Change Your Image
davidarmbruster
Reviews
Knowing (2009)
Good movie... One to see.
MIGHT CONTAIN SPOILERS -- nothing specific This may not be the greatest science fiction movie since "2001," but it is good nonetheless. It is better science fiction than all of Spielberg's films put together.
Seems to me that a lot of Europeans commenting on this movie resent that it has a (relatively) upbeat ending. My suggestion is, go plow $100M into a movie that is a complete downer, and see if you have profits from it to do another one. Audiences (and especially American ones) are not willing to pay $10 to see a movie and come out of the theater feeling they need to go see a shrink in the morning. That's just a simple, hard economic realty.
Nick Cage is far from being my favorite actor but he has been in a number of good movies with interesting stories. This is one. I thought he did a workmanlike job of playing the grieving widower, and the nightly drinking to ease his pain was especially believable, without it (thankfully) being a major plot-point. The young, troubled, and ultimately hysterical young female lead was also very believable.
The disaster scenes were grisly and disturbing. Cage did a great job of post-traumatic shock that was played just right.
I was surprised by the ending and thought it was an interesting mix of both hope and loss.
I had a few moments of disbelief at certain plot points, but they are quibbles.
Journey to the Center of the Earth (1999)
slow moving; mediocre
A slow moving, made for TV movie. The acting, while not quite abysmal, never is convincing enough to develop any degree of concern for the principle characters. The animated creature special effects look really fake, though the rubber suits look pretty good considering the other production values. Some of the landscape backgrounds are pretty interesting, and there is one actress who is stunningly attractive. This would be a great film for "Mystery Science Theater 3000" to parody. "Oh, no! We're being taken prisoner by the Chipendale Dancers!" My wife brought this home, her latest selection in a run of made for TV movies she has found at the video store. She said this one was a Hallmark Hall of Fame piece; no wonder it sucks. Take a pass on this, it is a complete waste of time.
Rob Roy (1995)
unusual messages from Hollywood
MAJOR SPOILERS!! THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!!
Commenters have touched on the major theme of "honor" in the film, and too many comparisons to "Braveheart." I'll point out a few things about this movie that I have not seen other comments touch on:
This movie has a decidedly different take on abortion. The first character to get pregnant is the villain's (Roth) girlfriend, and when he coldly suggests an abortion, she states it is too late for that. The shame of her situation ("I'm to have a bastard's bastard.") leads her to commit suicide in a much later scene. The second character to find herself pregnant is Mary, Rob's wife, after a rape by Roth's character (and at least one sex scene with her husband, Rob). Late in the movie, as Rob is leaving for a final confrontation with Roth, Mary asks what she should do about the pregnancy of questionable origins, with a tone hinting of abortion. Rob replies in a noble tone, "it's not the fault of the child," and then states what he thinks the name should be, girl or boy. I find this "pro-life" stance on the part of the hero to be very un-Hollywood. Rob walks from the darkness of the house to the bright outside to make this comment -- not coincidental symbolism.
Another related theme is Roth's character is a bastard, someone who evidently does not know who his father was, and has few kind words for his mother, though he wears a picture of her in a case hung from his neck. Is it coincidence that Roth (devoid of family stability) is the walking definition of psychopath, while Rob is the strong husband/father figure, and of course the hero. In the final sword fight between Rob and the villain (Roth), the former slices the latter deeply across the chest -- the left side of the chest, over the heart. His employer and pseudo-father figure (John Hurt character) holds the mother's picture in his hand and gazes at it, before snatching it from the neck of the dead Roth.
Also what I find interesting was the direction of the rape scene, which was not quite graphic but neither was it off-camera and implied. I found it surprising in it's somewhat matter of fact depiction, with Mary convincingly showing the characteristics of someone going through the ordeal, and subsequent post traumatic stress (as we call it now). My point being that the rape was neither sensationalized nor just implied, which I find an interesting middle road for Hollywood to take.
In the final fight scene, I have to correct an earlier commenter: The weapon Roth chose was a rapier (or perhaps a short sword), the weapon Rob chose was a Claymore. Someone was really doing their homework on this entire scene. Roth would have the upper hand in such a situation, but of course the Claymore is a distinctly Scottish weapon. What is even more striking to me (as a fencer and someone who has read a bit on the subject) is that this final sword fight is one of the most convincing of any film ever made: The actors seem actually trying to kill each other -- not the usual slashes to the opponents blade we see in most movie fights (including the movies opening fight). Even more true to history, Roth is seen several times using the rapier as a thrusting weapon, which is it's purpose by design! (Rapiers were edged, but primarily a thrusting weapon with the edges used mainly for parrying an opponents thrust.) Rob uses the Claymore in broad slashes, as it's design intent. The fight goes down as I would expect it to -- Roth effectively wins. Though Rob wins the day by grabbing Roth's weapon (more symbolism) and striking him dead with a powerful slashing cut.
Folks, it is RARE to see this level of historical accuracy in a movie sword fight.
I'll also note that for whatever reason, I remember 1995 (the year of release) distinctly as a time of distrust of the U.S. government. Hollywood was obviously tuned into that, with the release of both "Rob Roy" and "Braveheart," and I think the anti-government leanings are why both films get so much comparison.
I think the different perspective that this film gives is refreshing to avid movie fans, tired of the same old, not so hidden messages from Hollywood.
Red Eye (2005)
Low budget, made for TV feel
This is not a great film, but it is not bad. The film is obviously not a big budget film, reflected by the use of relative newcomer actors and most of it taking place inside an airliner. Craven is obviously trying to move his career in a different direction, or perhaps just expand his resume so he has that option. A film like this is almost entirely character driven, and the two main actors deliver in that regard. Rachel McAdam's (the protagonist) and Cillian Murphy's performances have to carry a film like this, and they do. McAdam's acting was so on-spot that I guessed she was college trained, and a look at her bio confirmed that (NYU). Still, both her and Murphy's acting have a rather mechanical feel to them, which I thought limited the depth and believability of both characters. This might also be blamed on the writing or direction of the characters.
This film is going to appeal mostly to female audiences, and the demographics of the audience where we saw it confirmed that. A lot of women there with their girlfriends, no doubt after getting recommendations from their gal-pals. The one dimensional, gorgeous good-girl McAdam's character vs. the one dimensional, creepy Murphy's bad-boy character was a little over done. McAdams is so fantastically beautiful it was hard to picture her as a high-end hotel manager. She'd be making more money, obviously, as a model (or, hey, film actress!).
Plot spoilers here: Most women in the audience won't realize it, but the Murphy character would never spoon feed all that information to someone he is trying to manipulate for a hired hit. It would have shown a lot higher IQ on the part of the McAdams character had she figured some of this stuff out on her own, like the key fact that the entire family was going to be killed by the assassins. Also, in a post 9/11 world, I had a little trouble rationalizing her choice to trade her beloved dad for the life of the Homeland Security Director's (even if she voted Democrat); the more likely scenario is that her dad (and she) would have been killed, anyway, to cover the tracks of the bad guys. When she finally made the call that set up the assassin's plan, I thought, "You scummy *****." Left unsaid that after the McAdam's character's experiences with this guy, not to mention her alluded-to previous stranger rape, she is going to have a lot more intimacy problems with men. Also a not-so-subtle message to the women in the audience that all men (except some sleepy, dimwitted dads) are scum. For some reason, these films that have the strong female protagonists always leave it up to the male cop, soldier, or who-have-you to give the final coup de grace to the bad guy. This film is no exception; after a believable beating by McAdams, the bad guy is shot to death by her dad. I would have been a bigger fan of this film had the female lead emptied the magazine into the guy (she did get one shot in), but I guess girls and guns are a Hollywood no-no for the most part. Hat's off to whoever did the homework on the missile launching sequence. As a recent "Mail Call" (History Channel) episode confirms, the technical accuracy of the SFX on the rocket launch (a shoulder fired anti-tank weapon) was spot-on! I get so sick of seeing some moron's idea of a weapon system being hauled out, then fired like a child's toy on a wire. The missile shot was the big climax of the film, and the tech guys got it oh-so-right for a change. One could quibble about the smoke and fire from the actual explosion being "hollywood" not Mil-Spec, but the actual fire and flight sequence was great.