Better than Ocean 13 perhaps, but still quite bad. Gina Carano did so much better than John Cena. Too bad the director was Soderberg and not an 'actually' intelligent man. IMDb published an interview of Antonio Banderas on Haywire, but I wonder why. His screen time is less than 5 minutes in total, and not the most interesting 5 minutes either. Reasons are not explained, characters are not detailed, it is not a respectable film overall. Some people called Mallory the female Bourn. That is another mystery, because when I saw the world through Bourn's eyes, I never had any problem understanding what he was feeling or going through. In this film, I had no attachment with any of the characters. If the bad guys just killed Gina Carano in the middle of the film, I would not really feel any different, because I had no idea why a bunch of people were just randomly hurting, shooting at, or killing each other. I read a review a while back, where someone criticized those who came to watch this film expecting a real action film or some award- winning performances. He wrote he liked this film honestly because of the surreal feel. I can kind of appreciate his remark. Surrealism and retardedness are two extremes that can sometimes cross over from one side to the other. For mentally healthy people, who expect to see female Bourn with stylish performances from McGregor, Banderas, Fassbender, etc., I do not recommend this film at all. The film is well shot, well edited, the soundtrack is not too horrible, so I give it a 5. If I had to rate only the substance, I would rate it 1, like many others have done.
Reviews
30 Reviews
Liked it, but can't say I should
4 June 2010
I watched Sands of Time today ignoring all the negative reviews. It is true that if you have not played the game, you will not come to appreciate the film much. I heard Mechnar was in-the-loop all the way. But I feel if they took me instead, I would have suggested better cinematography and dialogues, if nothing else.
Jordan wrote somewhere that the prince had to be given a name because there were several conversations addressing him. Not mentioning his name even once would make things abnormally dramatic. Princes and princesses almost always were addressed by their positions and peers, at least in India. I do not know about Persia though, but does anybody? Prince calling princess by her first name within moments of introduction, even under stress, reminds me of IT companies, not Persian royal dynasty, or any other noble bloodline for that matter. If Jordan watched some Japanese films involving princes and princesses, he would know how far the story could progress before the princess were called anything other than hiime (princess).
But having said all that, I am very happy I watched it. Though it blew the chance of being an epic or even a memorable film, it still struck a poignant chord somewhere, bringing back many a sweet memory. Perhaps the credit is largely due to the game and not to the film. But the world was never a fair place to begin with.
The ending of the film was predictable. The game Sands of Time did not give the story any closure and left the gamers begging for more (though they never really received what they begged for). The film does. Just like Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney wants to observe box office success first and then bring up some weird new disaster scenario, along with some new prophecies, to start a sequel, if one ever comes out.
What bothered me the most in the whole film was the feeling of haste. People were delivering dialogues like they were being timed. People were fighting and even relaxing under strict time constraint. Scene transition, camera movement, warm moments, everything was rushed, often unnecessarily. Some moments in a larger than life tale deserve to be lingered. Sands of Time, of all stories, should not have excluded that from consideration. It ruined the film to a great extent, though perhaps a teenager who has no clue what PoP is all about will have fewer yawns watching the film because of this.
No or very little attention has been paid to the way words were delivered. Evidently there is no way of telling how an actual conversation between a Hindu and a Persia would sound back then (whenever that is), but a style could have been implemented to make the language sound a little more flowery, a little less discrete and a lot more exotic. They somehow, in their good conscience, excluded "Oh $hit!" and "What an a$$hole!". The rest was pretty much modern day American street English, which, under these circumstances, was revolting at best. Richard Coyle had probably never imagined talking without a British accent, but I expected far better from Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley. Kingsley has spoken with excellent Middle Eastern accent before in The House of Sand and Fog. Doing that here would make his shallow part somewhat redeemable. It would not be considered a spoiler, I am sure, to say Ben is the villain in the story. He found out about the dagger and the power it could unleash. But under no circumstances he uttered one word of how he became privy to that information. Information of such gravity must have been a closely kept secret. Skipping bits and pieces of cement in the story made the weak plot weaker.
The chemistry between Tamina (I do not like that name one bit) and Dastan (I dislike it a little less than Tamina) was, in one word, easy. That, however pleasant at the moment, was highly uncalled for. The resistance Tamina put in for the prince was strictly a formality, as if the director would say "Cut! That's going too far!" if she warmed up to him any easier. The resistance, the defiance, the sarcasm, the arrogance, the deceptiveness with which she hid her concerns for the prince, and most other character traits of Farah were missing in the film. Remembering Farah constantly seemed to be the only way of coping it. Of that I read here everyday from so many American viewers, I am convinced those subtle nuances of her character would not go unnoticed in the film. Why I came to see nothing of it is completely beyond my wits. Close to the end, when Dastan delivered Tamina a surprise, (can't say what that is but those who have played the game should be able to guess) Gemma totally failed to portray the mixture of awe, amazement, delight, curiosity and dilemma. It was a very defining moment in the story. She ruined it. However, I chose not to hold it against her. If she was in charge of the production, she would have shown wisdom enough never to pick herself for that role. She has done a good job considering.
Prince of Persia to me is more fun to watch than films like Robin Hood, directed by a man far more great than Mike Newell is. Mike, however, just like most other directors making game-to-movie-adaptations, forgot to watch and learn from the great directors who have attempted similar ambiances and done a far better job. He, along with Jordan Mechnar, should have thoroughly studied the likes of Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, if for no better reason, then at least to understand when to take things slow and let a passionate viewer cherish the moment, and the fact that the secret to an enjoyable film is not as conspicuous as a silly sequence about ostrich racing.
Jordan wrote somewhere that the prince had to be given a name because there were several conversations addressing him. Not mentioning his name even once would make things abnormally dramatic. Princes and princesses almost always were addressed by their positions and peers, at least in India. I do not know about Persia though, but does anybody? Prince calling princess by her first name within moments of introduction, even under stress, reminds me of IT companies, not Persian royal dynasty, or any other noble bloodline for that matter. If Jordan watched some Japanese films involving princes and princesses, he would know how far the story could progress before the princess were called anything other than hiime (princess).
But having said all that, I am very happy I watched it. Though it blew the chance of being an epic or even a memorable film, it still struck a poignant chord somewhere, bringing back many a sweet memory. Perhaps the credit is largely due to the game and not to the film. But the world was never a fair place to begin with.
The ending of the film was predictable. The game Sands of Time did not give the story any closure and left the gamers begging for more (though they never really received what they begged for). The film does. Just like Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney wants to observe box office success first and then bring up some weird new disaster scenario, along with some new prophecies, to start a sequel, if one ever comes out.
What bothered me the most in the whole film was the feeling of haste. People were delivering dialogues like they were being timed. People were fighting and even relaxing under strict time constraint. Scene transition, camera movement, warm moments, everything was rushed, often unnecessarily. Some moments in a larger than life tale deserve to be lingered. Sands of Time, of all stories, should not have excluded that from consideration. It ruined the film to a great extent, though perhaps a teenager who has no clue what PoP is all about will have fewer yawns watching the film because of this.
No or very little attention has been paid to the way words were delivered. Evidently there is no way of telling how an actual conversation between a Hindu and a Persia would sound back then (whenever that is), but a style could have been implemented to make the language sound a little more flowery, a little less discrete and a lot more exotic. They somehow, in their good conscience, excluded "Oh $hit!" and "What an a$$hole!". The rest was pretty much modern day American street English, which, under these circumstances, was revolting at best. Richard Coyle had probably never imagined talking without a British accent, but I expected far better from Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley. Kingsley has spoken with excellent Middle Eastern accent before in The House of Sand and Fog. Doing that here would make his shallow part somewhat redeemable. It would not be considered a spoiler, I am sure, to say Ben is the villain in the story. He found out about the dagger and the power it could unleash. But under no circumstances he uttered one word of how he became privy to that information. Information of such gravity must have been a closely kept secret. Skipping bits and pieces of cement in the story made the weak plot weaker.
The chemistry between Tamina (I do not like that name one bit) and Dastan (I dislike it a little less than Tamina) was, in one word, easy. That, however pleasant at the moment, was highly uncalled for. The resistance Tamina put in for the prince was strictly a formality, as if the director would say "Cut! That's going too far!" if she warmed up to him any easier. The resistance, the defiance, the sarcasm, the arrogance, the deceptiveness with which she hid her concerns for the prince, and most other character traits of Farah were missing in the film. Remembering Farah constantly seemed to be the only way of coping it. Of that I read here everyday from so many American viewers, I am convinced those subtle nuances of her character would not go unnoticed in the film. Why I came to see nothing of it is completely beyond my wits. Close to the end, when Dastan delivered Tamina a surprise, (can't say what that is but those who have played the game should be able to guess) Gemma totally failed to portray the mixture of awe, amazement, delight, curiosity and dilemma. It was a very defining moment in the story. She ruined it. However, I chose not to hold it against her. If she was in charge of the production, she would have shown wisdom enough never to pick herself for that role. She has done a good job considering.
Prince of Persia to me is more fun to watch than films like Robin Hood, directed by a man far more great than Mike Newell is. Mike, however, just like most other directors making game-to-movie-adaptations, forgot to watch and learn from the great directors who have attempted similar ambiances and done a far better job. He, along with Jordan Mechnar, should have thoroughly studied the likes of Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, if for no better reason, then at least to understand when to take things slow and let a passionate viewer cherish the moment, and the fact that the secret to an enjoyable film is not as conspicuous as a silly sequence about ostrich racing.
He Was a Quiet Man
(2007)
Beware of Heartbreak
15 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this film an exceptional 9, which is a rating too high for most films. I have seen thousands of films. I have lost count of how many films I have watched. Some inspired me, some broke my heart. But hardly have I ever seen a film that broke my heart as badly as this one. As a complement, I give it a 9.
There is probably no reason briefing the story here. It has been briefed by pretty much all the comment writers, both who loved it and who hated it. This film is an oxymoron. The more you hate it, the more respect it earns from you.
Through the eyes of a dispassionate viewer, it is a very interesting, and hardly clichéd, character study. But once you start feeling for the character, things won't go too good for you. Though some have compared this film with "Falling Down", I would rather compare it with "Donny Darko". Why, that will become very clear once you are done watching the film. After the credits are over, you may have lots of different reactions, and a film like this usually tends to polarize people's opinions because you cannot just pass some euphemistic remark and move on. But one thing you will be compelled to admit. There can be no tragedy greater than the realization that the best moments in your memory were the moments you never had.
This comment is probably the most erratically composed of all I have written so far. But I wanted to put it into words while the wound is deep.
There is probably no reason briefing the story here. It has been briefed by pretty much all the comment writers, both who loved it and who hated it. This film is an oxymoron. The more you hate it, the more respect it earns from you.
Through the eyes of a dispassionate viewer, it is a very interesting, and hardly clichéd, character study. But once you start feeling for the character, things won't go too good for you. Though some have compared this film with "Falling Down", I would rather compare it with "Donny Darko". Why, that will become very clear once you are done watching the film. After the credits are over, you may have lots of different reactions, and a film like this usually tends to polarize people's opinions because you cannot just pass some euphemistic remark and move on. But one thing you will be compelled to admit. There can be no tragedy greater than the realization that the best moments in your memory were the moments you never had.
This comment is probably the most erratically composed of all I have written so far. But I wanted to put it into words while the wound is deep.
Meet Dave
(2008)
I liked it!
29 November 2008
This is a nice little film with inoffensive humour, occasionally witty dialogues, and a sweet theme that is timeless. Accompanied by typical but still engaging music and sweet and sexy Gabrielle Union, this film has entertained me for one whole hour and a half.
I usually dislike comedy, especially when it is American. Except the ending scene, I hated the rest of Norbit, and I strongly disliked many other Eddy Murphy films. But I found nothing dislikable in this one. A fun film to watch for anybody anywhere. Due to light nature of treatment, I am giving it a 7, but I have read comments where people have given it a 9 and I am in unison with their views.
A 'clean' piece of entertainment.
I usually dislike comedy, especially when it is American. Except the ending scene, I hated the rest of Norbit, and I strongly disliked many other Eddy Murphy films. But I found nothing dislikable in this one. A fun film to watch for anybody anywhere. Due to light nature of treatment, I am giving it a 7, but I have read comments where people have given it a 9 and I am in unison with their views.
A 'clean' piece of entertainment.
Why did Stephen Sommers attach his name to this abysmal project?
12 November 2008
Abysmal. In one word. Lots of stuff happening. All are out of place. Maria Bello is good for a lot of roles. I loved most her performances. A History of Violence, Coyote Ugly, Jane Austen Book Club, Butterfly on a Wheel, etc. etc. But an actor should always know the ceiling of his/her capability. There are a few things Maria Bello is not; exotic, dream-rendering, charming in epic proportions to name a few. And Jet Li/Michelle Yeoh? That completely/absolutely/superlatively ruined what charm was still left in The Mummy project.
Stephen Sommers must have gone hysteric. Otherwise he would not let his name appear anywhere in the credits. If you want to see some cheap Kung Fu movie, see this one instead. Otherwise, take a walk.
Stephen Sommers must have gone hysteric. Otherwise he would not let his name appear anywhere in the credits. If you want to see some cheap Kung Fu movie, see this one instead. Otherwise, take a walk.
Under Suspicion
(2000)
Under Suspicion
2 October 2008
I have read some comments here about the film. I think they were randomly chosen. Most said it is a bad/lousy/disappointing film that is more like a staged play than a drama. I respectfully (though that depends on the standard of the comment) disagree.
When dogmatic people make alternate forms of reality and put manufactured truth to fill up the missing pieces of the puzzle to get the whole story the way they want to believe it, hammering on the root of it all takes toll on their emotions. And if you have abandoned what you loved because of the alternate reality rooted deeply into your mind, and realize one day things you see so vividly inside your head never really happened, you get defensive, and you get furious. You already left what you loved. Now you have to leave your truths. What is there left for you now? That is a miserable state where you cannot even hate anyone for it. But what if someone, someone who loves you more than he loves himself, tells some more lies to keep you settled in your own world? Would you trade him for your truths? Would you be happy that your suspicion had material cause, or be sad that the suspicion ruined all you loved? Under Suspicion is a story of three people. A rich man, his much younger exquisitely charming wife, and a police detective. Two little girls have been raped and killed. The detective is convinced that man Henry (Gene Hackman) is a paedophile and the killer he is looking for. He brings the couple to his station, and plays a mind-game with them. As they all get annoyed, tired, incensed, frustrated, impatient, little bits and pieces of information keeps getting divulged that slowly starts giving a base to the suspicion. So, is Henry the killer? What drove him to such a thing? In my humble opinion, those who are losing trust on a special someone, living in a world of made up truths, visualizing scenes of intimacy that they did not witness but are convinced took place, should all watch this film. You only live once. Would you let suspicion run your life? Is that choice yours to make? Maybe you will find out. Maybe you won't.
When dogmatic people make alternate forms of reality and put manufactured truth to fill up the missing pieces of the puzzle to get the whole story the way they want to believe it, hammering on the root of it all takes toll on their emotions. And if you have abandoned what you loved because of the alternate reality rooted deeply into your mind, and realize one day things you see so vividly inside your head never really happened, you get defensive, and you get furious. You already left what you loved. Now you have to leave your truths. What is there left for you now? That is a miserable state where you cannot even hate anyone for it. But what if someone, someone who loves you more than he loves himself, tells some more lies to keep you settled in your own world? Would you trade him for your truths? Would you be happy that your suspicion had material cause, or be sad that the suspicion ruined all you loved? Under Suspicion is a story of three people. A rich man, his much younger exquisitely charming wife, and a police detective. Two little girls have been raped and killed. The detective is convinced that man Henry (Gene Hackman) is a paedophile and the killer he is looking for. He brings the couple to his station, and plays a mind-game with them. As they all get annoyed, tired, incensed, frustrated, impatient, little bits and pieces of information keeps getting divulged that slowly starts giving a base to the suspicion. So, is Henry the killer? What drove him to such a thing? In my humble opinion, those who are losing trust on a special someone, living in a world of made up truths, visualizing scenes of intimacy that they did not witness but are convinced took place, should all watch this film. You only live once. Would you let suspicion run your life? Is that choice yours to make? Maybe you will find out. Maybe you won't.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
(2008)
Predictable, Eclectic and Not Novel, But Still Pretty Enjoyable
22 August 2008
A fellow has written here that the only thing that stands out in this film is male nudity, which is not a plus, and the acceptability of this film depends on the viewer's tolerance to averageness. Well, I am not going to strongly oppose that or anything, and maybe to most, that is what the film amounts down to, but I find this film much more enjoyable that Good Luck Chuck, or Heartbreak Kid, or other similar films a film school student has categorized as "apato" in another comment here.
Things shown in this film are, as always, not theoretically impossible, but it just doesn't happen. There are things the drop dead gorgeous beauties could do, that would change the lives of many, which they do not, except in the movies. But of course, it is a movie, so what the heck! One of the things that make this film more enjoyable than most other similar films is the fact that the central character of this film is not a veteran in the industry of playing loony characters, like Ben Stiller is. So it does not take too much of patience or tolerance or hard work to make yourself believe that this guy Peter, who is trying to forget Sarah Marshall, can actually be a normal man from a normal society, who is just sucking at living right now, but he is not completely banged up in the head. When I watched "There is Something about Mary", I felt severely suffocated and awkward, because it was mostly not funny and none of the characters in the film did anything at all like an actual human would do! Abnormal or dysfunctional are not synonyms of funny. It should not be too hard to understand, but people often don't! So in an industry where "There is Something About Mary" has received complements like "Phenomenal!" or "A True Collectible!", Forgetting Sarah Marshall deserves at least some credit, in my opinion.
There is not much else to say. I recommend this film over most other mindless comedies made in Hollywood. Not that this one is something very special, but at least I, as a not-so-outdoorsy and not-so-cool-but-still-normal man, could relate to it, and understood it, and had a few good laughs, and also could relate to the sad moments of the film.
If you are sick of films like Good Luck Chuck or Heartbreak Kid, there is a fair chance that you may still like Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I know I did!
Things shown in this film are, as always, not theoretically impossible, but it just doesn't happen. There are things the drop dead gorgeous beauties could do, that would change the lives of many, which they do not, except in the movies. But of course, it is a movie, so what the heck! One of the things that make this film more enjoyable than most other similar films is the fact that the central character of this film is not a veteran in the industry of playing loony characters, like Ben Stiller is. So it does not take too much of patience or tolerance or hard work to make yourself believe that this guy Peter, who is trying to forget Sarah Marshall, can actually be a normal man from a normal society, who is just sucking at living right now, but he is not completely banged up in the head. When I watched "There is Something about Mary", I felt severely suffocated and awkward, because it was mostly not funny and none of the characters in the film did anything at all like an actual human would do! Abnormal or dysfunctional are not synonyms of funny. It should not be too hard to understand, but people often don't! So in an industry where "There is Something About Mary" has received complements like "Phenomenal!" or "A True Collectible!", Forgetting Sarah Marshall deserves at least some credit, in my opinion.
There is not much else to say. I recommend this film over most other mindless comedies made in Hollywood. Not that this one is something very special, but at least I, as a not-so-outdoorsy and not-so-cool-but-still-normal man, could relate to it, and understood it, and had a few good laughs, and also could relate to the sad moments of the film.
If you are sick of films like Good Luck Chuck or Heartbreak Kid, there is a fair chance that you may still like Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I know I did!
The Contractor
(2007 Video)
Not if it ain't an action movie
4 July 2008
Every film has a heart. Some hearts are more special than the others. But you are bound to get a wrong impression if you draw your inference without knowing where the heart is.
To the plebeian crowd, if Wesley Snipes is on the poster, that means some semi-mindless non-stop action, with a streak of silly humour once in a while, is coming their way. But Wesley never signed an agreement about that, did he now? This is not an action film, though you see some action in it.
First of all, it is a very low budget film, so don't go all tough and smart criticizing it. Those B-movies, which come to TV only late at night because other slots are for those blockbusters, can certainly not be measured against The Art of War or Blade. The Contractor is a simple, low budget film that shows a little girl's bond with an assassin, whose mission has gone wrong and who has fallen the prey of his own employers. While the action sequences and other things are inadvertently done, very special care has been taken of those moments that reflect the warmth of feelings. Lena Heady was not a necessary recruit for this film, her role any pretty face could play. But I like her, so I am glad she did it.
Some low budget, non-famous films sometimes leave lasting impressions. Maybe they fail overall in box office and audience poll, but sometimes there can be very heartfelt elements in such films. I watched it late at night and liked it for what it is. I was not disappointed for what it was not. Because if I wanted someone other film, I would watch some other film.
But of course, idiots have minds (and comments on IMDb) of their own.
To the plebeian crowd, if Wesley Snipes is on the poster, that means some semi-mindless non-stop action, with a streak of silly humour once in a while, is coming their way. But Wesley never signed an agreement about that, did he now? This is not an action film, though you see some action in it.
First of all, it is a very low budget film, so don't go all tough and smart criticizing it. Those B-movies, which come to TV only late at night because other slots are for those blockbusters, can certainly not be measured against The Art of War or Blade. The Contractor is a simple, low budget film that shows a little girl's bond with an assassin, whose mission has gone wrong and who has fallen the prey of his own employers. While the action sequences and other things are inadvertently done, very special care has been taken of those moments that reflect the warmth of feelings. Lena Heady was not a necessary recruit for this film, her role any pretty face could play. But I like her, so I am glad she did it.
Some low budget, non-famous films sometimes leave lasting impressions. Maybe they fail overall in box office and audience poll, but sometimes there can be very heartfelt elements in such films. I watched it late at night and liked it for what it is. I was not disappointed for what it was not. Because if I wanted someone other film, I would watch some other film.
But of course, idiots have minds (and comments on IMDb) of their own.
Normal
(2007)
Nothing Radically Novel, But I Liked It
14 June 2008
This film is actually for the beginners. Beginner everything. Beginner cine-goer, beginner observer, beginner lover, beginner recuperating person. It did not tell me anything I already did not know. But I liked the style of representation in this film. Similar situations do happen in real life, though sometimes much less predictable, much more pivotal, and beyond redemption. There is, however, no point in making a film on what is the worst that could happen. It makes all the more sense to show while on your way to the last stand, at the edge of loneliness, what it is that you would cling on to or let go of. Sometimes that thing is within your reach, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is well-deserved, sometimes it is just a matter of chance. This film looks into some such characteristic cases.
Pretty much everyone in this film did what they had been asked of, I think. That was not much of a challenge. They are making more films like these nowadays, so probably it will not leave any deep impression for the days to come. But still, watching it just once will not be an utterly disappointing or revolting experience. You can raise questions, of course. But as you will soon realize, the answer to most questions is "It was never really meant to be a masterpiece or anything." And that pretty much sums it up!
Pretty much everyone in this film did what they had been asked of, I think. That was not much of a challenge. They are making more films like these nowadays, so probably it will not leave any deep impression for the days to come. But still, watching it just once will not be an utterly disappointing or revolting experience. You can raise questions, of course. But as you will soon realize, the answer to most questions is "It was never really meant to be a masterpiece or anything." And that pretty much sums it up!
The Mummy
(1999)
Everything a royal adventure should be!
20 March 2008
9 may seem way too much for an adventure film with not many under-the-surface messages if any at all, but believe me folks, it is well deserved! Since I was a little boy, anything and everything pertaining to Ancient Egyptian culture intrigued me like did nothing else. That is not really a very rare trait I had. But pitifully, it has never been much exploited by the almighty Hollywood. Other than cheap B-movies that dealt with cursed ankhs giving archeologists (who look like Peter North) a heightened libido, Egypt was not a context of mainstream film-making. Not many gifted directors tried to look into the real deal. Just like the concept of vampires, the concept of mummies coming back to life to take care of unfinished business (as funny as that may sound) has mostly been a context of derision, until Stephen Sommers.
Unlike the old fashioned directors with a patriotic agenda, modern America has produced a handful of gifted directors such a Stephen Sommers and Gore Verbinski. Instead of sweating their brains over ridiculous conspiracies inside CIA and FBI, Stephen Sommers made something which can be loved and enjoyed 100% by a person of just about any age group and ethnicity. He made use of beliefs and fantasies that were around for hundreds of years, if not thousands, but were never properly utilized before. It is a very difficult task to make a film which promises absolute entertainment in every single scene. To accomplish that, the director needs to be obsessed with the myths and legends himself. No one made TITANIC before James Cameron because they could not relate to the theme at the core of their heart. For exactly the same reason, The Mummy is truly the first of its kind.
Many people said this is more like the return of Indiana Jones. But is it truly? Indy had been to Egypt. We saw some real state-of-the-art camera work in there. But can anyone recall feeling even remotely fascinated about Egypt after watching Raiders of the Lost Ark? Egypt was more like a ground where Indy beat the Nazis in their own game. It could have been Madagascar instead and there would be no basic difference. It also had many not-so-sublime messages of communalism, which I did not dislike personally, but drastically lowered the cinematic value of the motion picture.
With once-in-a-lifetime performances from Brenden Fraser, Rachel Weisz and Oded Fehr, backed by a truly mindblowing musical score from Jerry Goldsmith and awe-inspiring photography and art direction, The Mummy is a film for those who are in love with Egypt, dying to get a true flavour but annoyed and bored with the cheap ideations. It is also for those who love no-nonsense memorable adventure films with the perfect balance of humour. Humour plays a very crucial role in just about any film. Filmmakers often seem to overdo it or leave it out of the equation. This film shows a wonderful balance of seriousness and humour. A little more humour and it could be sadly comic, a little less could make things a little less entertaining.
There is no point in trying to explore if everything shown in this film has historical significance or value, though some of the things indeed do. Watch this film to seek true charm, and charmed you shall be! What better background can there be to embellish the story-canvas of obscure passion and exotic desires with than ancient Egypt? This is one of the 10 most memorably entertaining films I have seen. After watching it a hundred times over, I feel childishly thrilled to watch it from the start again. Same goes for the sequel "The Mummy Returns", though I would not rate it so high. There is no time like the first time!
A timeless exotic adventure classic.
Unlike the old fashioned directors with a patriotic agenda, modern America has produced a handful of gifted directors such a Stephen Sommers and Gore Verbinski. Instead of sweating their brains over ridiculous conspiracies inside CIA and FBI, Stephen Sommers made something which can be loved and enjoyed 100% by a person of just about any age group and ethnicity. He made use of beliefs and fantasies that were around for hundreds of years, if not thousands, but were never properly utilized before. It is a very difficult task to make a film which promises absolute entertainment in every single scene. To accomplish that, the director needs to be obsessed with the myths and legends himself. No one made TITANIC before James Cameron because they could not relate to the theme at the core of their heart. For exactly the same reason, The Mummy is truly the first of its kind.
Many people said this is more like the return of Indiana Jones. But is it truly? Indy had been to Egypt. We saw some real state-of-the-art camera work in there. But can anyone recall feeling even remotely fascinated about Egypt after watching Raiders of the Lost Ark? Egypt was more like a ground where Indy beat the Nazis in their own game. It could have been Madagascar instead and there would be no basic difference. It also had many not-so-sublime messages of communalism, which I did not dislike personally, but drastically lowered the cinematic value of the motion picture.
With once-in-a-lifetime performances from Brenden Fraser, Rachel Weisz and Oded Fehr, backed by a truly mindblowing musical score from Jerry Goldsmith and awe-inspiring photography and art direction, The Mummy is a film for those who are in love with Egypt, dying to get a true flavour but annoyed and bored with the cheap ideations. It is also for those who love no-nonsense memorable adventure films with the perfect balance of humour. Humour plays a very crucial role in just about any film. Filmmakers often seem to overdo it or leave it out of the equation. This film shows a wonderful balance of seriousness and humour. A little more humour and it could be sadly comic, a little less could make things a little less entertaining.
There is no point in trying to explore if everything shown in this film has historical significance or value, though some of the things indeed do. Watch this film to seek true charm, and charmed you shall be! What better background can there be to embellish the story-canvas of obscure passion and exotic desires with than ancient Egypt? This is one of the 10 most memorably entertaining films I have seen. After watching it a hundred times over, I feel childishly thrilled to watch it from the start again. Same goes for the sequel "The Mummy Returns", though I would not rate it so high. There is no time like the first time!
A timeless exotic adventure classic.
Love in the Time of Cholera
(2007)
Almost, but not Quite
20 March 2008
Love in the Time of Cholera felt mind-blowing right after the first watch. I earnestly wanted to be absolutely charmed, of course. How often do you see an effort like this one? Not often enough. As I watched again though, unfortunately, looked like there are things I could not appreciate.
The music, the photography and the cinematography are some of the decade's best! There is no doubt about it. I don't really have to describe or compare. A mature, aware viewer will just know by himself. Giovanna Mezzogiorno and Javier Bardem are terrific in their roles. They are two of the finest actors in Europe. Benjamin Bratt, John Leguizamo and Catalina Santino Moreno deliver their not-so-challenging roles perfectly. The narration is suitable, though not one of the most memorable ones I have seen. So, the question is, why a 7 and nothing more? Based of the book of the same name written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera requires a prior understanding of the addressed time and place before watching the film. Otherwise, people whose minds are living in 21st Century might find some things still too forward and direct and some things too obscure. The biggest problem is to understand motivation. When the girl you love the most but you can't touch, officially becomes someone else's, it may not be too difficult to understand why you might seek asylum in alcohol and an emotionless fornication extravaganza. When the guy you dreamed you would spend the rest of your life with is unreachable and all doors and windows to the outside world are to be kept bolted shut by your brainwashing father until your mind lets him go, it is not too difficult to understand either when you start teaching yourself and gradually believe "he is just an illusion", happiness lies elsewhere. But this film is, in my own term, an impressionist film. It does not expect the viewer to use his vivid imagination and explain things to themselves somehow. It offers an honest depiction, a vivid storytelling, it keeps mostly nothing hidden, leaves not much to conjecture.
I would not mind too much personally though, if it did leave bits and pieces for me to surmise, but it left major holes instead that I could not fill up. When Fermina comes back from her countryside house for the second time, the film does not focus on her transformation. Shows some fancy scenes with lots of flowers and paintings which are surely eye candy, but it does not let the viewers in to her mind. They say, there is no time like the first time. No matter what you say, illusion or whatever, deep inside your mind, you can't just make yourself think it was nothing worthy of remembrance. Decades after marriage, as the movie shows, she wonders by herself how things would be had she done things differently. She thanks God as the circumstances keep her on a short leash and her mind does not go wondering too far. When she gets her chance again to confide in Florentino Ariza, she says no more than his letters gave her solace due to their qualities like simplicity. She never utters one word about if she ever thought of him in years past, or ever wondered how he could relieve his broken heart. One of the very few things she was proud of was her pride itself. Yet it seemed unbelievably easy and spontaneous for her to open up to Ariza. Like I said, it is all explainable, but the film does not attempt to explain. Since these are the deciding points in these people's lives, and also the most crucial points in the film, it leaves me dissatisfied. These are the places where the film gets "shallow".
The ending of the film is conclusive enough. Among other things, it made me realize how less grand a film's ending sometimes might seem when the end is not tragically moving, but rather sweetly settling.
If I could rate this film based on just acting, visuals, cinematography and soundtrack/score, I would have given it a 10 without second thoughts. But the binding factor in films like these are always the story. Since it is adopted from a great novel, the director had the advantage of studying a lot of pre-written detail to profile the characters he is to command. Yet the binding of this film got weak at some major moments. Like they say, the strength of the weakest node is the strength of the chain.
I give it a 7.
The music, the photography and the cinematography are some of the decade's best! There is no doubt about it. I don't really have to describe or compare. A mature, aware viewer will just know by himself. Giovanna Mezzogiorno and Javier Bardem are terrific in their roles. They are two of the finest actors in Europe. Benjamin Bratt, John Leguizamo and Catalina Santino Moreno deliver their not-so-challenging roles perfectly. The narration is suitable, though not one of the most memorable ones I have seen. So, the question is, why a 7 and nothing more? Based of the book of the same name written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera requires a prior understanding of the addressed time and place before watching the film. Otherwise, people whose minds are living in 21st Century might find some things still too forward and direct and some things too obscure. The biggest problem is to understand motivation. When the girl you love the most but you can't touch, officially becomes someone else's, it may not be too difficult to understand why you might seek asylum in alcohol and an emotionless fornication extravaganza. When the guy you dreamed you would spend the rest of your life with is unreachable and all doors and windows to the outside world are to be kept bolted shut by your brainwashing father until your mind lets him go, it is not too difficult to understand either when you start teaching yourself and gradually believe "he is just an illusion", happiness lies elsewhere. But this film is, in my own term, an impressionist film. It does not expect the viewer to use his vivid imagination and explain things to themselves somehow. It offers an honest depiction, a vivid storytelling, it keeps mostly nothing hidden, leaves not much to conjecture.
I would not mind too much personally though, if it did leave bits and pieces for me to surmise, but it left major holes instead that I could not fill up. When Fermina comes back from her countryside house for the second time, the film does not focus on her transformation. Shows some fancy scenes with lots of flowers and paintings which are surely eye candy, but it does not let the viewers in to her mind. They say, there is no time like the first time. No matter what you say, illusion or whatever, deep inside your mind, you can't just make yourself think it was nothing worthy of remembrance. Decades after marriage, as the movie shows, she wonders by herself how things would be had she done things differently. She thanks God as the circumstances keep her on a short leash and her mind does not go wondering too far. When she gets her chance again to confide in Florentino Ariza, she says no more than his letters gave her solace due to their qualities like simplicity. She never utters one word about if she ever thought of him in years past, or ever wondered how he could relieve his broken heart. One of the very few things she was proud of was her pride itself. Yet it seemed unbelievably easy and spontaneous for her to open up to Ariza. Like I said, it is all explainable, but the film does not attempt to explain. Since these are the deciding points in these people's lives, and also the most crucial points in the film, it leaves me dissatisfied. These are the places where the film gets "shallow".
The ending of the film is conclusive enough. Among other things, it made me realize how less grand a film's ending sometimes might seem when the end is not tragically moving, but rather sweetly settling.
If I could rate this film based on just acting, visuals, cinematography and soundtrack/score, I would have given it a 10 without second thoughts. But the binding factor in films like these are always the story. Since it is adopted from a great novel, the director had the advantage of studying a lot of pre-written detail to profile the characters he is to command. Yet the binding of this film got weak at some major moments. Like they say, the strength of the weakest node is the strength of the chain.
I give it a 7.
Only You
(1994)
Timeless
17 March 2008
I was about to write this comment and I came across a comment by Amy Adler from Toledo. She wrote pretty much what I wanted to write, so now I will have to rephrase.
Giving a movie 10 rating reflects impractical thinking, in some people's opinion. I say, when your heart is full, 10 seems to be too low! Sometimes you feel so overwhelmed, you think, Gee, why can I not give 11 in 10? It happened to me when I watched the ending of A Very Long Engagement. And it happened when I watched Only You.
It is not necessary to be in love with Italy to appreciate this film. But it is essential to get 100% of the taste that Norman Jewison and the whole crew worked so hard to offer. Robert Downey Jr. is Hollywood's lost cause. Usually, in a film, when he appears on a scene, story stops and frustration is imparted. But here, to my utmost astonishment, he is all that the hero of a romantic film ever needs to be! Marisa Tomei, probably unknowingly, outmatches herself and delivers the most charming role of her life. I am not saying it's the most masterful. I am not saying it's the most complicated. But charming, oh yes it is! Oh yes it is! At some points of time, when you feel all one with this film, you feel like you can breathe in the air with countless love pollens in it, drive through the long old roads with a view of the ocean, the ocean wind blowing your hair and nourishing your senses under the golden sun and making you believe, anything is possible in a place like this.
This film has very simple elements that get into your veins and stay with you for the rest of your life. A lot of people worked so hard to make dead complicated plots and acting scopes. But I remembered none of those like I remember "Only You". If you have never loved, never felt silly and thought you could give away your everything, never felt sad and wished you could just melt away with the sweet earth, or if you have forgotten how those feelings were because you felt them so long ago, then probably you might find "Only You" not worth losing sleep over. But for a true romantique, this is all there is, this is all there can be.
A pure delight for the senses. A life altering experience to me. I have watched it a hundred times over. Still every scene is brand new.
Giving a movie 10 rating reflects impractical thinking, in some people's opinion. I say, when your heart is full, 10 seems to be too low! Sometimes you feel so overwhelmed, you think, Gee, why can I not give 11 in 10? It happened to me when I watched the ending of A Very Long Engagement. And it happened when I watched Only You.
It is not necessary to be in love with Italy to appreciate this film. But it is essential to get 100% of the taste that Norman Jewison and the whole crew worked so hard to offer. Robert Downey Jr. is Hollywood's lost cause. Usually, in a film, when he appears on a scene, story stops and frustration is imparted. But here, to my utmost astonishment, he is all that the hero of a romantic film ever needs to be! Marisa Tomei, probably unknowingly, outmatches herself and delivers the most charming role of her life. I am not saying it's the most masterful. I am not saying it's the most complicated. But charming, oh yes it is! Oh yes it is! At some points of time, when you feel all one with this film, you feel like you can breathe in the air with countless love pollens in it, drive through the long old roads with a view of the ocean, the ocean wind blowing your hair and nourishing your senses under the golden sun and making you believe, anything is possible in a place like this.
This film has very simple elements that get into your veins and stay with you for the rest of your life. A lot of people worked so hard to make dead complicated plots and acting scopes. But I remembered none of those like I remember "Only You". If you have never loved, never felt silly and thought you could give away your everything, never felt sad and wished you could just melt away with the sweet earth, or if you have forgotten how those feelings were because you felt them so long ago, then probably you might find "Only You" not worth losing sleep over. But for a true romantique, this is all there is, this is all there can be.
A pure delight for the senses. A life altering experience to me. I have watched it a hundred times over. Still every scene is brand new.
Interview
(I) (2007)
He Did What He Could
7 March 2008
This kind of effort is rare in Hollywood. I will not say it is the most intellectual thing I could expect to see, and it was predictable to me in places, but for general audience and intellectual wannabes, it might be more striking or less than it was to me.
When you do expect something unorthodox, and you do get it, maybe you say "it was predictable" and maybe you feel kind of dull because you could not stand up and say "Brava! Brava!" thinking the film sort of beat your brainwaves to it, but you also feel glad, thinking someone is kind of thinking about demands of your level and trying to meet the same. From that point of view, I thank Steve Buscemi cordially.
Pierre (Buscemi) used to cover the hottest political issues and scandals for a famous TV channel. But for some reason, his editor is sending him to cover "God-awful fluff pieces". Eventually, he has to let go of an important coverage over interviewing Katya (Sienna Miller). She does TV shows and B-movies, but mostly she is famous for the celebrities she sleeps with. Pierre's reactions can be easily imagined.
He went to interview Katya thinking girls like her probably have "silicon for brain cells" and what homework should he possibly have done to handle people like that? But through a chain of events that are neither intentional nor unforeseen, they stick together for the night, conducting a one-of-a-kind interview.
Some people have criticized this film rather harshly. That's rather unfortunate. If Antonioni made a film like this, most of them would not grab all of it, but would not be able to criticize so boldly because he was an intellectual behemoth. Now that Buscemi gave it a try, those who are happy with "The Departed" and "Chicago" started to say it's such a waste of talent made to look like intellectual crap. Well, it is not. It is an honest film. And may not be the mirror to the height of profundity of human mind, but still quite admirable a work.
If Buscemi had more experience, he would perhaps work a little more on the ending. It is a popular trick to run the film slow and give a sudden end twist when audience was just about to "Is that all there is?" This film's end twist is rather subtle and it loses its impact due to a little naive direction.
Sienna Miller was a wise choice for this. Those who accidentally bought the tickets without knowing what kind of a film they were about to watch, won't be 100% disappointed because looking at Sienna Miller is always a feast for sore eyes. She pulls off everything exactly like she Buscemi told her to, I am sure. She never came so much in focus before. I will eagerly wait to see more of her in days to come.
In the end, bottom line is the same as always. It's your mind, it's your head. Either you will appreciate Buscemi's effort, or you won't. I did. He did what he could.
When you do expect something unorthodox, and you do get it, maybe you say "it was predictable" and maybe you feel kind of dull because you could not stand up and say "Brava! Brava!" thinking the film sort of beat your brainwaves to it, but you also feel glad, thinking someone is kind of thinking about demands of your level and trying to meet the same. From that point of view, I thank Steve Buscemi cordially.
Pierre (Buscemi) used to cover the hottest political issues and scandals for a famous TV channel. But for some reason, his editor is sending him to cover "God-awful fluff pieces". Eventually, he has to let go of an important coverage over interviewing Katya (Sienna Miller). She does TV shows and B-movies, but mostly she is famous for the celebrities she sleeps with. Pierre's reactions can be easily imagined.
He went to interview Katya thinking girls like her probably have "silicon for brain cells" and what homework should he possibly have done to handle people like that? But through a chain of events that are neither intentional nor unforeseen, they stick together for the night, conducting a one-of-a-kind interview.
Some people have criticized this film rather harshly. That's rather unfortunate. If Antonioni made a film like this, most of them would not grab all of it, but would not be able to criticize so boldly because he was an intellectual behemoth. Now that Buscemi gave it a try, those who are happy with "The Departed" and "Chicago" started to say it's such a waste of talent made to look like intellectual crap. Well, it is not. It is an honest film. And may not be the mirror to the height of profundity of human mind, but still quite admirable a work.
If Buscemi had more experience, he would perhaps work a little more on the ending. It is a popular trick to run the film slow and give a sudden end twist when audience was just about to "Is that all there is?" This film's end twist is rather subtle and it loses its impact due to a little naive direction.
Sienna Miller was a wise choice for this. Those who accidentally bought the tickets without knowing what kind of a film they were about to watch, won't be 100% disappointed because looking at Sienna Miller is always a feast for sore eyes. She pulls off everything exactly like she Buscemi told her to, I am sure. She never came so much in focus before. I will eagerly wait to see more of her in days to come.
In the end, bottom line is the same as always. It's your mind, it's your head. Either you will appreciate Buscemi's effort, or you won't. I did. He did what he could.
Next
(2007)
Pretty Good, Especially When Coming From Lee Tamahori
7 March 2008
After watching "Die Another Day" and "xXx: State of the Union", I swore I was not going to watch another Lee Tamahori film. But this film's plot outline had me intrigued. So, when I realized it's made by Lee Tamahori, I did not stop. And I am glad I did not.
It is a pretty good thriller. People could make a lot of superhero crap when they had such an extraordinary power to empower the hero with. Lee Tamahori has shown admirable restraint here. Probably everyone trying to watch this film already knows what it is about, so saying it again here is pointless. The plot it thought upon such a way that there are no dull moments in the film. Sometimes you have to watch on for the first hour to understand the action in the second. That soft of a film Next is not. The FBI in this film is pretty much like they are anywhere else. Less intelligent, less agile, less understanding than even common cine-goers (like me). Nicholas Cage did good acting here that he had not been doing for sometime now (since Lord of War). Jessica Biel looked like a proper woman, which is pretty extraordinary if you ask me. It is unfortunate that Julienne Moore had to do roles like these to stay on the screen, but still, she did all she could within the scope of her role.
Overall, it's a good film. Wroth the rental. Due to the nature of such films, once you know the ending, you will probably not watch it again. It might seem a little too much to pragmatic men and more so to women, but I have only my own opinion to share.
It is a pretty good thriller. People could make a lot of superhero crap when they had such an extraordinary power to empower the hero with. Lee Tamahori has shown admirable restraint here. Probably everyone trying to watch this film already knows what it is about, so saying it again here is pointless. The plot it thought upon such a way that there are no dull moments in the film. Sometimes you have to watch on for the first hour to understand the action in the second. That soft of a film Next is not. The FBI in this film is pretty much like they are anywhere else. Less intelligent, less agile, less understanding than even common cine-goers (like me). Nicholas Cage did good acting here that he had not been doing for sometime now (since Lord of War). Jessica Biel looked like a proper woman, which is pretty extraordinary if you ask me. It is unfortunate that Julienne Moore had to do roles like these to stay on the screen, but still, she did all she could within the scope of her role.
Overall, it's a good film. Wroth the rental. Due to the nature of such films, once you know the ending, you will probably not watch it again. It might seem a little too much to pragmatic men and more so to women, but I have only my own opinion to share.
Silk
(2007)
Difficult to Comment, But Comment I Must
3 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I will not give this film a rating. I don't know how to rate a film like this. But I feel compelled to write it a comment. It has been severely misjudged here by many people who are desperately in effort to make film critics out of themselves.
When I tried to read comments on this film, I saw "Soooo Slowwwwww" and "White Man Saves Asian Women Again". That did not feel so good, but I hope those who love this film or want to know about it read my comment too.
The beauty of this film is not in the advancement of story, or in dialogue, but in visual narration accompanied by very well chosen musical score. If you have read many classic novels written in the good old days, the pattern of story development will not look radically unique to you.
Hervé Joncour is a man living in a remote village in France in middle nineteenth century. People are out of work there, they have not seen much of industry if any at all. Only a small scale revolution could save the village from extinction. And a man with wild but not-too-impractical ideas came to the village one day and things were never the same again for people there. He renovated the silk-mill. But he needed silk eggs entirely untouched by the unknown disease. He sent Hervé first to Africa and then to Japan, away from his sweetheart. Hervé became quite an adventurer and procurer. And then he met "The Girl" in the world of mysticism and snow.
The story that was advancing till now in a pace swifter than anything suddenly became extremely slow developing. The girl's gaze, her eyes, her lips, her breath, her hair lock, her silence, her kneeling pose, her slow turn, way of looking back, the way she bathed, the way she walked, the way she touched, and the wind, the mist, the snow, the sky that lights up before everywhere else, everything became an obsession to him. But he could not speak Japanese. He could not find out if she felt the same for him. Then after one visit, he received a note. He could not ask someone to translate it there, so he had to come back to have it translated later. He found out, it said "Come back, or I shall die."
Silk is not a story that gives you adrenaline rush. It is not really a classic either. The director's orientation was rather one sided. He showed some things in great detail, leaving some things ridiculously out of focus. But he showed perfectly what he wanted to show. The curiosity, the undeniable pull toward the heart of a woman. The little he knew, the bigger became his obsession. They say, a woman's heart is an ocean of mysteries. He was very close to the shore, yet it proved to be too far afterwards.
Would I recommend this film? Hard to say. It is definitely not a feel good film. But yes, it is a work of art. Those who take deep pleasure in relishing cinema, this is for them. But if you are looking for a good time, a nice time, an easy time, and you are renting this one, don't come here afterwards to blame it on the film. Art is made for art's sake. Appreciate it, or don't, but show respect.
When I tried to read comments on this film, I saw "Soooo Slowwwwww" and "White Man Saves Asian Women Again". That did not feel so good, but I hope those who love this film or want to know about it read my comment too.
The beauty of this film is not in the advancement of story, or in dialogue, but in visual narration accompanied by very well chosen musical score. If you have read many classic novels written in the good old days, the pattern of story development will not look radically unique to you.
Hervé Joncour is a man living in a remote village in France in middle nineteenth century. People are out of work there, they have not seen much of industry if any at all. Only a small scale revolution could save the village from extinction. And a man with wild but not-too-impractical ideas came to the village one day and things were never the same again for people there. He renovated the silk-mill. But he needed silk eggs entirely untouched by the unknown disease. He sent Hervé first to Africa and then to Japan, away from his sweetheart. Hervé became quite an adventurer and procurer. And then he met "The Girl" in the world of mysticism and snow.
The story that was advancing till now in a pace swifter than anything suddenly became extremely slow developing. The girl's gaze, her eyes, her lips, her breath, her hair lock, her silence, her kneeling pose, her slow turn, way of looking back, the way she bathed, the way she walked, the way she touched, and the wind, the mist, the snow, the sky that lights up before everywhere else, everything became an obsession to him. But he could not speak Japanese. He could not find out if she felt the same for him. Then after one visit, he received a note. He could not ask someone to translate it there, so he had to come back to have it translated later. He found out, it said "Come back, or I shall die."
Silk is not a story that gives you adrenaline rush. It is not really a classic either. The director's orientation was rather one sided. He showed some things in great detail, leaving some things ridiculously out of focus. But he showed perfectly what he wanted to show. The curiosity, the undeniable pull toward the heart of a woman. The little he knew, the bigger became his obsession. They say, a woman's heart is an ocean of mysteries. He was very close to the shore, yet it proved to be too far afterwards.
Would I recommend this film? Hard to say. It is definitely not a feel good film. But yes, it is a work of art. Those who take deep pleasure in relishing cinema, this is for them. But if you are looking for a good time, a nice time, an easy time, and you are renting this one, don't come here afterwards to blame it on the film. Art is made for art's sake. Appreciate it, or don't, but show respect.
Shattered
(2007)
A Good Thriller!
28 February 2008
Neil Randall (Gerard Butler) got his life gingerbread cut. Lovely wife (Maria Bello), lovely job, a lovely daughter, a promotion on its way, any colleague could envy him. But suddenly, things started to change. A maniac with a gun (Pierce Brosnan) took hostage of their daughter and started making bizarre demands. He burnt all their money, ruined his career, and planned for bigger damages. Not only he was insane, he always thought one step ahead of Neil and Abby. Why is he doing this? Old grudge? Vendetta? An envious colleague appointed him? He wants Neil's wife? As the story advances, the man takes Neil and Abby closer to the reason.
This movie pumped out some major amount of adrenaline off my glands. I give this film a 7. I could have been a bit more generous, but keeping in mind the masterpieces I have seen over the years, 7 is all it is going to get. I think the ending is not totally satisfying. Well, with very good thrillers, it hardly ever is. But still, I wanted to observe the final reactions and aftermath to the whole incident, the film does not leave any major questions unanswered though.
Maria Bello will most probably never become one of those actresses people often talk about in buses and at work and on the streets. But I have seen a dozen of her performances and she brings her passion to work. Gerard usually does not deliver dull performances. I expected no less of him. But I did not know he looks kinda cute like a young boy when he smiles. He even has dimples. Pierce will never be able to come out 100% of the Bond image people remember him by, but he is not bad at all. He is an old devil, and probably this was not a very challenging role for him, but among all the roles he played in his life, I think this one looked more human, more flesh and blood.
I always had one thing straight in my mind. Many thrillers score high and low for a lot of reasons. But good ratings always go to those films that make you feel "It could happen to me" or, "Hey, is that not how I may end up like?" Butterfly on a Wheel takes one of the very basic problems of a typically successful American office-goer (I am not American, neither married or going to some corporate office, mind you, so I am only using my projection skills here) and explores the possibility that everyone hopes will never happen. If you ask me, if people are as demented as Brosnan here is, and still as good in thinking as Mike Barker and William Morrissey are, it just might!
A good thriller. Do watch it!
This movie pumped out some major amount of adrenaline off my glands. I give this film a 7. I could have been a bit more generous, but keeping in mind the masterpieces I have seen over the years, 7 is all it is going to get. I think the ending is not totally satisfying. Well, with very good thrillers, it hardly ever is. But still, I wanted to observe the final reactions and aftermath to the whole incident, the film does not leave any major questions unanswered though.
Maria Bello will most probably never become one of those actresses people often talk about in buses and at work and on the streets. But I have seen a dozen of her performances and she brings her passion to work. Gerard usually does not deliver dull performances. I expected no less of him. But I did not know he looks kinda cute like a young boy when he smiles. He even has dimples. Pierce will never be able to come out 100% of the Bond image people remember him by, but he is not bad at all. He is an old devil, and probably this was not a very challenging role for him, but among all the roles he played in his life, I think this one looked more human, more flesh and blood.
I always had one thing straight in my mind. Many thrillers score high and low for a lot of reasons. But good ratings always go to those films that make you feel "It could happen to me" or, "Hey, is that not how I may end up like?" Butterfly on a Wheel takes one of the very basic problems of a typically successful American office-goer (I am not American, neither married or going to some corporate office, mind you, so I am only using my projection skills here) and explores the possibility that everyone hopes will never happen. If you ask me, if people are as demented as Brosnan here is, and still as good in thinking as Mike Barker and William Morrissey are, it just might!
A good thriller. Do watch it!
Point of No Return
(1993)
That Classic Smell
28 February 2008
If you have chosen to watch The Point of No Return, naturally, you are not in a mood to watch Bourne Identity. Now, Bourne or many other things are much better assassin/hit-man/black-Op movies. Point of No Return is not that, actually. If you watch it, watch it for "that" smell.
The smell for which you watched Tequila Sunrise, the smell for which you watched Highlander, the smell for which you watched Basic Instinct, watch this movie for the same smell too. Like a glass of Cavier, this is never hard on your stomach. It has that 80s look. The film is a little grainy, the colours look a little yesterday, and the music is all from the good old days. The style of talking is different too. They don't talk like that any more. The films are of crystal clear quality now, with positional audio and all. But this kinda dark kinda foggy mood is totally lost.
If you preferred Nine and a Half Weeks over 8MM2, The Bounty over The New World, The Hunger over Van Helsing, then make sure you watch this movie. It is not a good assassin flick, but it will stay with you nonetheless.
The smell for which you watched Tequila Sunrise, the smell for which you watched Highlander, the smell for which you watched Basic Instinct, watch this movie for the same smell too. Like a glass of Cavier, this is never hard on your stomach. It has that 80s look. The film is a little grainy, the colours look a little yesterday, and the music is all from the good old days. The style of talking is different too. They don't talk like that any more. The films are of crystal clear quality now, with positional audio and all. But this kinda dark kinda foggy mood is totally lost.
If you preferred Nine and a Half Weeks over 8MM2, The Bounty over The New World, The Hunger over Van Helsing, then make sure you watch this movie. It is not a good assassin flick, but it will stay with you nonetheless.
No Reservations
(2007)
Melts in Your Mouth
26 February 2008
Why do we have to give low rating to a film just because it has not startled us with something disturbing or surreal? La Finestra di Fronte got much higher rating than this, but I think the director of that movie was not so much oriented as Scott Hicks in No Reservations. I have not seen Bella Martha, so I can't compare. But this one is independently a good romantic movie, with fine touches that show you simple facts that perhaps you do notice, but deny for the sake of your ego.
Catherine Zeta-Jones was the perfect choice for this role. Just looking at her lips and her eyes, and how she smells the aroma of Saffron Sauce can make you re-live your memorable moments of passion all over again. This movie is not suitable for the American audience. It would be a much better success in those small countries where life is not about Blackberry, XBOX, parking tickets, hard scheduled dates, raises and mergers, but about blue skies, clear clouds, fresh milk and wild flowers at breakfast table. Yes, the movie does not take place in a 'urbs like that, but when you enter the kitchen of an exotic restaurant, you live the outside world behind. It is a new world within a world. To appreciate that world, you need to have different values.
Exotic food has an intimate bond with exotic music, especially opera arias, since time immemorial. But with someone like Phillip Glass as the director and composer of soundtracks, I expected a little unorthodox numbers from the good old days along with Nissun Dorma and Piano Concerto No.5 on E flat major. Nonetheless, this movie keeps you entertained for every single minute without boring or stressing you for even a moment. It melts in your mouth like the finest quality Creme Fraiche.
Catherine Zeta-Jones was the perfect choice for this role. Just looking at her lips and her eyes, and how she smells the aroma of Saffron Sauce can make you re-live your memorable moments of passion all over again. This movie is not suitable for the American audience. It would be a much better success in those small countries where life is not about Blackberry, XBOX, parking tickets, hard scheduled dates, raises and mergers, but about blue skies, clear clouds, fresh milk and wild flowers at breakfast table. Yes, the movie does not take place in a 'urbs like that, but when you enter the kitchen of an exotic restaurant, you live the outside world behind. It is a new world within a world. To appreciate that world, you need to have different values.
Exotic food has an intimate bond with exotic music, especially opera arias, since time immemorial. But with someone like Phillip Glass as the director and composer of soundtracks, I expected a little unorthodox numbers from the good old days along with Nissun Dorma and Piano Concerto No.5 on E flat major. Nonetheless, this movie keeps you entertained for every single minute without boring or stressing you for even a moment. It melts in your mouth like the finest quality Creme Fraiche.
Music from Another Room
(1998)
I loved it. I wish it let me love it more.
22 February 2008
When I check my voting history, I see I have voted for movies rather generously. But I never actually gagged to give a movie a 9 and felt inhibited not to go beyond 7. I wish this movie let me love it a little bit more.
The story is very simple and popular. Actually, in my country, at least a dozen movies are made every decade on a plot like this one. So, it's not the catchy story or an end twist that people love these kinda movies for. So, when you already know what is gonna happen and how, complete attention falls on things like cinematography and compelling conversations.
This movie has wonderful moments. Well, with Jude Law, that is no surprise. I wanted to see this movie for Gretchen Mol. She is spontaneous, but not brilliant. The thing is, for this movie, she did not have to be. But when a sensitive viewer is watching the film, certain things should be left unsaid for his mind to synthesize and derive. If everything is discussed on a round table (not literally), it becomes more educational and less charming. That is what is pulling this movie down. Movies like French Kiss or Addicted to Love never surprised any viewer with a climax. But those films took their breaths away no doubt. I wish this one was a little more subtle and metaphoric. That way, I would not have to settle for a 7.
Though there is no surprise in the end, the end is very beautiful. Feels like it's filmed by some different director than the one who filmed the educational speeches. But anyway, this is a lovely film to see. You might find it very good, or just good, depending on how forgiving you are in real life. There is no way you are gonna regret spending your good money on it. I recommend it. Who am I to recommend? You don't wanna know.
The story is very simple and popular. Actually, in my country, at least a dozen movies are made every decade on a plot like this one. So, it's not the catchy story or an end twist that people love these kinda movies for. So, when you already know what is gonna happen and how, complete attention falls on things like cinematography and compelling conversations.
This movie has wonderful moments. Well, with Jude Law, that is no surprise. I wanted to see this movie for Gretchen Mol. She is spontaneous, but not brilliant. The thing is, for this movie, she did not have to be. But when a sensitive viewer is watching the film, certain things should be left unsaid for his mind to synthesize and derive. If everything is discussed on a round table (not literally), it becomes more educational and less charming. That is what is pulling this movie down. Movies like French Kiss or Addicted to Love never surprised any viewer with a climax. But those films took their breaths away no doubt. I wish this one was a little more subtle and metaphoric. That way, I would not have to settle for a 7.
Though there is no surprise in the end, the end is very beautiful. Feels like it's filmed by some different director than the one who filmed the educational speeches. But anyway, this is a lovely film to see. You might find it very good, or just good, depending on how forgiving you are in real life. There is no way you are gonna regret spending your good money on it. I recommend it. Who am I to recommend? You don't wanna know.
The Thirteenth Floor
(1999)
Predictable, Not Surprising, Not Unprecedented, but still satisfying
20 February 2008
Since this movie is not too important or famous, I will keep this comment short. The Thirteenth Floor is one of those movies that are not one of a kind. If you try to find something that you saw only here and nowhere else, probably you will never find anything. But still this movie has something, that makes you feel warm. The little chitchats between Douglas Hall and Jane Fuller made me feel warm. This movie is not about warmth of words, of course. But that undertone becomes a big deal as the movie approaches its end. Fairly before the ending, the movie lets you know what's going to happen in the end, but it feels very sweet when it happens finally. If you don't see The Thirteenth Floor, you won't miss anything too great. But if you do see it, you will like it most probably.
Ocean's Thirteen
(2007)
Dark Age of IMDb
19 January 2008
The English Patient has rating 7.2
The Postman Always Rings Twice has rating 7.5
Titanic has rating 7.1
and Ocean's 13 shares the same with it.
This is, truly, the dark age of IMDb. Not every voter is bound to have good taste, I admit; it is a statistical impossibility. But I did not expect a work of art and a pseudo-intellectual farce would share the same impression here, in the largest movie-lovers' community on the internet.
I wanted to comment on this film. That's precisely why I came to this page. But what's the use?
The Postman Always Rings Twice has rating 7.5
Titanic has rating 7.1
and Ocean's 13 shares the same with it.
This is, truly, the dark age of IMDb. Not every voter is bound to have good taste, I admit; it is a statistical impossibility. But I did not expect a work of art and a pseudo-intellectual farce would share the same impression here, in the largest movie-lovers' community on the internet.
I wanted to comment on this film. That's precisely why I came to this page. But what's the use?
xXx: State of the Union
(2005)
garbage can is too good to contain this movie
18 January 2008
I did not give any stars to this movie. I hope no one asks why. It can't be honoured with even a single star. I saw "Dangerous Ground" and did not dislike it; I did not sweat my brain thinking whether IceCube could act of not, and I thought, neither did he. So, I never expected he would really try to find out, but then again, sometimes reality bites harder than nightmares. Not sure why Samuel L. Jackson had to go so low ( I am sure he gets enough contracts to keep himself busy round the year anyway! ). Someone said this movie will please the Saturday night crowd though it's utter nonsense. I disagree with that too. Saturday night crowd expects some juice, and this movie has none, literally as well as metaphorically.
Guys, if you don't want your money go straight into soil, go rent some actual XXX at least! That would offer more thrills than this one!
Guys, if you don't want your money go straight into soil, go rent some actual XXX at least! That would offer more thrills than this one!
The Thomas Crown Affair
(1999)
Smooth and Deep
15 January 2008
Fist time, it impresses you as a quality thriller. Second time, it impresses you as a quality romantic thriller. Third time, it looks much deeper into the human mind.
This movie is not made for general audience. If you advise your kids not to play with fire because they may burn their pretty hands, make sure they don't watch this film. If they don't spoil, they will flood IMDb bragging about how it hurt their sense of morality. For a very few, who live in a league isolated and unmistakable with a common man's, morality takes after a different sort of definition. When you are in their game, and you sense adrenaline flowing through your veins like you never expected it to, the definition of morality becomes abrasive.
Thomas Crown is a billion dollar man with many million dollar plans that often fail to rescue him from the quotidian ennui. Katherine Benning is not so much of a an elite herself but more like a hunter of elite criminals who do it just to see if they can get away with it. They see each other, play the cat and mouse game, and don't realize when the game became their life.
Wonderful movie. I give it a 7 because at the first glance, it's light in nature. For sure second thoughts, it could deserve an 8. If you don't like the deep stuff, no matter; you will not be bored for a single moment.
If you think Brosnan was born to play Bond, then this is his best Bond film.
This movie is not made for general audience. If you advise your kids not to play with fire because they may burn their pretty hands, make sure they don't watch this film. If they don't spoil, they will flood IMDb bragging about how it hurt their sense of morality. For a very few, who live in a league isolated and unmistakable with a common man's, morality takes after a different sort of definition. When you are in their game, and you sense adrenaline flowing through your veins like you never expected it to, the definition of morality becomes abrasive.
Thomas Crown is a billion dollar man with many million dollar plans that often fail to rescue him from the quotidian ennui. Katherine Benning is not so much of a an elite herself but more like a hunter of elite criminals who do it just to see if they can get away with it. They see each other, play the cat and mouse game, and don't realize when the game became their life.
Wonderful movie. I give it a 7 because at the first glance, it's light in nature. For sure second thoughts, it could deserve an 8. If you don't like the deep stuff, no matter; you will not be bored for a single moment.
If you think Brosnan was born to play Bond, then this is his best Bond film.
The Count of Monte Cristo
(2002)
Not Satisfying to the Readers of the Original Novel
12 January 2008
Naturally, when a film is made based on a timeless classic, either people prefer not to look much into it, or they go to the theatres with great expectations. Back where I live, probably only a few people know The Count of Monte Cristo. I am a big fan of his.
For those like me, this film did not have enough drama. It did try in places to show the sustained cold anger and lust for revenge Edmond Dantes cherished within. He did not have anything else to live for, so the plan of revenge was his everything. Like ladylove, when revenge becomes your life, it needs care, nourishment, frequent checking, and protection. It was portrayed in such Machiavellian way in the book, I was satisfied, thinking "Yes, if you really want to avenge your past, then do it like this, or don't do it at all!" The film lost a lot of that charm. Of course, no one really expects a director of late 20th century to be of the same league as Dumas's, but still it could have been made a lot more dramatic than it has been. Some scenes, like the one where Dantes fights Jacopo, look like they have been made is sheer haste because the crew had a deadline to meet. This movie could smell of revenge; unfortunately, it did not.
I still give this film a 7 because of Jim Caviezel's performance. He single handedly takes this motion picture from the designation of a b-movie to the identity of a classic film. B-movies like these are made often, in US and Latin America as well as in Spain. This one is, indeed, different.
Finally, I would say, it is a film definitely worth watching, because this is as good as a silver screen adaptation of the timeless classic gets.
For those like me, this film did not have enough drama. It did try in places to show the sustained cold anger and lust for revenge Edmond Dantes cherished within. He did not have anything else to live for, so the plan of revenge was his everything. Like ladylove, when revenge becomes your life, it needs care, nourishment, frequent checking, and protection. It was portrayed in such Machiavellian way in the book, I was satisfied, thinking "Yes, if you really want to avenge your past, then do it like this, or don't do it at all!" The film lost a lot of that charm. Of course, no one really expects a director of late 20th century to be of the same league as Dumas's, but still it could have been made a lot more dramatic than it has been. Some scenes, like the one where Dantes fights Jacopo, look like they have been made is sheer haste because the crew had a deadline to meet. This movie could smell of revenge; unfortunately, it did not.
I still give this film a 7 because of Jim Caviezel's performance. He single handedly takes this motion picture from the designation of a b-movie to the identity of a classic film. B-movies like these are made often, in US and Latin America as well as in Spain. This one is, indeed, different.
Finally, I would say, it is a film definitely worth watching, because this is as good as a silver screen adaptation of the timeless classic gets.
Running Scared
(2006)
Unexpectedly Impressive
6 January 2008
Some friend told me Vera Fermiga looks sexy in this movie, so I watched it. Usually that's not what I would do, but after a high dose of gravely serious themes, sometimes you want to take a break, and I am not into comedy anyway, so... And who expects anything impressive to come from Paul Walker anyway!
But, this movie turned out to be quite good. Needless to say Vera looks sexy! But apart from that, this is a movie that makes you think about a lot of things while making sure the promise of entertainment never falls short. Unlike many movies that stay a little inaccessible due to obscure humour or gestures, (for example, Lock Stock and Two Smocking Barrels or Layer Cake; i saw them and understood them but they never felt funny) Running Scared is a movie that makes you feel the heat of living on the edge. Even if gun-running does not interest you at all, you will feel like it's your life, your family on the line every moment. That's what a quality film is about; to make the viewer feel like "It Could Happen to Me". The boy Cameron Bright deserves some special credit. Who would better portray the grim-faced, neglected boy with a lot of grudge, inhibitions and hesitations?
I am giving it a 6, not anything higher, because of the totally predictable typical end twist, but believe me folks, it's a good movie. Recommended for just about anybody.
But, this movie turned out to be quite good. Needless to say Vera looks sexy! But apart from that, this is a movie that makes you think about a lot of things while making sure the promise of entertainment never falls short. Unlike many movies that stay a little inaccessible due to obscure humour or gestures, (for example, Lock Stock and Two Smocking Barrels or Layer Cake; i saw them and understood them but they never felt funny) Running Scared is a movie that makes you feel the heat of living on the edge. Even if gun-running does not interest you at all, you will feel like it's your life, your family on the line every moment. That's what a quality film is about; to make the viewer feel like "It Could Happen to Me". The boy Cameron Bright deserves some special credit. Who would better portray the grim-faced, neglected boy with a lot of grudge, inhibitions and hesitations?
I am giving it a 6, not anything higher, because of the totally predictable typical end twist, but believe me folks, it's a good movie. Recommended for just about anybody.
Tell Your Friends