Change Your Image
mafioso67
Reviews
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
OK film... but why did i need to see it?
To be honest, this film left me wondering. I mean, everything in it was good; the acting of Pitt and especially that of Affleck was faultless. The cinematography was inspiring, and considering the setting and the story, the writing maintained a sustainable pace. It was all good... but the big question it left me asking, is why did i need to be told this story?
The one area in which i think the story fell down, is the part where it is supposed to tell me why this historical story is of any significance to history? Is it? Because in the end, the entire story is just about a junior criminal killing a senior criminal... I'll admit, this comment may sound a little naive maybe, (I don't know if Jesse James is some kind of people's hero in American culture or what), but the film failed to explain it to foreign (i.e. non-American) audiences. Why does it matter that Jesse James is killed, i just didn't get why everybody was making such a fuss and ostracising his killer. I mean, yeah the way he did it was cowardly, but its certainly not the only time a cowardly murder has occurred, so why is this one special?
Whilst this may sound like a minor issue, when you spend 2 hours and 40 odd minutes watching a film, you want to know why you invested your time in such a venture...
For future viewers, don't let this point prevent you seeing what is otherwise a brilliant, near-perfect movie, but my suggestion would be that if you are unfamiliar with Jesse James, maybe do a little bit of research regarding why he is infamous, because you will only be left guessing here.
Dard Divorce (2007)
The Absolute, most stupid and pathetic movie I have ever seen in my entire life!
To start with, the only reason i have given this film a rating of 1 out of 10 is because 0 is not an option.
This film simply must be the worst i have ever seen. The acting (and i use the term loosely) is just ridiculously pathetic; it is almost as though they are not trying. The main character wanders around the entire film almost devoid of any form of emotion, and her accent (apart from being annoying) is just unnecessary. Worst of all, this deficiency is accentuated by a detective who over-acts everything, thinking he is Horatio from CSI: Miami (who annoyingly also tends to over-act his part).
Unfortunately, this is not the worst of it. Whoever wrote the story to this film ought to be shot; or at least banned from making films in the future. The story catapults itself from side to side, having characters draw unlikely and premature conclusions (e.g. the woman finds a note written in something red on the floor of her house, so she instantly calls 911 telling them it is a 'death threat', despite the note being written in a foreign language she doesn't understand). The writing is just lazy and amateurish, simply presenting the audience with facts about the characters as they are needed, rather than putting in the effort to actually establish a back-story. Furthermore, it does nothing to establish a steady flow or any level of individuality, simply treating the act of writing a screenplay as though you were baking a cake - monotonously, step by step. If you are so curious as to watch this abomination, pay particular attention to the opening scenes, where firstly, everything is told to the audience through narration, rather than spending the money to film some flashback scenes. Secondly, watch the introduction of characters - the two children enter perfectly one after another, so mechanically and unnatural (which reminds me of another point - why do the children not have accents? This just heightens the superfluity of the main character's). Finally, watch how the central concept of the divorce is introduced (through the narration)... listen... oh, all of a sudden she is a lawyer who uses all of her legal skill to keep her children... how convenient (and lazy, come on! Really? She's going through a legal battle so she just happens to be a lawyer?). Also, take note of the way it is introduced, you are just told - you don't see her in any way working as a lawyer; in fact for the first 20 mins you would swear she was nothing more than a house-wife (and to me the character appears as though she may struggle with the intellectuality of this alone, notwithstanding that of being a lawyer). This laziness on the writer's part just kills the entire story, for it makes it everything it attempts unbelievable.
The only thing you may be able to give this film any sort of credit for is the gore and violence. However it takes this, the only thing going for it too far, making it become unbelievable and appear overwhelmingly fake.
I must admit, I am actually left dumbfounded as to how such a film could have secured financing, and how the filmmakers could have picked themselves up off the floor from laughing so hard as to cut the final film together. This film ought to be studied in media courses around the world as an example of what not to do when making a film... Truly Pathetic!
The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
Good or bad? To be honest I can't quite tell...
Firstly, to be honest, I must admit that after seeing the film, i was a little disappointed. Whilst only 18 myself, and so too young to have completely understood the X-Files series during its years of strength, after watching several re-runs, even i can see that this film version doesn't really do justice to the cult legacy.
Whilst I can find no fault in the acting of Anderson or Duchovney, they are not really given much to work with. The story is somewhat slow and not terribly engaging - in fact to some point (excepting the 'transplant element') it is very mainstream - its just a search for a missing person, in comparison to the unique sci-fi search for extra-terrestrial life or supernatural phenomena the original show was based around (granted there is a psychic involved, however he is only a side-note). Furthermore, the villain is nothing more than an ordinary man, there is no suggestion or supernatural element involved that created the original X-Files' 'monster of the week' form. Subsequently, I feel that it just doesn't provide that sense of excitement or mystery that the show is known for and used to do.
Similarly, the subplot of Scully's child-patient, whilst somewhat emotionally engaging, strikes me as a little misplaced. There is no mystery, and no real suspense, meaning that it appears a little superfluous in the X-files world - almost like a well-written piece to pad-out and lengthen the story.
Another weakness i pick up on is Carter's poor choice of setting the film in snow. The snow is so bright, placid and plain that it removes from the film all the senses of eeriness and mystery provided by the show's former setting of foggy forests that it used and drew upon heavily. As a result it further distances the film from the X-files legacy.
A final flaw that resonates with me is the ending of the film. At the end of most if not all of the television episodes, the responder was left thinking 'what if', wondering, or in a state of suspense. In this film, it is almost as though Carter has forgotten his form, with only the anemic motif of 'Dont give up'. I agree with one reviewer who stated that Carter should have taken a hard look at this script, and either put more into it or thrown it out and started again. To me it seems to dance on the edge of the pointless abyss the final television season circled around, for this film is certainly not a memorable one. Being released 6 years after the end of the television series, Carter should have endeavoured to make this film much more hard hitting (or mysterious) to reinvigorate the audience and bring new life to the X-files legacy; instead it wheezes and coughs, doing little more than reminding us of what once was.
Whilst so far my standing has been fairly macabre, I still have given this film a 7, just for the fact that it is not 'bad' as such, but rather flawed and under-nourished. It is still likable, however this is more through the sense of nostalgia it brings across, and the interest in seeing how the characters of of the past, Mulder and Scully, have grown and developed, both physically and otherwise. Whilst I did enjoy this element, I also feel that Carter should have put more effort into developing a back-story or explanation for those who were just casually viewing the film, or those of us who are not as learned on the history of the X-files series. I myself in parts had a little trouble in understanding what they were talking about,such as the son Mulder and Scully had apparently lost (How? - remind the audience). If Carter had done this, then I feel it would have aided the flow of the story and film, and helped to engage said audiences a little more.
In conclusion, I don't completely know where I stand. As aforementioned, I enjoyed seeing Mulder and Scully once more in a commendable performance by both Duchovney and Anderson respectively, however it just doesn't seem to have the magic or that sense of mystery and darkness that within myself at least, the television version of the X-files is remembered for. One reviewer likened it to an extended or epic episode, however i feel they are drawing a long bow. Carter should not have deviated from his original form, however he has and as a result of this, I suppose the film would only be of interest to those familiar with the television series, to be reunited with and reminded of those two favoured FBI agents; Mulder and Scully.
300 (2006)
A work of art? Come on, really?
As aforementioned by other reviewers,there is quite a polarisation between the responses of viewers, taking the two sides of either loving 300 or despising it. Unfortunately I am of the latter breed, however, irrespective of this, i must protest against those who advocate this as a piece of art. Granted, the fight scenes are epic, and the cinematography is unique if nothing else, producing a film of high aesthetic quality. However these elements alone can hardly qualify a modern film as being a piece of art.
For a start, the film bases its story around historical events, with one slight problem; in parts it is historically inaccurate. In reading the review of another, they themselves (a lover of 300) admitted this point, and stated that 'this shouldn't matter and that people are reading too much into it' if they pick on the inaccuracies. To take this line is simply ridiculous; if you are going to tell a story of history, you must do it accurately to the best of your ability. Whilst the nature of history itself does come down to the manner in which it is told, this film blatantly ignores historical fact. One major point that jumps out at me occurs early on in the film, where an ultimatum is given to the Spartans, and the Spartan King asserts that his queen has the right to speak amongst men, asserting that women have a level of equality to men in this society. This is a poor choice by the creators, where it is obvious that they are merely trying to insert modern values into a historical context, and i would argue that this lowers the quality of the film.
Whilst in principle this idea is not 'wrong', the problem is that the creators are trying to tell a historical story, and to do it right, they need to stick to the facts. Such an inclusion would be welcome in something of a pseudo-historical film with a post-modernist or deconstructualist flair, however 300 has no such element, and so points such as this come across as nothing more than anachronisms inserted simply to keep the female audience from being offended.
Furthermore the glorification of the Spartan King killing the messenger is another poor choice. Sure, he insulted the queen, but even as far back as this is set, there was a customary understanding that one does not 'shoot the messenger'. It also undermines part of the storyline, for the Persian king would not be informed of the Spartan King's response - the Persian king is left to assume, however he could just as easily assume that the messenger was killed by some wild beast along the way.
Another point that strikes me is the characters themselves. One reviewer mentioned the high quality of acting from the actors... are you serious? The acting is nothing spectacular, and to be honest, it appears that the creators of this film just grabbed any guy with a six-pack out of Hollywood and stripped them to their underwear. The lines of this movie are nothing but corny, and the blatant use of stereotypical characterisation demeans the responder to a position where the creator assumes they have no intelligence, simply telling them who to support and who to despise. An example of this can be seen when comparing the leader of the Persians to the leader of the Spartans. The leader of the Persiens is very feminine in his appearance, with the use of eyeliner and makeup to accentuate his rather delicate features. This combined with his wearing of excessive amounts of jewelery presents to the responder something of a woman masquerading as a man. The responder is then led to compare this to King Leonidis, leader of the Spartans, who is your stereotypical rough and tumble man-hero, with six-pack and bulging biceps, and no fear whatsoever. In juxtaposing these two characters, it is clear who the creators push the responder toward supporting. This is further seen in the nature of the Persian leader, who shows excessive pride in yearning to be seen as a 'god'; an ugly personal trait to any responder. The point I am making here is that a true work of art would implore the responder to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions - the historical legend is one of heroism, and so the responder could easily come to this conclusion upon their own accord, they do not need to be treated like idiots as this film does. To a great extent, this is probably why there there is such a spectrum of responses upon the film, because some people enjoy being told, but most prefer to think. The problem is the film does not entirely know what it wants, it either needs to be something of modern pop-culture, quickly and easily forgotten, or a work of art. The stereotypical characterisation leads the film toward being part of pop culture, however the impressive cinematography provides high aesthetic appeal worthy of some artistic commendation. With this being said however, for a film to be considered 'a work of art', it needs to be succinct and bring all of these elements together into one production, which unfortunately, 300 is not capable of. It sits on the fence, showing elements of both strength and weakness, and for this reason, a 'work of art' it simply is not.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
excellent godfather movie, just in a different way
I see that many people have posted comments admitting their dislike of this film, with the most common reason being the manner in which it derives from the former two. I too agree in part with this statement, for the story does differ in the way it is told, but I feel that this is for the better. In the previous two films, whilst fantastic in their storyline too, they were exactly that; a story being told to us, where we merely observe the series of events and part of the manipulation and thought process that goes into creating them. There is no deep emotional connection between audience and character, where sure, on occasion we may feel sorry for a character, but it is short lived, and in reality, we are not that deeply engaged, because our attention is stretched and focused upon the complexity of these events. The third Godfather admittedly strays from this; however I would argue that this is for the better, for that connection between character and audience is so much stronger, and if you are seriously watching it, you can do no more that empathise and feel for Michael, and the pain his life has caused to both him and the others around him. Yes, in part, the story is a little clichéd, and a little thinner, but this is not at the loss of the film, it merely changes the nature of the film, from one of action and thought, to one of an emotional exploration of the character of Michael Corleone. Furthermore, to the argument that it strays too far from the original two, overall, it does in fact fit in with the general story. It is a story about Michael's going legitimate, a goal that he has outlined and carried right from the earliest scenes of Connie's wedding, where he courts Kay. I ask, to close such a trilogy, where else should one go with the story? It needed closure, and this film achieves it.
I must further advocate the brilliance of the final scenes, in the montage of Michael's life, and death. I feel that these are the most powerful scenes of the entire trilogy, for they encapsulate the meaning of the story; 'that crime is wrong doesn't pay'. Although subtle in the first two films, it can be seen through the paradoxical transformation of Michael as a character, where he commits crime for good, not evil. His nobility in going into the criminal business, is maintained by his motivations, first in protecting his family, and secondly, in turning his family away from crime, into the legitimate world. In the final scenes of the third movie, the power shows where we can do nothing but feel for Michael, for he is a martyr. He does the right thing, in trying to protect and save his family, and yet, as shown in the montage, of his loss of Appolina, Kay, his daughter, his brothers, and nearly his father, crime, the one thing he has been forced into to do good, has cost him everything he has ever held dear to him. This price he has paid is further accentuated by his modest, sad and lonely death, where, despite being in Sicily, the country he loves, he is alone, and dies without any grandeur - which I guess in part is also symbolic of his character's nature; modest and quiet - I understand that this is somewhat open to interpretation, however, I myself, have not yet seen a scene or moment of such power and meaning in either of the two previous films, and I challenge those who argue that the third Godfather is a poor film compared to the other two, to find me a moment of such concentrated greatness and gravity, because not only do these final scenes encapsulate the entire meaning, motivation, and central idea of the Godfather trilogy, the clever writing of this scene also changes the entire contextual nature of this 9 hour journey, from one where we believe that we, as the audience are sitting in the present, watching the turn of events as they occur, to one where we realise that we were actually witnessing and privy to Michael's reminiscence, of his life, crime, what it has cost him, and subsequently the cruelty of the world before him. Again, I understand that this is somewhat opinion based, however, I feel that this shows the true value and power of the film, where it, in effect, despite being about 9 hours into the story, the scene actually changes the entire meaning of all that precedes it (i.e. both the Godfather part 1 and 2). To reiterate my point, I would argue that the third godfather is just as great if not greater than the former two, the only thing is that it is written differently, so that the greatness of it, is aimed at a more academic, and inquisitive audience, rather than the general populus, because lets face it, as fantastic as the movies are, the storyline of 1 and 2 is nothing overly spectacular; and it primarily gains its status as a 'modern classic' from the performances within it. This is because at least in my eyes, there is no underlying theme, or hidden message or motif; it is just a straightforward story, (and there is nothing wrong with that), but the third does have a little more of this intellectuality behind it, and so for the audiences that are, shall we say more accustomed to the simplistic structure, they find themselves unable to be stimulated by the subverted themes, thus I argue that the third Godfather is worth a 10, if not something very close to it, because it is an excellent Godfather movie, just in a different way.