to communicate... Just before the credits we see the vessel in chaotic space.
Credits... Back to sickbay and the doctor asking Chakotay to relive the last few days (for our benefits, no doubt, but it ain't working).
So, back to the beginning with Chakotay boxing the holodeck where the aliens contact him for the first time (outside of chaotic space?).
Now the less obvious: after they understand they are stuck in "chaotic space," a rather confusing sequence of event follows, maybe to mirror the dreamlike feeling of being in chaotic space. Seemingly parallel to this chaotic space plot, Chakotay is suspected of suffering from hallucinations like his grandfather, triggered by a gene, itself triggered by something in chaotic space. At about 19:40, to alleviate the situation he asks to go on a vision quest... in his quarters. Good enough. He goes on, meets his grandfather, ends up in a oddly shaped boxing ring, but then wakes up in sick bay at about 21:46. How did he get there? Of course an obvious "excuse" is that he is still experiencing the vision quest, but who knows? Nothing really, no evidence, points to that. Anyway he comes up with some kind of rentrillic trajectory that the aliens supposedly told him. Janeway asks him to keep going, the aliens are trying to make them understand something, maybe in order to get out of chaotic space. At this point we think we are back to pre-credits scenes when the doctor was advising him to keep going, but maybe not...
Back in the boxing ring (vision quest? Unsure) he keeps fighting Kid Chaos with annoying and confused entrances of different characters attempting to disrupt the fight (Neelix, Paris...)
Not sure what is the usefulness of those guys here. Then on the bridge, training, interacting with Kim, Janeway... Back in the ring where the Doctor interrupts the fight, and then, thanks Heaven, Chakotay wakes up in his quarters. AhAh moment! So between the two "Chakotay's quarters" scenes, all was an illusion, his vision quest? Not so fast.
We're back on the bridge, Chakotay still in sick bay. They're stuck in chaotic space.
When Janeway understands the gene triggering thing she goes back to sickbay and then a rather confusing dialogue ensues: Janeway appears to learn for the first time that the aliens are trying to communicate with Chakotay. That would vindicate the theory that nothing between the "Chakotay's quarters" scenes were real, all were "dreamt." But why?
Now we are really back to pre-credits scenes, Chakotay gets it, inputs the data in the navigation system and they are out of chaotic space.
OK, one way to "excuse" this episode is to state that this was their Maya Deren moment, filming confusing dreamlike sequences and scenes with no head or tails, to quote Ensign Kim.
Or, much simpler, the episode is a failure.
I prefer, naively, to opt for the first choice.
Reviews
43 Reviews
One of the best episodes ever, with one caveat
7 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
One of my all time favorites! The only caveat, and I could be wrong, is this: why take the trouble to change the time on Townsend's watch? Of course it is useful in order for Miklos to figure out (wrongly) what had transpired, BUT, shouldn't Miklos also question WHY the brilliant mind, as he called Phelps, found it necessary to change the time? The only usefulness of that change is for Miklos to "see" the other discrepancies, but that's all. Again, I could be wrong.
The proof is not much of a proof...
21 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Excellent episode. It is typical in the sense that the "proof" is probably not evidence leading to a conviction, like many other Columbo episodes, however (sadly) this episode goes a step further: Columbo tells Milo (Robert Conrad) that the final proof of Milo's guilt lies in the "fact" that he knew the victim (Gene) was dressed in his gym suit. How did he, Columbo claims, as the last witness to have seen the victim alive swore that Gene was in his office attires. So how can Milo say he knew Gene had changed to gym suit? Well, the problem here is that the murderer had claimed, from the get go, that this what Gene told him on the phone. He didn't "know" Gene was in his gym suit, Gene told him, is all. No jury or judge would convict upon this "evidence."
At the end, truly enough, there were a string of circumstantial evidences which could lead to a conviction, but if everything is dependent on that "gym suit" thing, not enough.
The Mummy
(2017)
Underrated...?
24 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
If you were to rely on either (or both) Metacritic.com or Rottentomatoes.com , there is no way you would come within a mile of this movie. Rated 34 at Metacritic and 16% (!!!) at RottenTomatoes, this movie is the equivalent of Battlefield Earth or Batman & Robin (1997, remember...?), or so they say.
Let me be clear: The Mummy is no Citizen Kane or High Noon, and it will never find its way in the Library of Congress Film Registry catalog...
However, 16%?
Yes, a quite a few things are wrong with the movie. The "MIA comic relief" in the person of Vail (Jake Johnson). The narrative would have been well balanced had we experienced more of Vail: the few times he showed up, well, he stole the scenes. He comes up from time to time, but then watch the Deleted Scenes... he's in there. So it's a minus, yes.
Are the events predictable? You bet. Mainly because it is borrowing from so many other movies (The Mummy, 20 years ago?) in terms of plot and narrative devices.
The number of humans being sacrificed on the altar of horror movies (OK, this guy's history, etc.) is staggering and, yes, predictable.
This being said.
The plot is reasonably well established, the action sequences are more than adequate and are, indeed, very well done. The acting is not worthy of any kind of award ceremony, granted, but very believable.
Some movies were critical duds because they were bad, with plot holes the size of the Grand Canyon or with stories that would leave you uninterested (Warcraft, Suicide Squad), but this is not the case at all with The Mummy.
It is enjoyable with a Tom Cruise not taking himself too too seriously (at times...) Sofia Boutella is amazing as the evil Ahmanet, the princess fighting for her gender (and herself...) in Ancient Egypt and extending her struggle to today's London.
Russell Crowe is equal to himself and appear to have the time of his life playing the Jekyll/Hyde dichotomy.
Yes, I would recommend The Mummy. I would even give it a B+.
Yes, I would recommend The Mummy. I would even give it a B+.
The Legend of Tarzan
(2016)
Surprising negative reviews...
15 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I usually do not give much credence to reviews; the aggregators (Rottentomatoes.com, Metacritic.com, etc.), yes, maybe, as if a number of them do agree on something, perhaps there is something there. But...
I am surprised at the number of negative reviews and opinions on The Legend of Tarzan, puzzled at the below average score in Metacritic and Rottentomatoes.
The very structure of the movie (flashbacks, etc) makes it an stunning piece of work, a very difficult tour de force to accomplish. It could have been an obtuse film but packs a lot into a couple of hours.
I could go on to say just as amazed I am to see that films like The Force Awakens and Elysium garner so much positive feedback (OK, that's my opinion: they are overrated, how many enemies did I just make here...) but not this. The visual and audio twists between past and present, between the different settings is handled and controlled extremely well by Yates and his editors and, as I said, what could have been a bundle of disparate and confusing scenes ended up being an compacted work of entertainment (and maybe even art). Yes, some of the plot "twist" were predictable, like (Spoiler!) Rom's orchestration of John's visit, but nothing really is lost on this. Yes, Tarzan should have shown signs of some facial hair the first time Jane met him (his mom shaved him...?) but I have seen much worse.
Of course another thing, kind of major: this movie is another sad instance of the portrayal of a White Savior (a white guy, usually but not always, look at the Blind Side) being stronger, smarter and, well, saving the poor black people. One of the top box office successes of the last decade is Avatar (yes, Blue People, but you get the point).
Is the second to last scene (tribe people cheering) cheeky and tacky? You bet. But I would then repeat my prior claim and/or question: why the bad reviews when Blind Side, Avatar and other such narrative garnered reviewers' laurels? I would counter that Tarzan is, at least, technically superior.
OK, not everyone's cup of tea, but I recommend.
I am surprised at the number of negative reviews and opinions on The Legend of Tarzan, puzzled at the below average score in Metacritic and Rottentomatoes.
The very structure of the movie (flashbacks, etc) makes it an stunning piece of work, a very difficult tour de force to accomplish. It could have been an obtuse film but packs a lot into a couple of hours.
I could go on to say just as amazed I am to see that films like The Force Awakens and Elysium garner so much positive feedback (OK, that's my opinion: they are overrated, how many enemies did I just make here...) but not this. The visual and audio twists between past and present, between the different settings is handled and controlled extremely well by Yates and his editors and, as I said, what could have been a bundle of disparate and confusing scenes ended up being an compacted work of entertainment (and maybe even art). Yes, some of the plot "twist" were predictable, like (Spoiler!) Rom's orchestration of John's visit, but nothing really is lost on this. Yes, Tarzan should have shown signs of some facial hair the first time Jane met him (his mom shaved him...?) but I have seen much worse.
Of course another thing, kind of major: this movie is another sad instance of the portrayal of a White Savior (a white guy, usually but not always, look at the Blind Side) being stronger, smarter and, well, saving the poor black people. One of the top box office successes of the last decade is Avatar (yes, Blue People, but you get the point).
Is the second to last scene (tribe people cheering) cheeky and tacky? You bet. But I would then repeat my prior claim and/or question: why the bad reviews when Blind Side, Avatar and other such narrative garnered reviewers' laurels? I would counter that Tarzan is, at least, technically superior.
OK, not everyone's cup of tea, but I recommend.
Jesus Camp
(2006)
An excellent documentary which attempts to be objective, but...
17 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
...doesn't quite succeed, however hard the filmmakers try. They try hard to strike a balance, or at least appear objective by giving viewers the camp administration's point of view and by allowing the moderate radio host to voice his more centrist opinion. The church being featured in the documentary is politico-extremist (if that's an expression), at once claiming to be truly American while stumping on the very principle of separation of church and state, but nothing is shown in a truly sarcastic and/or demeaning way (which could have been very easily achieved!) That was my opinion after one view: the film is reasonably balanced, but I changed my mind after a closer look and a second viewing. A non-fiction film is really akin to a fiction media object, generated by less-than-perfect humans who can't fail to utter their own approaches and opinion on a given topic, but I always (naively) search for the perfect truly non- fiction film! That never existed and never will, but who knows? In Jesus Camp, the first audio belongs to conservative voices, either in the media or in churches. However we do not see them as the camera lingers on the physical and geographical settings of the films. The very first human face we see belongs to the moderate radio host and that, in my humble opinion, is important: a story's theme and perspective is always set in the very first images (whether written or audio-visual media) and viewers' own POV is indeed manipulated in this manner. I always thought interesting that although the title of the movie is Pocahontas, the very first images of the film happen to belong to John Smith in England; Pocahontas comes after the credits! The POV has been established, viewers' identification as well, hence manipulation of the viewers. In Jesus Camp the first visual we have of the church itself is of kids with war make-up, dancing a battle dance to a call-to-arm music and lyrics. Becky will come later on to compare Islam indoctrination to... well, her own, making sure viewers don't miss the point... Highly recommended, helps explains, at least partially, this country polarization.
A Visual Feast or a Confused Nightmare...?
11 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
One of the attributes of some avant-garde films is that there seems to be no plot, or so little, that like modern painting the color or shape speak for themselves. Transformers – Age of Extinction appears to be faithful to this description and should, therefore, be considered a subversive piece of art. But let's explore it a tad more.
From the days of Bunuel and Dali and Léger and other avant-garde pioneers, the supposed intention of a seemingly unarticulated and dysfunctional narrative was to comment on mainstream filmmaking, to create new meaning through the finding of a new film grammar and syntax. It worked, for the most part, from Paterson to Kubelka to Brakhage to Deren.
Will one day someone come up with a brand new book about Michael Bay, avant-garde filmmaker?
It is true that we can barely glimpse the shadow of a story dripping off the brouhaha of clanking metals and steel in TAOE; and it does look as if they intended to show us a rough print of the movie. Can't wait until they come up with the Special Edition: The Edited Version... Would maybe amount to a viewable 45 minutes.
However it is also possible that Michael Bay wrote the equivalent of a Six-Flag ride for the screen because one question will be worth asking for the hypothetical book: Can plot less narratives and messy visuals be the new avant-garde? It can certainly not be an independent cinema! With over one billion in revenue, TAOE does not qualify as an indie film.
Human characters motivations are weird at best and submitted to the will of the runaway train which substitutes for a narrative, and their stories. What to think of old teenagers in love, a confused father... a bizarrely intentioned Defense official whose behavior cannot be explained (if he hates all transformers so much, why does he trust the robotic bounty hunter?...), a CIA assassin who seems eager to revenge his sister, a captain of the industry making a 180 following a simple phone call, etc. All seem to have very little to do with the fact that earth is about to be annihilated, as one reviewer noted.
OK, maybe it is a comment on our selfish society? Maybe; we do worry about ourselves first and think little of our neighbors' plights, much less the rest of humankind.
But here's how TAOE can't be categorized as either an indie or avant-garde movie: every single plot development (big words for this film) or character action/choice is automatically motivated by whatever will create the greatest bang and destruction. The China sequence is a good example as the "bad guys" decide to search and kill the "good guys" only and only because the alternative would have meant less explosion.
The different pauses in the narrative exist only to provide us with a breather; you see, these pauses are plot holes in their own rights. Some of those pauses are caused by killers and the bounty hunter losing sight of Optimus Prime. There 's absolutely no rationale behind the bad guys losing track of Optimus Prime... twice (one of them when they were practically sitting on him).
It is interesting to see how many movies today (Hollywood and otherwise) are constructed as a visual ride with very easy to dub dialogs (camera rarely remains stable long enough to see lips move, so it's very convenient to realistically dub actors) and replaceable characters. This reminds me of the early silent comedies which were international successes because the visual spoke to everybody of any culture: same with a Michael Bay flick. A non-Michael Bay movie, Pirates of the Caribbean was based on a park ride, but at least they made it into a movie! Today's movies, for some anyway, are turned into a ride, to speak to more than local spectators and satisfy a global audience, maybe? Portion of the story happens in China (with very little plot justification, if at all!) most likely to appeal to one fifth of the world population...
I haven't really tried, but is there one, just one stable shot, not movement or zoom or anything, in the entire film?
A nearly three hour movie, over a billion dollars worldwide... Well, hundred of millions of spectators can't be wrong: they love avant- garde...
From the days of Bunuel and Dali and Léger and other avant-garde pioneers, the supposed intention of a seemingly unarticulated and dysfunctional narrative was to comment on mainstream filmmaking, to create new meaning through the finding of a new film grammar and syntax. It worked, for the most part, from Paterson to Kubelka to Brakhage to Deren.
Will one day someone come up with a brand new book about Michael Bay, avant-garde filmmaker?
It is true that we can barely glimpse the shadow of a story dripping off the brouhaha of clanking metals and steel in TAOE; and it does look as if they intended to show us a rough print of the movie. Can't wait until they come up with the Special Edition: The Edited Version... Would maybe amount to a viewable 45 minutes.
However it is also possible that Michael Bay wrote the equivalent of a Six-Flag ride for the screen because one question will be worth asking for the hypothetical book: Can plot less narratives and messy visuals be the new avant-garde? It can certainly not be an independent cinema! With over one billion in revenue, TAOE does not qualify as an indie film.
Human characters motivations are weird at best and submitted to the will of the runaway train which substitutes for a narrative, and their stories. What to think of old teenagers in love, a confused father... a bizarrely intentioned Defense official whose behavior cannot be explained (if he hates all transformers so much, why does he trust the robotic bounty hunter?...), a CIA assassin who seems eager to revenge his sister, a captain of the industry making a 180 following a simple phone call, etc. All seem to have very little to do with the fact that earth is about to be annihilated, as one reviewer noted.
OK, maybe it is a comment on our selfish society? Maybe; we do worry about ourselves first and think little of our neighbors' plights, much less the rest of humankind.
But here's how TAOE can't be categorized as either an indie or avant-garde movie: every single plot development (big words for this film) or character action/choice is automatically motivated by whatever will create the greatest bang and destruction. The China sequence is a good example as the "bad guys" decide to search and kill the "good guys" only and only because the alternative would have meant less explosion.
The different pauses in the narrative exist only to provide us with a breather; you see, these pauses are plot holes in their own rights. Some of those pauses are caused by killers and the bounty hunter losing sight of Optimus Prime. There 's absolutely no rationale behind the bad guys losing track of Optimus Prime... twice (one of them when they were practically sitting on him).
It is interesting to see how many movies today (Hollywood and otherwise) are constructed as a visual ride with very easy to dub dialogs (camera rarely remains stable long enough to see lips move, so it's very convenient to realistically dub actors) and replaceable characters. This reminds me of the early silent comedies which were international successes because the visual spoke to everybody of any culture: same with a Michael Bay flick. A non-Michael Bay movie, Pirates of the Caribbean was based on a park ride, but at least they made it into a movie! Today's movies, for some anyway, are turned into a ride, to speak to more than local spectators and satisfy a global audience, maybe? Portion of the story happens in China (with very little plot justification, if at all!) most likely to appeal to one fifth of the world population...
I haven't really tried, but is there one, just one stable shot, not movement or zoom or anything, in the entire film?
A nearly three hour movie, over a billion dollars worldwide... Well, hundred of millions of spectators can't be wrong: they love avant- garde...
Words and Pictures
(2013)
Why is it so underwhelming...?
7 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Good news first: the idea and premise for the movie are great: the dichotomy of words and pictures. Fine arts battling against literary arts, which will come on top? Oftentimes in the movie one character or another declares the emotional objectives of art, the aim to making us breathless. So... for a story so imbued with the underlying idea of the overwhelming quality of art, it strangely and ironically falls flat. Why? Hard to tell. One of the reasons, from a scientific point of view is the chemistry between Binoche and Owens, chemistry as explosive as a glass of stale water left in the teachers lounge too long. The budding romance between the two teachers is as mysterious (coming from nowhere) as it is puzzling and pointless. I am still trying to figure out the weird business between Emily and her bullies, really a lost episode without much emotional connections to the rest of the narrative (besides the obvious "image" and "words" that Emily and her nemesis use). Very disappointing film. I heard many senior citizens loved the movie. Can't account for taste.
RoboCop
(2014)
Broken Promises
23 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Many Hollywood productions suffer a common ailment, which is to start with a bang, in some cases with a promising prologue only to lose its way by diverging to mindless actions or just forgetting what it started with in the first place. Robocop (2014) is one perfect example: initiating with a very interesting premise of government/corporate surveillance versus individual freedom, within the context of American involvement in the Middle East and the assumption that when we are discussing individual liberties, it is only American liberty, no one else, viewers have a tendency to think that the film will explore those fascinating notions. Liberty to US citizens and foreigners used as guinea pigs for our surveillance programs (because they "prefer" it), we're in for a treat. Captain America - Winter Soldier also examined surveillance programs, to a slightly better result. But Robocop loses its way, as I said, with the government and the private sector trading bad guys/good guys spots. The original film indeed featured the private enterprise in a very negative light. In 2014 the movie is a bit more subtle but also much more muddled. I guess we prefer our stories straightforward... But this one changes to an individual drama quite rapidly and the initial debate is all but forgotten. This being said, I did enjoy the movie, the acting was surprisingly good and, yes, it is good to see Michael Keaton again. The question "what happened to him in the course of the last 20 years" or "after Batman" is justified, but here's an actor we see not often enough, maybe once a year or so, in background or subplot roles. Interesting film.
Elysium
(I) (2013)
Maybe a little overrated...
5 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the first half, if not the first two thirds of the movie with excitement. The rhythm and pace were near perfect, the story itself almost made sense and the internal logic, while shaky at times (why give him an exoskeleton and no one else?) was almost appropriate. Then it went downhill... It appears the filmmakers forgot to write an ending to the movie as the narrative suddenly and absolutely went all over the place, throwing logic and common sense out the window on their way to device a completely implausible happy ending (sans Damon) to suit an anti-conformist message for the movie. Don't get me wrong, I share the "message" but the ending unvalidated the meaning. The beginning of the end comes after the murder of John Carlyle (beautifully played by William Fitchner). Well the murder itself was the result of such a contrive course of events and complete coincidence that it was hard to digest, but let's say... Delacourt (Jodie Foster) wants anyone and everyone dead as the deadly secret lodged in Carlyle's brain is now within a computer hard drive somewhere (yeah...) In any events, let's say... it's OK. She reactivates her favorite killer, Kruger (an excellent Copley who shows an amazing range from one film to another) who finds Da Costa (Damon), loses him but figures out where he's been before (????), again contriving Da Costa's girlfriend kidnapping (along with her sick daughter)... Kruger reveals his sadistic side, brings the women to Elysium, has his face blown away, is restored but comes out more sadistic than ever, takes over the joint while Da Costa's friends fly to an undefended Elysium. The suspense is well done but so artificial you cannot possibly believe it. Now let's be clear: the last third of the film displays a rhythmic break, a complete divorce, from the rest of the narrative. His good for nothing "ally" (Spider) all of sudden risks his life for... I'm still not sure... I was a bit surprised that both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes' ratings were in the 60s (reflecting reviewers ratings, of course). If you rate this movie based on politics, so be it. If you review it on a technical and narrative level, unfortunately it is a failure.
Weird dynamic between book and film...
21 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I give it a 6/10 only because it leaves so much off the book and, in the process, actually leaves a lot of actions/concepts unexplained in the film. The paradox (and my mixed feelings about the film) is thus: the novel is an honorable failure, in my humble opinion, as it does go all over the place without any easy connection for the reader to make. Maybe novels should make you sweat, true enough, only to make you reflect. However the author breaks the rhythm so often, brings so many disparate POVs that the reader (yours truly included) feel that the author is missing something, that Foers has it all meaningfully arranged in his mind but is incapable to convey meaning in the printed word (well, a bit like an autistic person; I for one am the father of a kid with special needs, so I know what it feels like). However all the ingredients are there: three generations affected by war events, traumatized by separation, seemingly unable to establish a so-called normal human relationship (except Oskar's dad, to an extent). These are elements that should have been included, to a limited degree, into the movie. For instance, the grandfather's own background story, slightly more defined in the book and peppered in the film with Oskar as the focus, could have brought so much more to the understanding of the traumas suffered by all. As it is, we are left with little else than uninteresting coincidences. This being said, yes, I loved the movie and, yes, it brought me to read the book. My contradictory feelings are that although the book goes all over the place, it did contain the basic elements to expand on Oskar (and his grandfather or the renter), elements which could have been brought forth and used into the movie. The film streamlines the book and the narrative, true, but leaves us with a meaningless skeleton.
Footnote
(2011)
Just one advice: watch this movie!
29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
What to say: the rhythm is perfect, the tone is expertly controlled by the director, the acting is close to sublime. This character-driven narrative lacks nothing and, yes, it is unpredictable at times. The autistic father is played with deceptive ease and gusto by Shlomo Bar Aba and, when you think about it, his finding of the truth could only be unavoidable given his expertise with the written word and his penchant for making nearly impossible (for us poor mortals!) connections between expressions, phonemes and other linguistic beasts. The fact that the film ends up with us wondering if Eliezer, the father, will accept the prize or not is part of the quality of the movie: it depends on you as a viewer, as well as your personality. I think he can only accept as to level off the playing field, so to speak, and to let his son think he (his son) is in control. But who knows? Last word? Excellent!
Predictable, and patronizing...
29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
In her blog, Evelyn Greenslade (Judi Dench) wrote that she, like her fellow expats, had to adapt. Ironically enough I must have missed the part where they "adapt" because I cannot remember any of the characters adapting to anything in Jaipur, with the possible exception of Muriel (Maggie Smith) who appears to be slightly less racist by the end. Evelyn, for all her talks on "adapting" is the one teaching the locales about British telephone etiquette and customs. Dashwood (Tom Wilkinson) also teaches the youths the intricacies of cricket. Norman (Ronald Pickup) finally meets a woman he likes in Jaipur... a British woman! Muriel proves to be a much better hotel manager than the natives... and ends up managing the joint. The movie reeks with imperialism which is surprising in the 21st century. The narrative is predictable to the extreme, there is no one single event/piece of dialogue/development that you do not foresee a mile ahead. There are more clichés per square minute than many stories I watched or read recently. Yes I am a bit intrigued by the fact that on Rottentomatoes.com and Metacritic.com the film appears to rank favorably with reviewers as well as with the general public. However I just happen to disagree with most of them and to side with one scribe who wrote of the colossal waste of talent amalgamated here. The reason I give TBEMH a 5 and not a 1 is the actors who absolutely provide their very best; but at the end it was not enough and Graham Dashwood expresses it in ways I can not possibly replicate: he dies of boredom.
Marie Antoinette
(2006)
Intentions are there, the result is awkward...
9 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It is hard to figure out what went wrong with Marie Antoinette (the movie and the character...) We may fathom Coppola's intentions, barely distinct in the final rendition. For instance, Kirsten Dunst's interpretation and acting are, at first sight, awful, deprived of any professionalism and devoid of any meaning. The 80s and 90s music is so out of place it makes you giggle (or weep, depending). Then you think what maybe, just maybe, the director had in mind: draw a sharp distinction between the context (18th century Versailles) and Marie Antoinette's state of mind; the formal décor, the classical comportment, the very serious consequences of one's actions (or inactions) stand out against the music. Her acting, for instance, appears out of place in a costume drama, more compatible with a high school comedy (or Mary Jane
). However it does clash once put in opposition to almost every other actors/actresses in the movie and I can't help think it is intentional. She is the young innocent, the gamine still, who just wants to have fun but is slowly starting to grasp the seriousness of her situation. How does it come out? Not very well. We can sense the intention but the results are very much lacking, if my perception is correct. The rhythm and tension so present in Lost in Translation are completely missing here. It is a film that does not know where to go, desperately searching for itself; so are we, asking "where are they going with this scene, with this sequence, with this soundtrack?... The gap between the music and the setting, by the way, is much more bothersome than revealing and only an intellectual effort as opposed to an emotional epiphany provides the viewer with some clues as to the objectives of the filmmaker. Yes we understand that the setting (American accents, modern music, etc) is supposed to make Marie Antoinette contemporary to us, to make her the everyday girl trapped in a political marriage (saw the Converse All Star sneaker? The point is made). Yes we understand that women are blamed for everything, going from the sexual to the economy to the political realms (we kind of got it after the first 500 times it was implied). The scheme is more or less successful when it comes to detach Marie Antoinette from her environment, be it the political milieu that she completely fails to grasp or the French peasantry whose anger is brewing outside Versailles (and whose silhouettes we barely see by the end of the narrative. Still why some speak with a distinctive French accent, other with a British or Australian inflection, a couple with an American drawl, go figure. Some of the shifts in the film are quite unexplained, dramatically speaking. Marie Antoinette's relationship with Madame Du Barry first is depicted as detrimental to the Dauphine but suddenly shifts to Du Barry yearning for Marie Antoinette's attention, which is odd. The abrupt hatred of the noblesse towards her (at the opera) leaves the viewer in want of some Cliff Notes, in spite of the lengthy and seemingly irrelevant preceding two hours. Of course we were treated to "The Queens is overspending" voice-overs and other accusations and, yes, we understand that compared to the enormous expense related to sending armies overseas her antics are nothing (and she is blamed for France's financial debacle, got it, got it), but the shift is quite hasty in visual and dramatic terms. There is a historical explanation to this, but it is totally omitted in the film, hence breaking the rhythm and the plot to pieces (or what was left of it) It is one of the world's saddest ironies that French monarchy's contribution to the American Revolution partially and ultimately fed the movement that shove it in the dustbin of history. It is also implied here, but you have to make it up as opposed to feel it. At the end, Coppola's Marie Antoinette is, as a movie or character, quite "insignifiant."
Get Smart
(2008)
...not a spoof, not original, not funny...
29 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The original TV show was never a hilarious, side-splitting, Mack Sennett-like comedy show. Buck Henry and Mel Brooks meant to display a sarcastic spoof of both the spy genre and the Cold War era and they achieved their goal seamlessly. A great way to follow it up, nearly half a century later, is to adapt both the humor and setting to today's mores, politics and sensibility. So what went wrong? It could be a simple lack of wit, an unwillingness to push the situations and the joke toward the absurdist side of the track, just flat writing or, sometimes worse, a dull visual (or literal) rendition of the writing. The fact that the show starts with a technically modernized version of the numerous doors/gates Max is walking through at the start of every show is already indicative of the lack of imagination we are about to be served with. The cone of silence episode is so bad it's good: at once pointless and a Xerox copy of the original (plus the CGI, of course
) The film suffers from too much reliability on the original: Agent 13's tree episode is a great example as it should appeal to boomers' memory of the agent we only saw the face of, but falls flat to viewers who have no idea who the initial 13 was. However the "fall flat" syndrome applies here: whether the spoof is on the original, or the film attempts to be original, Bill Murray and Steve Carell's scene is just unfunny, quite sad actually. The re-expression of the famous line about the suicide pill ("How do I get them to take it") is just that: a re-iteration of the line, a photocopy unadorned, so to speak. Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) walks in disgust at this point and we share her pain. Other good scenes fall flat (sorry for the repeat, but it happens a lot in the movie), for instance: and escaping Max uses the old Control gadgets off a museum only to (metaphorically and literally) running out of gas (and battery) once out of the museum. End of the joke. Oh no, the original Siegfried happens to be outside the museum. Ooops, he's rear ended. Next scene. I think Turan in the LA Times rightfully said that it was a better action flick than it was a comedy. Agreed. The humor is there, at times, will make you smile sometimes, laugh once or twice, but for the most part it is even as in monotonous even...
The Missing
(I) (2003)
So promising...
17 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Ron Howard probably directed one of his best movies with The Missing, but that's not saying much. Howard is a master at predictability as he rarely catches his viewers unaware at any level, be it the detailed moment (when Blanchett investigates the non-return of Brake, Emilio and the girls, you absolutely know what she will find and when) to the overall movie (had Jones survived I would have been the most surprised of viewers). Howard is an excellent technician but he couldn't blow any life in material like The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons. Beautiful Mind is interesting in that respect because the narrative does keep us on our toes and we keep wondering what is real and what is imagined, but once our curiosity is satisfied Howard keeps battering a now-useless suspense at us. In The Missing the opportunities kept building up and presenting themselves: the two extreme religious aspects (Maggie and her European Christianity as opposed to the Brujo and his native, earth-bound spirituality) which could potentially express the cultural and colonialist antagonism at play. In the middle was Jones, the former ranger playing native: the whole thing could explode into a rich debate where no one is right or wrong. Instead the first half of the movie ends to let the gunfights and battles start, seemingly unrelated to the overlaying conflicts displayed in the first hour. Maggie becomes a gun-totting brood defender and we only learn through the deleted scenes that Jones was no rancher but had left because he was a painter. In the same way in which Apollo 13 could not possibly end differently from the historical fact (the capsule made it back to Earth...) the same here is true: the family is re-united into a world where the ranchers survive and the natives don't. The only way natives could apparently express their grievances was through acts of sadistic barbarism, according to the narrative. Of course they lost...
2012
(I) (2009)
Family, family, family... isn't it what Hollywood is all about...?
27 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
To review a film like 2012 is like critiquing the rinse cycle of your latest wash. It happened and the product came out exactly as its makers intended it. The only comment I would like to make, though, is how obvious and how telling some of Hollywood's strategies are being displayed here. Since storytelling has been invented by a couple of apes coming out of the Cro-Magnon era, the main, almost the only common factor in all narratives is Family. What is Cinderella but the story of families protecting and promoting their DNA? What is the Iliad and the Odyssey but competing families struggling to get their genes to procreate? What is the Sopranos... You get the point. 2012 is the history of a failed family (a divorce) getting back together after the new husband has been properly dispatched in a submarine turbine. The End. Subplot elements include a Russian tycoon and his spoiled brats accompanied by an unfaithful mistress (also dispatched) and her pilot lover (ditto). The brats survive. Urgent need of an academic journal devoted exclusively to Narrative and Family.
Midnight in Paris
(2011)
Fantastic idea lazily brought to screen
27 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Let me clear this out right off the bat: I am a big-time Woody Allen fan. His 60s and 70s comedies are classics for the ages and his slightly more serious reflections on love and relationship (Annie Hall, Manhattan, etc) are seminal works. With Midnight in Paris, Allen comes back in shape and it's about time as he did hit a couple of road bumps in the last decade or so (or didn't hit it off, so to speak, with reviewers and audience alike). MIP starts à la Manhattan with long, steady shots of Paris by day and night accompanied by appropriate music. The idea is brilliant: a nostalgic and disgruntled writer, Gil (Owen) accidentally travels in time to the exact time period he is longing for, 1920s Paris. There he meets all his literary gods and goddesses and thinks himself in paradise, especially when compared to his present (2010) life of engagement to an incompatible woman (McAdams), frustrated ambitions, etc. He meets his destiny with Adriana (Cotillard) who herself longs for La Belle Époque, 1900s Paris. The epiphany comes when Gil alone realizes that the grass is always greener from afar, etc, and other fortune cookies pseudo-truism. Breaking the engagement and moving to Paris, he meets his truer destiny with Gabrielle (Seydoux) and all is well. The problem with MIP is that the script is merely brought to life and image as it appears that the auteur did not know what to do with it, or how to extract some juice off Gil's travels. Allen does not travel himself beyond postcard Paris and Psychology for Dummies blurbs. The beginning of the movie is so promising (long uncut takes of Gil and his fiancée, languorous pans to follow the protagonists). MIP goes on with eery college filmmaking of shot/counter-shot of stale dialogues where top talent actors seem to be wasted: they do not appear to improvise so much as they read from a cue card. By the end females are clueless to what happened to them and Gil asserts his independence. OK, vintage Allen. Is MIP a failure? Yes, partially at least. And fully overrated.
The Host
(2006)
The National Character in The Host
8 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The interesting part in The Host is how "nationals" and "non-nationals" are portrayed. An American doctor orders the dumping of dangerous and toxic material into the river (he's the bad guy, akin to American atomic bombers in Japan giving rise to Godzilla and other monsters). A Korean technician exhibits a national weakness complex by complying to the order. Without any material protection, the country is left at the mercy of a foreign agent. In need of supervision, they rely on US interest to show them the way: it does not work (hence, the dumping).
Korean national psyche in the movie is also symbolized by the motherless family, lost and confused.
The family's mother left home, but the aunt comes and uses her archery skills to fight the beast; the girl herself gives her life to save the boy... The woman (mother figure) sacrificing everything to save the country.
The Korean family relies on themselves AND low tech solution (a bow, an arrow, itself a symbol of Korean history) to defeat the American super high tech toxic invasion.
Highly recommended.
Korean national psyche in the movie is also symbolized by the motherless family, lost and confused.
The family's mother left home, but the aunt comes and uses her archery skills to fight the beast; the girl herself gives her life to save the boy... The woman (mother figure) sacrificing everything to save the country.
The Korean family relies on themselves AND low tech solution (a bow, an arrow, itself a symbol of Korean history) to defeat the American super high tech toxic invasion.
Highly recommended.
The Incredibles
(2004)
The Hidden Messages of The Incredibles
20 May 2005
Where to start? The movie, written and directed by Mr. Bird, mingles superheros actions and mundane life. However, it is when you examine the mundane that you realize that Mr. Bird's own ideology is transferred to screen. Besides having an ineffective token African American character and a control freak stay-at-home mother, Bird likes to have ElasticGirl instill fear within her kids (probably justified given the circumstances of the film). She warns them that the villains at hand are not like the Saturday morning cartoons villains, they will not exercise any restraint because they are faced with children, they will kill them if given the chance. The following, very well done, chase, provides justification for her comments. But there has been so much fake creation of fear recently in real life that you can't but grind at such a suggestion.
The superheros are confined to inactivity at the beginning of the movie due to activist courts and lawyers, in spite of the fact that supers were saving Joe Sixpack's life on a daily basis. Sued for alleged incidents, Mr. Incredible is forced to retirement. Working, seemingly, with the government (the agent is present at Bob and Helen's wedding), the administration decides to go underground. The activist courts and lawyers reminds one of the Bush administration's recent claim that civil courts decisions to allow too much money in malpractice suits, for instance, cost society too much and is the reason insurance is so expensive. His next job as an insurance adjuster completes the picture. Interesting.
The movie, aesthetically, is an absolute wonder, though, good cover for a conservative message. Anyway, warmly recommended, so very good and, yes, can't wait for the sequel, if there is one.
The superheros are confined to inactivity at the beginning of the movie due to activist courts and lawyers, in spite of the fact that supers were saving Joe Sixpack's life on a daily basis. Sued for alleged incidents, Mr. Incredible is forced to retirement. Working, seemingly, with the government (the agent is present at Bob and Helen's wedding), the administration decides to go underground. The activist courts and lawyers reminds one of the Bush administration's recent claim that civil courts decisions to allow too much money in malpractice suits, for instance, cost society too much and is the reason insurance is so expensive. His next job as an insurance adjuster completes the picture. Interesting.
The movie, aesthetically, is an absolute wonder, though, good cover for a conservative message. Anyway, warmly recommended, so very good and, yes, can't wait for the sequel, if there is one.
The Village
(2004)
Metaphor of a culture of fear...
20 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The year, 2004, how to create a lie, an alternate reality? One of the deleted scenes (from the DVD) includes a drill in which Walker (William Hurt) rings the alarm bell and everyone scatter back to their houses and hid underground. In the finished product, there is such a scene (not a drill) where a creature intrudes in the village and the same bell has everybody running to the basement. The scene is reminiscent of a 40s or 50s government drill (remember the black and white clips in which children jump under school desks and entire families gather into anti-nuclear shelters?) Another deleted scene has Noah's father his family about the murder of his brothers, blaming it on the creatures, then claims that this is not to frighten them, just to "inform you".
The theatrical version had already enough information for us to conclude that there is a negative nudge towards, not only the 50s, but also the present White House administration: the creation of fear, of an enemy, the blaming of another (the other) for your own mistakes, the elaboration of a propaganda campaign in order to submit a population to your agenda. Isn't't the forbidden color, red, is also reminiscent of communism.
The Village then reveals us that it was all a farce, a hoax created to keep the good citizens of the place into both ignorance and seclusion.
Two points here: One, the deleted scenes make the movie even more subversive, so I assume they have been discarded for a political reason. Secondly, how not to see the symbol of storytelling and "true story" as manipulative techniques of persuasion, to "inform" with lies. Actually, Walker says of Noah's death the "he made our story real." You do not need reality to make a story, just a credible series of facts that you connect accordingly with a made-up context. Remind you of anybody lately?
In a more aesthetic level, is the movie at the level of what you should expect of the director of The Sixth Sense? No, the "revelations" to Walker's daughter are laughable and anti-climatic at best. But it is unfair to compare with such an ingenious work of art.
Recommended.
The theatrical version had already enough information for us to conclude that there is a negative nudge towards, not only the 50s, but also the present White House administration: the creation of fear, of an enemy, the blaming of another (the other) for your own mistakes, the elaboration of a propaganda campaign in order to submit a population to your agenda. Isn't't the forbidden color, red, is also reminiscent of communism.
The Village then reveals us that it was all a farce, a hoax created to keep the good citizens of the place into both ignorance and seclusion.
Two points here: One, the deleted scenes make the movie even more subversive, so I assume they have been discarded for a political reason. Secondly, how not to see the symbol of storytelling and "true story" as manipulative techniques of persuasion, to "inform" with lies. Actually, Walker says of Noah's death the "he made our story real." You do not need reality to make a story, just a credible series of facts that you connect accordingly with a made-up context. Remind you of anybody lately?
In a more aesthetic level, is the movie at the level of what you should expect of the director of The Sixth Sense? No, the "revelations" to Walker's daughter are laughable and anti-climatic at best. But it is unfair to compare with such an ingenious work of art.
Recommended.
Laws of Attraction
(2004)
Better supporting players than the 2 main actors
1 September 2004
"Laws of Attraction" is another example of big studios thinking that casting big names in a romantic comedy is a sure way to create hormonal chemistry on the screen. However, Moore and Brosnan create as much fizzle as a firecracker exploding underwater. Moore clearly goes through the motion, collects her paycheck and goes to the next project: she is much more capable and talented than that! Brosnan attempts an effort but the screenplay gives him nothing to chew on. What is extremely interesting is watching the deleted scenes on the DVD: most of the cut scenes actually bestow a human and, should I say, inferior and helpless aspect to Brosnan's Daniel Rafferty. Moore comes out more assertive. Why were the scenes deleted is a study in itself... Give the upper hand to the man? Another aspect of the movie which, through comparison, have a tendency to further convince us of Moore and Brosnan's lame performance and characters is the supporting cast. Frances Fisher's turn as Moore's mother is exquisite. Reminding one of "Absolutely Fabulous" premises of a mother attempting pathetically to be younger than her daughter, she is worth the price of admission (or rental) alone. And the rockers are fabulous, Michael Sheen and Parker Posey as the divorcees-to-be millionaire hippies. All this only stresses Moore and Brosnan's inability to avoid a failure. Well, it also failed in "Maid in Manhattan" with Fienes, didn't it?
A movie which doesn't exist by itself, for itself.
16 November 2002
I always start bad reviews by: What went wrong with this movie? I then scratch my head, wondering between theories and assumptions. In this case, with so many different factors leaping at me, I don't know where to start.
Still, what is the dominant cause: is it the fact that the `romance' between Padmé and our young Jedi bubbles as much chemistry as a glass of flat water? Is it that the narrative is about as dead as a dry branch? Or is it that you feel that the movie is coming with its own Cliff Notes, trying to explain too much what it's incapable of expanding in film form? The overall impression is of somebody trying very hard to explicate a tedious joke.
What the production ultimately suffers is its sense of obligation to justify the future, notably Episodes IV to VI; it appears that the movie doesn't exist for itself, by itself, but to validate the impending (and already shown since 1976, then unavoidable) denouement, hence its Cliff Notes feeling and awkward and artificial pace and rhythm. Attempting to bring some narrative stride to the movie, the embarrassing `parallel' editing between romantic Nabu and Obi-Wan Kenobi's mission to Camino is gauche and clumsy, showing as much professionalism and sense of timing as first-time comedian or less excitement than a wall calendar.
From the moment Senator Padmé's ship lands, we feel the burden the movie places on itself to explain the next few episodes. Her dealings with the Senate seem a waste of time to them and us, only to have Palpatine request Anakin Skywalker to protect her. Anybody who hasn't suspected that Palpatine could in fact be the future Emperor, I have a golden bridge to sell you. It's even in the credits, so why the pseudo air of mystery? The two Jedis go on caring for our young Senator only as a silly motive for a visually good pursuit in the sky of the city. And so goes the rest of the movie: any dead time's raison d'être is to build up a battle, a fight, etc. Lucas is good at that, but I disagree with the people who claim he is still erecting a saga, a folktale or a legend: he did that a quarter of a century ago, he's explaining it to us now in case we didn't get it.
When it comes to actor direction, George Lucas didn't write the book, he didn't even read it. Seasoned thespians can pull it out, like Samuel L. Jackson or Christopher Lee (they've seen and worked with worse!). But younger performers have a harder time not being supervised, as demonstrated by Natalie Portman's very dull routine, or Hayden Christensen's relatively overexcited act. In his case, though, it is appropriate at times and altogether believable, his intense personification of Anakin earning him applause and making him one of the only actors in this production deserving his salary and our praises. He fights to create personae, a character out of a lifeless script, and he merits our high regards for it. To defend Portman, her character exists for no other reason than to substantiate Christensen's character; unfortunately, her lack of experience shows and her disappointing interpretation suits the rest of the movie.
Of course we could make a point of talking about the ambiguous ending, with the future Emperor telling the Duke that everything is going according to plan. This finale is plainly out of touch with the tone of the rest of the movie, which is too simplistic to come up with such a conclusion. But at least it makes us reflect
Obviously, as usual in a production like this (sigh ) the chase scenes, the combat sequences and Yoda's handling of the light saber are probably worth the price of admission (or of rental), but the filmmakers were too inept at filling up the in-between scenes, showing a sense of uneasiness combining disparate patches of action together: the fight and battle sections blend inadequately and maladroitly with the rest of the plot, making Attack of the Clones a good video game background matte and little else.
Still, what is the dominant cause: is it the fact that the `romance' between Padmé and our young Jedi bubbles as much chemistry as a glass of flat water? Is it that the narrative is about as dead as a dry branch? Or is it that you feel that the movie is coming with its own Cliff Notes, trying to explain too much what it's incapable of expanding in film form? The overall impression is of somebody trying very hard to explicate a tedious joke.
What the production ultimately suffers is its sense of obligation to justify the future, notably Episodes IV to VI; it appears that the movie doesn't exist for itself, by itself, but to validate the impending (and already shown since 1976, then unavoidable) denouement, hence its Cliff Notes feeling and awkward and artificial pace and rhythm. Attempting to bring some narrative stride to the movie, the embarrassing `parallel' editing between romantic Nabu and Obi-Wan Kenobi's mission to Camino is gauche and clumsy, showing as much professionalism and sense of timing as first-time comedian or less excitement than a wall calendar.
From the moment Senator Padmé's ship lands, we feel the burden the movie places on itself to explain the next few episodes. Her dealings with the Senate seem a waste of time to them and us, only to have Palpatine request Anakin Skywalker to protect her. Anybody who hasn't suspected that Palpatine could in fact be the future Emperor, I have a golden bridge to sell you. It's even in the credits, so why the pseudo air of mystery? The two Jedis go on caring for our young Senator only as a silly motive for a visually good pursuit in the sky of the city. And so goes the rest of the movie: any dead time's raison d'être is to build up a battle, a fight, etc. Lucas is good at that, but I disagree with the people who claim he is still erecting a saga, a folktale or a legend: he did that a quarter of a century ago, he's explaining it to us now in case we didn't get it.
When it comes to actor direction, George Lucas didn't write the book, he didn't even read it. Seasoned thespians can pull it out, like Samuel L. Jackson or Christopher Lee (they've seen and worked with worse!). But younger performers have a harder time not being supervised, as demonstrated by Natalie Portman's very dull routine, or Hayden Christensen's relatively overexcited act. In his case, though, it is appropriate at times and altogether believable, his intense personification of Anakin earning him applause and making him one of the only actors in this production deserving his salary and our praises. He fights to create personae, a character out of a lifeless script, and he merits our high regards for it. To defend Portman, her character exists for no other reason than to substantiate Christensen's character; unfortunately, her lack of experience shows and her disappointing interpretation suits the rest of the movie.
Of course we could make a point of talking about the ambiguous ending, with the future Emperor telling the Duke that everything is going according to plan. This finale is plainly out of touch with the tone of the rest of the movie, which is too simplistic to come up with such a conclusion. But at least it makes us reflect
Obviously, as usual in a production like this (sigh ) the chase scenes, the combat sequences and Yoda's handling of the light saber are probably worth the price of admission (or of rental), but the filmmakers were too inept at filling up the in-between scenes, showing a sense of uneasiness combining disparate patches of action together: the fight and battle sections blend inadequately and maladroitly with the rest of the plot, making Attack of the Clones a good video game background matte and little else.
Proof of Life
(2000)
Doctor, no pulse!
11 August 2002
The problem with Proof of Life is that it's competent in parts but absolutely sloppy as a whole. The mixture of suspense and romance are embarrassing at best. When Crowe and Ryan kiss, you just think `where is this coming from?' Previously, there has been absolutely no chemistry between them. There's been more romance at the camp between Morse's character and his female guard than between his wife and Crowe! The final battle is very well done, just totally disconnected with the rest of the movie. I still have a hard time understanding what a mercenary like Crowe's character is doing in this mess. To open his own shop? Maybe, but it's a hard sell (to us!). The rhythm of the movie makes it feel that it's been taken from several different motion pictures and glued together in the editing room and voila! You have Proof of Life. Just no pulse.
Captain Corelli's Mandolin
(2001)
Cruze and Cage: wrong chemistry
18 May 2002
It's hard to pinpoint the reasons of the failure of Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Is it another good example of a how-to-cash-in-on-a-literary-success-and-do it-hastily-so-your-audience-is-hooked? Is it really what happened? The book is already a few years old, and it wasn't a Grisham after all. So what's or who's responsible for such a laughable result?
One thing most of the critics rightfully pointed out: the language, or languages, of the film. On a remote Greek island invaded first by liberal (or inept) Italian soldiers then by a big bad German army, everybody speak English for the sake of the American audience who still feels deeply embarrassed when Nicholas Cage (seemingly speaking some Greek, we assume) is the go-between during a `surrender' ceremony: he reads the Greek text from the island official, translates it into Italian, I mean English, then goes get a German soldier who doesn't appear to be disturbed by any language barrier (actually, does the German soldier speak Italian, German or Greek: only his director could tell).
The rhythm of the film gives you the feeling that we're dealing with several different stories seemingly directed by different people then spliced together by a team of editors who thought that adding a totally irrelevant earthquake at the end would move us For those of us still awake, it just confirmed that the filmmakers had no idea how to kill time. The evolving relationship between Cruze and Cage is so unrelated to the rest of the narrative that when you get back to the island and the existing conflicts, you feel you just visited another island for a few minutes. Cruze's fiancé, which should have a link between Cruze/Cage and war situation on the island is indeed poorly used, and we either don't care about him, or just find him superfluous.
The filmmakers tried too hard at being politically correct and at satisfying their subtitle-haters American audience, and succeed at neither. They also attempted at chewing more than they and we can swallow: show side-by-side WWII and its geopolitical implication and a love story, all true stories. Titanic tried and made it, but we're not talking James Cameron here The narrative drifts from one focus to another, linking the two stories amateurishly, showing seemingly separate episodes without any warmth or talent, either from the cast or the production crew. The extreme violence of the last 30 minutes is so seems to be coming from left field, when compared with the rest of the film: the rhythm is totally off.
The last meeting between our two love birds, reunion intended to be climatic and tearjearking, falls so flat that the word awkward comes to mind: Cage appears to be years older, but not Cruze. Maybe the filmmakers were looking, without any kind of focal point or heart, for a Hollywoodian ending, and, as a matter of consequence, the actors are gauche and clumsy and don't know what to do, and neither do we: should we ask for a refund?
One thing most of the critics rightfully pointed out: the language, or languages, of the film. On a remote Greek island invaded first by liberal (or inept) Italian soldiers then by a big bad German army, everybody speak English for the sake of the American audience who still feels deeply embarrassed when Nicholas Cage (seemingly speaking some Greek, we assume) is the go-between during a `surrender' ceremony: he reads the Greek text from the island official, translates it into Italian, I mean English, then goes get a German soldier who doesn't appear to be disturbed by any language barrier (actually, does the German soldier speak Italian, German or Greek: only his director could tell).
The rhythm of the film gives you the feeling that we're dealing with several different stories seemingly directed by different people then spliced together by a team of editors who thought that adding a totally irrelevant earthquake at the end would move us For those of us still awake, it just confirmed that the filmmakers had no idea how to kill time. The evolving relationship between Cruze and Cage is so unrelated to the rest of the narrative that when you get back to the island and the existing conflicts, you feel you just visited another island for a few minutes. Cruze's fiancé, which should have a link between Cruze/Cage and war situation on the island is indeed poorly used, and we either don't care about him, or just find him superfluous.
The filmmakers tried too hard at being politically correct and at satisfying their subtitle-haters American audience, and succeed at neither. They also attempted at chewing more than they and we can swallow: show side-by-side WWII and its geopolitical implication and a love story, all true stories. Titanic tried and made it, but we're not talking James Cameron here The narrative drifts from one focus to another, linking the two stories amateurishly, showing seemingly separate episodes without any warmth or talent, either from the cast or the production crew. The extreme violence of the last 30 minutes is so seems to be coming from left field, when compared with the rest of the film: the rhythm is totally off.
The last meeting between our two love birds, reunion intended to be climatic and tearjearking, falls so flat that the word awkward comes to mind: Cage appears to be years older, but not Cruze. Maybe the filmmakers were looking, without any kind of focal point or heart, for a Hollywoodian ending, and, as a matter of consequence, the actors are gauche and clumsy and don't know what to do, and neither do we: should we ask for a refund?
Tell Your Friends