n_helinski Reviews

Glass (2019)

Good Ideas; Poor Execution

[5/10 · 14 May 2021]

After loving Unbreakable, and being at least interested in Split, I was excited for the culmination.

Unfortunately, while M. Knight has lots of interesting ideas, plots lines that sound good on paper, and performers worthy of the material, he fumbles the execution horribly.

Dialogue is clunky across all characters. Exposition is delivered so plainly you wonder if it's meant to be parody.

Sadly, the film will only be a filler for "what could have been" if M. Knight had made the film back when he was doing the good work he produced on Unbreakable.

The Color of Money (1986)

Stylish but Substance-less

[5/10 · 14 May 2021]

The film is confidently and stylishly helmed by Scorcese. He injects it with good pacing, and shoots scene after scene of pool playing in exciting enough ways to hold your interest. Newman is strong as usual, Cruise is energetic and egotistical, not a big stretch of a role from Top Gun or any number of others on his resume.

But unfortunately in the end, we're left wondering what the point of it all was.

Nightcrawler (2014)

Excellent story, moderate execution

[7/10 · 20 November 2014]

To be honest, the title pretty well sums it up. This was a movie made by a screenwriter, and in my opinion, it would have been better off in more capable hands. I feel like an excellent choice for this style would have been David Fincher. However, while the film we are presented has its flaws in storytelling ability, the story it is telling is well worth watching. Gyllenhall delivers another in a series of stand-out performances as one of the creepiest and most unnerving characters I have seen in a film. The cinematography was well done, but nothing too noteworthy, and James Newton Howard's score (one of my favourite composers) was rather unnoticeable. That said, the story and the performance (along with a few seat-gripping moments) are enough for me to recommend this movie to you, and hopefully the ending will leave you as shocked as it left me.

Pacific Rim (2013)

Please save your time and money

[3/10 · 16 July 2013]

I watched this movie with some friends despite telling myself a thousand times it was going to be terrible. The trailers never once hinted at anything that resembled a plot. But it was a cheap day, and I had nothing better to do. I'll start with the cast. It contains basically no "big-names", which isn't always a bad thing. Problem is, it also doesn't contain any good acting. At all. There was not a single watchable performance in the movie. I do feel a little bad for the actors, though, as the writing was so terrible Daniel-Day Lewis would have struggled to say any of it convincingly. Two actors in particular, Burn Gorman and Charlie Day who play the two scientist, give maybe the worst performances I've ever seen. They are not even good enough to put into a kid's film. I don't know if that's what the director wanted, if it is, that's one more knock against him.

Now the effects. I didn't really like Avatar, but I could at least appreciate the immense accomplishment of the visual effects. It was an unoriginal story, but it at least tried to develop it's characters. This film tried, barely, and failed terribly. It was impossible to care about anyone on screen. Back to the effects though. With nearly $200 million going straight to the CGI, they had to look good. It was nearly all you look at for 2 hours, after all. And that's all they look, good. Not "blow me away", or "coolest thing I've ever seen in a movie". Just good enough. Think Transformers meets Avatar. I heard Guillermo del Toro describe the movie as a "visual feast". It was closer to an assault on the eyes and ears for 2 hours. I looked away often because I knew I wasn't going to miss anything, and I didn't want to see it because I knew what would happen.

The plot. Unoriginal is an understatement. It's disappointingly simple and uncreative. The dialogue is laughable. That's not just a saying. Me and my friends laughed in the theatre at multiple lines. Again, bad writing and bad acting.

This was not an enjoyable movie to see, unless you truly don't care at all about intelligence in a film. You may say I just don't know how to "have fun" while watching a movie. That's like a little kid showing me Power Rangers episode and then wondering why I didn't love it. Do yourself a favour and skip this movie.

Stuart: A Life Backwards (2007 TV Movie)

More than worth watching

[8/10 · 4 June 2013]

Stuart: A Life Backwards does not have much going for it to make it popular. It was a British TV movie based on a popular but not widely known book. However, the story has more than enough heart to overcome any production limitations on this film.

The acting in this film is lead almost exclusively by Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch. It is hard to believe that these two were acting in such an unknown film at the time, as both have gone on to star in and gain critical acclaim for performances in "Inception" and "Star Trek: Into Darkness" respectively. Their performances here, however are at the very least equal if not far exceeding what they were able to accomplish in those film's.

Tom Hardy is know for his ability to transform for a role; body, voice, mannerisms, etc. It is truly exceptional when an actor I know so well completely disappears into a role. There is no hint of the charming Eames, or intimidating Bane (except in one particular scene). His performance is outstanding and above all, believable, which is highly important for a role such as his.

Benedict Cumberbatch's character is developed and changed by his relationship with Stuart, and he plays him with subtlety, allowing the viewer to focus on the character they ought to be paying attention to. He is a very relatable character, from his initial discomfort with Stuart to his total transformation by the end. The two together work perfectly, and are completely believable unlikely friends.

The story itself offers a view into a part and a class of society that many of us tend to shy away from. Watching the film, we realize how many people we have seen like Stuart, but have been far too uncomfortable or caring to bother giving them our time. The film does not, as Alexander puts it "make excuses for Stuart", it simply displays his life as it happened, and we are left to make our choice on what "killed the boy he used to be".

The production is very simple. There is rarely a close-up, and the cinematography is, to be honest, boring. But little more can be expected of a TV movie. However, as I said, the story and the characters are what make the film, and they are more than enough to give good reason to watch it.