| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Three Colors: White (Trzy kolory: Bialy) - R | March 6, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Macbeth - Unrated | October 6, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Mamma Mia! - PG-13 |
I'm giving this one 3.5 stars, but really, it's completely unrateable - as I said over and over again when I first watched it, it's either the best movie I've ever seen or the worst. DO NOT watch this if you don't like musicals or think you're too smart to enjoy a silly movie. Also, don't watch this if you're looking for any sort of story or coherence, or you're expecting to pick a movie apart. That will just spoil it. That being said, Mamma Mia! is a sunny, sotted mess of a movie that can't help but make you laugh, whether for the right or the wrong reasons. It's absolutely atrociously choreographed and a completely ridiculous movie that doesn't even try to be remotely realistic - Meryl Streep as the mother of a 20-year-old conceived in the Summer of Flower Power, all while talking about the Internets, anyone? - but it IS gosh-darn entertaining. A review I read somewhere described this as a screechy hen night, while another said it was like being very, very drunk. I agree with both of those, especially when you get to the scenes where Donna (Streep) and her Dynamos prance and pose in turquoise boas, psychedelic jumpsuits and cowboy boots (oh those boots!) The best thing about this movie is that it doesn't try whatsoever to take itself seriously; I mean, the ridiculousness of the chorus popping up and facing the camera each time someone starts singing, or Meryl Streep drunkenly asking the audience if they want an encore in the closing credits, is rather charming in the way your man-eating grandma is charming after a few drinks - it's funny, although it can get a bit embarrassing too. I felt especially uncomfortable to see a skeletal Christine Baranski, so wonderful in Chicago and "Cybill," hamming it up as a cougar in a plunging dress who charms a rather girly, short bartender dude in "Does Your Mother Know?" but at least she's having fun, I suppose...? Indeed, everyone's having a gay old time here (sometimes literally!), and it's rather refreshing to see the usually stiff-upper-lip Brits Julie Walters and Colin Firth don their dancing shoes and act mad for a bit. Walters, especially, is hysterically awesome in her spiky-haired, spunky role, although she doesn't get to sing much. Then there's Streep, of course; I wouldn't say this is a fantastic role for her, but it is a bit of a treat to see her do the splits in mid-air and have a bit of fun, although she gets a bit maudlin in "The Winner Takes It All," and I was a little scared of her when she popped on screen with full Tammy Faye Bakker-style makeup. Still, she's entertaining to watch, and I can't complain about her. I can, however, complain about poor Pierce Brosnan, who although is still yummy after all these years ruined the effect every time he opened his mouth. It would have been alright if he'd ended up singing a bunch of silly songs, but unfortunately he got stuck with the earnest torch songs that really suffered from his weak, old-man singing voice. Absolutely awful. He seems out of place in a cast full of silly hippies behaving badly, but I suppose somebody's got to do it? On the other side of the spectrum is the delightful Amanda Seyfried, whose voice is just a pleasure to listen to. Her role is a bit thankless because really, the focus isn't on her despite the fact that she's on the poster, but she's pleasant to watch and she has a good amount of energy onscreen. Quite a different role from her ditzy weather-forecasting Karen in Mean Girls. I'd probably be able to watch this many, many times, but it's definitely not for everyone. A lot of fun! |
August 12, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Les Quatre Cents Coups (The 400 Blows) - Unrated |
I was amazed at how modern this film was despite being made half a century ago; The 400 Blows is a delicate portrayal of troubled youth and its rare joys, elevated by the performance of its magnetic lead, Jean-Pierre Leaud as Antoine Doinel. For his young age in this movie, Leaud is wonderfully adult, and you see him growing up before your eyes in a spectacular nuanced performance, especially in that scene where he's talking to the psychologist about his past. Magnificent. And the famous final scenes of the movie as Antoine escapes from the camp are absolutely stunning, or in the words of another critic, "indelible." This movie reminds me a little of Bunuel's Los Olvidados in its portrayal of kids slipping through the cracks, but I feel ...Blows is definitely more delicate in its treatment of the subject, and is something many will identify with. Probably my only problem with it is that it seems so unfinished, which is why I'm excited to see the rest of the Antoine Doinel series. Beautiful work. UPDATE: I saw it again on the big screen last night, and while I fell asleep (again!) near the beginning, the movie is far from boring, and in fact seemed to gain more magic in this viewing, with Truffaut's direction helping to bring out all of Antoine's varied emotions - I especially love the scene where he peers out through the bars of the police car as tears streak down his face, looking as if he's seeing his city for the first - and last - time. The scene does infinitely more to convey the regret and clarity a prisoner must feel as he leaves the world he knows, than any monologue or other device. It's a remarkably sympathetic, realistic movie, and portrayals are well-rounded - even Antoine's parents are seen as human beings capable of joy, even as they neglect him. But of course, Léaud is the star of the show, and he's a delight to watch with both his mischievousness and forlornness coming across clearly in his performance. The last third is the best part of the movie, in my opinion, but now that I've Wikipedia-ed it, I love the fact that Truffaut pays homage to film in this movie, especially with that aerial shot of the boys escaping their gym teacher in the streets of Paris, which is just lovely and whimsical. Well worth watching again and again; it gets better with every viewing =) |
August 6, 2008 | N/A | |||
| My Blueberry Nights - PG-13 |
Oh dear. I was expecting a dreadful movie after all the terrible reviews I read, and I'm afraid my fears were rather well-founded. I so wanted to love this. But it was just dreadfully unmemorable and boring. Nothing goes on, and not in a good way, since while we're being bored by the nothing going on, there's nothing on screen either to occupy us visually, whether it be those closeups or gorgeous colours that WKW employed so well in In the Mood For Love, or in the characters' mannerisms. Poor WKW. Whereas his direction works so well in the Asian milieu that he belongs in, in English, with confused non-Asian actors, his work falters and becomes something only somewhat pleasant to look at. And it's not even a particularly beautiful movie - there is WAY too much use of slow motion here, for no particular reason, every scene with no dialogue is shot with slo-mo, which I suppose was to convey the languidness that WKW usually does so well. But instead, we had a movie which seems awkwardly paced and boring, with little time dedicated to fleshing out characters and too much time dedicated to Rachel Weisz's histrionic flouncing about. It's an odd movie which doesn't offer much to a viewer - at the end, we still don't know anything about Norah Jones's Elizabeth (through no fault of her own; she's green but moderately appealing, although she's no Faye Wong), and the only other vaguely interesting character, David Strathairn's cop, is confined to a sad little caricature, overshadowed by the horrible performance of Rachel Weisz. The resolutions, if you can call them that, are clumsy and trite; we don't really care about Rachel Weisz's supposed grief, or Natalie Portman's contrived regret, or really, even about Elizabeth and Jude Law's character getting together. The movie lurches forward in starts and stops, and what was so delicately handled in past movies - the quiet grief, the lonely crying, the forlorn looks - is just maudlin and hamfisted here. Maybe the actors weren't used to working with a guy as improvisational as WKW, infamous for shooting without a script. But just as likely, WKW has lost touch with his sense of pace and timing and realness, which makes me really sad. This movie also solidifies for me the idea that Natalie Portman really isn't a good actor, despite early reports attesting to that fact. Her carefree gambler is irritating and callous, and I felt no affinity for her, and the scene at the end in the hospital is just cheesy. Rachel Weisz is even worse, but at least she has the benefit of looking really good, I guess, albeit drunken and shrill. Also, I actually LAUGHED when I heard the familiar strains of Yumeji's theme in a different instrument, which I'm pretty sure isn't the effect that WKW was going for. I mean, c'mon! It was a pretty important scene too, I think, establishing Elizabeth's relationship with Jude Law's character, but it just gave me the icky sensation that WKW was trying to replicate the beauty, nostalgia and magic of In the Mood For Love, but instead it fails miserably and in fact makes a mockery of it. Sigh. |
July 21, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Hancock - PG-13 |
This is a really, really weird movie, with schizophrenic twists and a message that seems really confused. I really don't know what the filmmakers were trying to say here - Hancock is a mess of a movie that first appears to be trying to elicit sympathy for the main character's loneliness, and then seems to somewhat discard the value of relationships towards the end. I guess it's kind of an interesting story, what with this guy's rise to grace and his relationship with Jason Bateman's Ray, but it's confusing especially towards the end of the movie. Charlize Theron's Mary, in particular, is especially schizophrenic, (SPOILER ALERT!) between being angry at Hancock and hating him, and loving him in that hospital scene. It's really freaking odd. The movie is pretty funny in places, I guess, but even its humour becomes repetitive and trite, especially with the whole a**hole thing. OK, I get it, being called that makes you mad and want to beat people up, especially if they call you that three times, but seriously? Do you need to beat it into my head? I also don't get the ending. (SPOILER ALERT!) I mean, what's up with Ray getting back to being all lovey-dovey with Mary again after obviously seeing that she isn't over her ex, with whom she has a very very long, tumultuous and passionate relationship with? It's not explained at all. I was also pretty annoyed with the handheld camerawork, which is fine for a TV show like The Office or Arrested Development but really gets old fast when it's used in a movie. It's a minor annoyance, but it sure didn't help me enjoy this movie more. I don't know, I think this was a pretty bad movie. I agree that it has a fairly interesting premise, and Hancock's aloneness poses a thought-provoking question about human relationships, but it isn't explained well, especially when all is suddenly fine at the end when we see that he is meant to be alone anyway. Meh. |
July 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| WALL-E - G |
WALL-E is possibly the best animated feature I have ever seen. Just a few weeks ago I was bemoaning the loss of 2D animation, and I was definitely not interested in seeing this movie. But I'm glad I did, as this movie, while deceptively simple in its story and premise, contains a wealth of poignancy and complexity in the interactions of WALL-E and his EVE. You all know the story - humans destroy the planet with their compulsive materialism - but I don't think that's the important message in this movie. It's odd that a non-speaking little garbage compacting robot is more human than all the people in this movie, and the first half of the film is touching in its portrayal of WALL-E as the last man standing in a forgotten, dusty planet, even though he's a robot. The little touches are astounding, from WALL-E hanging up his tracks before turning off for the night, to his admonishment and worry over his cockroach pal, to his glowing "eyes" as he watches the Hello, Dolly video over and over again. WALL-E is the ultimate pack rat, something I can relate to, especially as the little robot treasures the old things of a forgotten age, you feel nostalgic for a time that's still here. Because of the lack of dialogue, the first half of WALL-E is all the more stunning in its lonely portrayal of a defiantly happy little robot - this, I believe, is what I Am Legend could have been, although admittedly the latter movie had a grimmer tone to it. You see the end of the world in a starker way here, especially when WALL-E is painstakingly building his massive towers of garbage, and when he desperately tries to find love with EVE even as she's in hibernate mode or whatever. Despite this dystopian view, WALL-E is still incredibly optimistic for the future of humanity. I love the closing credits where WALL-E and his gang of robots are shown in hieroglyphics to be teaching the world to live again. And even apart from the message, WALL-E is a lovely movie, with the balletic space dance between WALL-E and EVE and EVE's whirling through the air following her first appearance on earth coming to mind as spectacular examples of this movie's beauty. I haven't even gotten to EVE yet! What a wonderfully thought out character; I'd read somewhere that EVE had no emotions, unlike WALL-E, but I would hotly disagree with that assessment - EVE is possibly even more human than WALL-E, with her angry kicking things around after failing to find what she's looking for on Earth, the evident frustration in her "voice" as WALL-E does something silly again, and (SPOILER ALERT!) her frantic rebuilding of a broken WALL-E, whom she's obviously come to care about. EVE's interactions with WALL-E are really touching, and it's a pas de deux that may rival some of the greatest love stories out there. You also have to love the minor characters like that cleaning robot and the crazy hyper robot who beats up all of the security guard robots, all of whom add humour to a movie, which while having a dark message, is still light and entertaining and often hilarious. I couldn't really find any flaws with this movie; even the human parts fit wonderfully with the robot stories, and you're rooting for the captain all the way even though he's been shown to be somewhat of a simpleton throughout the movie. As well, you can't go wrong with a Thomas Newman score. Man, I love that guy! The music for this movie is sometimes otherworldly, sometimes cute and tinkly, but always appropriate, adding to an already well-crafted atmosphere. Fantastic movie, and well worth watching again. |
July 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Sex and the City - R |
There are a pile of old reviews waiting for me, but if I don't do this one now, I never will, and I think my old friend the TV series deserves a decent review. I loved the TV show. I wasn't a fanatic, and unfortunately I can't remember minute details about every episode (in fact, my boyfriend recounted an episode last night that I don't believe I've even watched). But let me tell you, that as a fan of the show, I wasn't disappointed. The makers of the hit TV series have taken care to craft a movie filled with the references, couture (the ol' tutu even makes a comeback in a charming little sequence), and charming relationships - both between the girls and their men - that fans will be all over. The Manolos are here (or at least one significant pair). Cosmos are drunk. The girls eat cake in their favourite white café. Carrie can still afford to buy $525-pairs of shoes and LV bags but still eats cup noodles on New Year's Eve. And yes, there's sex, although it's a little contrived at times. That loving homage to the TV series is sometimes the downfall of this movie, which is rather long at 2 1/2 hours. That isn't to say it was tedious - far from it - but you definitely get the feeling that they were trying to cram as much exposition into the film as they possibly could, and it does feel like an extra-long, extra-cheesy episode. Unfortunately, the movie lacks the biting wit and snappy dialogue of the TV series; there are still one-liners and Samantha is as hilariously potty-mouthed as ever ("Hey d***wad, I'm talking here!" lolz), but our heroines and their sidekicks (including the rather unfortunate Jennifer Hudson) are stuck here with Hallmark dialogue better suited to a daytime soap than our clever, sexy HBO series, or even any decent romantic comedy. It's too bad, because the storyline, while predictable, isn't horrible. The girls' trials and tribulations are somewhat relatable, and the four are as effervescent and lovable as ever (although Miranda perhaps is less so, having grown more prickly than ever. Maybe it's the Brooklyn air, which apparently is unlike that rarefied Manhattan climate). Sigh, Jennifer Hudson. I've never seen her anywhere else, not on American Idol, not in Dreamgirls, and to her credit, she had the crappiest dialogue to spout and an almost unnecessary subplot. But I can't help thinking that she might have been thrown in to add some (dare I say it?) colour to our white-bread, somewhat elitist cast. And I found her rather annoying, to be honest, and out of place, although she wasn't unlikable. I did like her interactions with Carrie, but I wonder if it was more a result of SJP's charm and skill at bringing out the whole girl-bonding vibe. At any rate, this movie isn't about Jennifer Hudson's Louise, or Stanford Blatch, or Magda (though I was happy to see her), or even the men, for that matter, who are really just accessories. Come to think about it, they don't even get as much face time as the clothes and shoes do. Big and Steve and Smith are OK, but they're not really given too much to work with (although I did tear up when Carrie got Big's love letter e-mails and when he finally sees her at the walk-in closet). But we don't care, do we? The girls are as charming as ever, and watching this movie is like catching up with an old friend, and our four rise admirably above being simply the caricatures that they seem to be on paper. It's wonderful, really, to see the four women interact with each other with such apparent sincerity, and the solidarity is perfectly played out in several scenes, namely (SPOILER ALERT!!) the girls' protectiveness of Carrie after Big's change of heart, the montage in the hotel room which ends with Samantha feeding Carrie yogurt, and even every squealing greeting that occurred whenever doors were opened (which, contrary to popular opinion, I found rather cute). I guess the story isn't really very important, although it moves things along credibly and gives our girls something to kvetch about. Kim Cattrall and SJP, in particular, are wonderful and warm despite the bum deals that are meted out to their characters, but Charlotte, who's usually my favourite, is cute but not really given a huge role, and Miranda, who definitely has the second-juiciest story, is just unpleasant to be around sometimes. No matter. I love how well the four are cast and marvel at what seems like real friendship, and the movie delivers enough ooh-and-ahh moments to make me happy and slightly teary-eyed. The four of them are great together. I will mention one more thing: Samantha's "hot" neighbour? Eww, and his sex scenes are definitely gratuitous. I thought it was a funny observation that my boyfriend made about how there really wasn't a lot of sex in this movie, and I think Dante's stuff was really just plonked in there because the producers said "Gah! There isn't really any sex in Sex and the City! Let's put it all on this guy!" Or at least it feels that way. Maybe I'm just a prude. Bottom line: Great movie to see with the girls (or the guy) if you're a fan of the series. Even better if you have a cosmo in hand (we brought pink lemonade in martini glasses to the theatre!). |
May 30, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - R |
Ugly, messy, brutal - it says something about a film when you can describe it in these negative terms and still say it was a fantastic film. Despite there not being any crazy twists built into this movie, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is gutwrenchingly suspenseful, helped along by a plot that examines a story from every angle, forcing you to revisit motives, allegiances, relationships. The ending can barely be called shocking despite its somewhat unexpected nature, simply because it's a movie where anything goes, where relationships mean nothing more than the gratification they can get you. You know, the more I see of Philip Seymour Hoffman, the more I'm convinced he must be a real scumbag - that's not me casting aspersions on his off-screen character, but simply lauding the brutality he brings to each role. I must say that I do harbour a sort of "fat guy = nice guy" stereotype in my head, but Hoffman easily sheds that perception with his nasty, brutish performance (to misquote Hobbes). Perhaps the only flaw I would ascribe to him here is his lack of redemptive qualities, as his character is utterly despicable. The movie throws in a weak "You always loved my brother better than me" play into the works, but it's hardly effective. However, his interactions with his drug dealer are revealing enough and help to slightly humanize an otherwise awful character. As for the others, Ethan Hawke is effective as the weakling brother who can't stand up to anyone, and Albert Finney is surprisingly three-dimensional as both loving husband and coldly cruel, relentless vigilante (if you can call him that). I mean, I love Finney, but I've always seen him as kind of a kindly, grandfatherly type. Again with the playing against type! Marisa Tomei is perhaps the only person who conforms to her usual fluffy, slightly dim cutie role, but it works effectively here as a weak ray of light penetrating through the darkest of shrouds, and it's a welcome distraction from all the bleakness. In fact, her scene where she attempts to leave Andy is great, with her helplessly trying to get her wheelie suitcase up the stairs and desperately trying to get some reaction out of her desensitized husband. I've always liked Tomei, and I think she's good here, and injects some humanity into this band of scoundrels. The look of this movie helps to heighten the sense of paranoia, claustrophobia and darkness, and Lumet artfully uses angles, hallways and turned-off lights to convey hopelessness in a world where family means little but what its members can do for you. It's not a pretty movie by any stretch of the imagination, but where one would expect the starkness of its sets, right down to the minimalistic interiors of the drug dealer's apartment or Andy's office, and bare-bones composition to convey feelings of spaciousness or light, Lumet manages to tighten and portray emptiness of a black-hole kind, to squeeze the heart and stomach and create suspense. And there is a heck of a lot of suspense here, further added to by an equally sparse but effective recurring theme. It had kind of a Law & Order vibe to it, which I think is a good thing in this kind of film - you don't want crazy strings or huge drums to detract from what's going on on the screen. Really, really good. |
May 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Young at Heart (Young@Heart) - PG |
From the moment I saw the trailer for this, I knew it was going to be charming. I'm not usually one for documentaries, but what's not to love about old people singing rock songs, if you just think about the comedic possibilities? I wasn't disappointed; from its opening minutes, showing an older lady wailing and speak-singing The Clash's ("The Crash?") "Should I Stay Or Should I Go?", Young@Heart is irresistible and irrepressibly optimistic, even through moments of mourning. I guess this is a spoiler, so don't read to the end of this passage if you're not prepared to, but what can you expect with a movie about very, very old people except that there's going to be death? I cried and cried and cried every time there was a reference to one of the two deaths in the movie, especially during the touching solo rendition of Coldplay's "Fix You," but this isn't a sad movie. Far from it. There are moments of poignancy, and these aren't glossed over at all - rather, the camera lingers and gives the subjects some time to breathe rather than hurrying along to the next happy moment. I think especially of wonderful Joe Benoit, my favourite person in the whole doc, whose lovely smile barely wavers even as he sits alone in the frame with an IV in his arm. Still, as I said, it's not a sad movie, just a sensitive one. There are so many moments of laughter, as you might expect from observing a bunch of 80-year-olds trying to scream like James Brown or strut about while singing "Stayin' Alive," and of course, when the doc takes time to let us see these people beyond their roles in the choir, as lovers, comedians, regular patrons at your local diner. You never get the sense that the filmmaker is trying to manipulate your emotions (even though you know this isn't all there is), but rather, you simply see a group of wonderful, funny people who get annoyed and tired and sick and sad and flirty even though by all norms, they're at the end of their roads. There are a few weaknesses, of course: Bob Cilman, the choir's director, is given very little attention despite his screen time, as we learn very little about him and how he got involved in this, how he feels about these people. We get a glimpse of it when he talks to them on the phone, and you can tell that he's worried about these seniors, but still, we learn little about him. As well, the camerawork is not spectacular, and the grainy quality certainly doesn't add to the experience. But oh, what a lovely movie this is, and it gives me hope that the end of life can be as joyful and beautiful as the beginning. These old people have such wondrous exuberance, and it's impossible to remain unmoved in the face of such scenes as Lenny zipping down the road in a rickety old car, or Eleanor flirting with the camera crew, or Dora dancing joyfully in the back of the chorus practice room. Or, on the flip side, watching Fred watch the Coldplay music video by himself in a darkened room, or looking at Joe's lovely smiling face in the Young@Heart poster being pinned up in a diner. Wonderful and life-affirming. |
April 28, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Untraceable - R |
I can tell you I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, although I was intrigued by its premise especially in this age of torture porn, both in the movies and in real life. As such, I don't think I was disappointed despite the grainy grey, made-for-TV look and script, barely enlivened by Oscar nominee Diane Lane's equally drab performance (although you can't blame her, really, since the script paints her in the usual tired cop-and-mother-but-also-friend stereotype. It's a little too CSI for my tastes, even though I would say I'm a fan of the TV show, because the movie is a 30-minute story scraped over too much film (pardon the crappy LotR paraphrase); the whodunit aspect, which is what I found intriguing about the first Saw movie (I never saw the rest of the franchise), is rather weakly played since the killer is revealed more or less halfway through the movie, and the person isn't someone we "care" about per se. In fact, if there's a major flaw in this movie, it's that it really didn't make me care about any of the characters, precisely because of its CSI format, which would work in a TV series where relationships are bred over a span of weeks or years, but not here. Rather, what we have are a series of weak stereotypes - the innocent, funny sidekick, overbearing, ignorant chief, and the tired, wise cop. I suppose it's a decent enough "message movie" that gets across the idea that our obsession with violence has gone entirely too far, and it does represent that aspect rather accurately, what with the inane comments accompanying each "Kill With Me" video that are eerily similar to those alongside YouTube vids, or even sites such as Flixster (as pointed out by a reviewer, Ebert I think). And I'll bite the bullet and perhaps even play into the message of this movie by saying that some of the torture methods are pretty ingenious - yes, I'm ashamed to say that, and I guess it proves a point, doesn't it? |
April 15, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Triangle (Tie saam gok) - R |
I liked the idea, but the actual movie is rather unmemorable (perhaps I would have been able to write a fuller review if I had hustled and gotten this done earlier instead of waiting two months, gah). As well, it suffers from the classic problem that surfaces whenever three auteurs try to merge their styles: there is a definite lack of stylistic continuity here, and the storyline is also too jumbled to redeem the muddled visuals. It starts off promisingly - I always love a good heist movie - but it throws in too much oddness with the story of the cheating girlfriend/doublecross/looks like a dead ex thing, and the treasure story really becomes a mere sideshow, which is a pity. Still, it's not quite a thumbs-down from me because I enjoyed Simon Yam's barely contained character, who although he is not very well-developed, stands out as somewhat of an enigma, giving the movie a bit more of a complex edge. |
April 15, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Fall - R | April 15, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - PG-13 |
Oddly, while this movie has the most character development, the most puzzles, and Sean Connery (whom I love with an abiding love), this may well be my least favourite Indiana Jones movie. Granted, part of the reason for my lack of love for the movie was that it was at the tail end of a six-hour long movie marathon, but I found that somehow, it dragged in the beginning and I found Indy's interactions with his father oddly tiresome. Also, River Phoenix seemed rather wasted in his very brief appearance as young Indy - the segment somewhat explains Indy's beginnings but still seems somewhat thrown in there. Still, nice segue into the present day. Still, the movie picks up considerably towards the end, and it is possessed of some choice jokes, such as the humorous interlude with Hitler. And the ending is a classic, although anyone who knows the Merchant of Venice will likely not be surprised. Still a fun watch, and I would watch this again. |
April 5, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Millennium Mambo (Qianxi Manbo) - R | April 3, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Spring in a Small Town (Xiao cheng zhi chun) - Unrated | March 18, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Apur Sansar (The World of Apu) - Unrated | March 12, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - PG |
My absolute favourite of the trilogy. Now I realize lots of people hate this one, from critics to regular Joes, and I guess I can see their arguments (it's too dark, Willie's annoying, etc.) but you know what? I think this one is by far the most well-crafted and interesting story, and there are some great visuals and characters here - yes, even poor annoying Willie has her charms. The movie starts off brilliantly, with a few clever little zingers here and there and references to the Star Wars movies (Cafe Obi Wan, anybody?) that made this film feel like an old friend. Short Round is a great addition as well and gives Indy a great chance to expand beyond his macho womanizer personality without compromising his manliness, and the kid is quite the funny little charmer. Pity they didn't bring him back for the Last Crusade. I found this one to be the most suspenseful as well, what with the curse and the iron maiden, the fantastic train-cart ride and the bridge chase. The rich colours of India also provide a great visual backdrop for this movie, although it's not lacking in things to look at, that's for certain. All-round great and what I'd expected from an Indiana Jones movie based on previous impressions. I think it's been sorely maligned by Indy fans, and deserves revisiting. |
March 7, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - PG-13 | March 7, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark) - PG |
Highly entertaining, but somehow lacking the suspense and intricately crafted puzzles that make the other two movies a joy, Raiders of the Lost Ark is nonetheless quite the innovative movie for its time. I'm not sure if this rating is too low because while I think it was a lot of fun, there's something missing here; perhaps it's Harrison Ford's impish charm that you see more clearly in Temple of Doom? But that can't be right because this one was the first, and the first one in the trilogy I watched, so I didn't have anything else to go by. Hmm, I'm not sure what's missing, but it's not quite all there for me (excuse my stream of consciousness). The one thing I DID like best about this one was the spunky heroine, neither annoying like Willie of Temple of Doom nor cold and virtually absent like the German chick in The Last Crusade. I actually really enjoyed Indy's interactions with the heroine (I can't remember her name now), and she seemed somehow less helpless/uninvolved than the other two. Nonetheless, this movie doesn't have as much adventure of the puzzling kind as I would like, and therefore, for me at least, lacks the charm of the other two, although I'm torn between whether I like this one better or The Last Crusade (Temple of Doom, widely decried by all as the worst, is actually my favourite). I realize I've been yammering on comparing this one to the other two, which isn't really fair to the movie. On its own, Raiders... has strong entertainment value, and it's a fun romp which certainly doesn't lack originality; oft-imitated, you're never going to find anything of its kind today. But is it the ultimate adventure movie? I'm not sure. This is more of a 3.8 or a 3.75 for me, hehe. Still, a great movie which has aged pretty well. |
March 5, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Ugetsu monogatari - Unrated |
At first glance, a simple ghost love story, with shades of something deeper glimmering on the surface. At its heart, however, Ugetsu is stunning and multi-faceted in its explorations of life after death, criticisms of the military, capitalism and the aristocracy, and a beautiful-looking film to boot. Mizoguchi's camera moves fluidly through the rural life lovingly defended in the film, but even his scenes at Lady Wakasa's manor are hauntingly gorgeous, most notably a brief but spookily beautiful scene where servants appear out of nowhere in a carefully choreographed candlelighting scene. Sent chills down my spine, it did. Also gorgeous: the scene where the two couples are rowing in a misty lake, and the idyllic love scene between Genjuro and Lady Wakasa, which pans expansively across the landscape in a dizzying exploration of the heights of new love. It's a surprisingly daring movie for its time, and I was especially struck by its willingness to portray sex as something more than just rainbows and butterflies, unlike its contemporaries. Yet, the movie is unafraid also to portray love of a more traditional kind, and the love between the two main couples, Tobei-Ohama and Genjuro-Miyagi is beautifully fleshed out, surviving criticism, war, brokenness, poverty, and even death. I may be reading too much into it, but its release after the calamity of WWII also serves of a reminder of the brutality of war and the rise of capitalism in its wake, ruining the simple pleasures of family life in the pursuit of wealth and glory. I mean, I'm no anti-capitalist, but the movie certainly put across its ideas in a very convincing manner, with the result being multidimensional characters and a deep story. I suppose my only criticisms are somewhat circumstantial; I was watching it on a plane and the subtitles on the airplane copy were dreadful and almost unreadable, and the acting is not terrific although I love the way the character of the somewhat shrewish Ohama (the wannabe samurai's wife) was portrayed, and Genjuro the potter is also pretty well-acted despite his forays into scenery-chomping. A beautiful film and worth watching again; there are so many things to explore here. |
March 5, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Tai yang zhao chang sheng qi (The Sun Also Rises) - Unrated |
Absolutely dreadful, pretentious, nonsensical drivel. Maybe I didn't "get" its commentary on how Chinese culture was shaped throughout history (as I read it was about somewhere), but if that was what it was about, I think it was done hideously. I tried, I honestly tried to give this one a chance, and goodness knows I love three-parter movies because if just one part is great it may redeem the whole movie. But I watched and watched and absolutely nothing became clear, the acting and script were ridiculous and said absolutely nothing, and it wasn't even visually stimulating to boot. I'd like to hear if anybody understood what was going on, and if you know me, I'm not one who's always clamouring for story or plot, but I was really struggling to figure out what the heck this movie was about, and why I should care about any of the silly, underdeveloped, shallow characters who seemed to do nothing but delight in uttering nonsensical phrases and prance around crazily. Perhaps the only thing which could redeem this film is its lilting score, which is quite charming in places but is hardly enough to lift it above its ridiculousness. Pity, because this is quite the cast here, but they're all wasted, especially Joan Chen's horrific giggling doctor. Ugh. Horrible, horrible movie. If I had five thumbs I would turn them all down. It's been a while since I gave such a low rating to any movie, but I think this one deserves it. |
March 5, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Ella Enchanted - PG |
While not the best modern fairy tale to grace the silver screen, Ella Enchanted is entertaining enough with its referential humour and charming performances. There's a fantastic story under all that as well, but somehow that's not executed as well as it could be and the movie falls flat towards the end, as seems to be the fault of most fairy-tale movies these days. Anne Hathaway's Ella is gently feisty - I've always liked her, but she offers nothing new to the "modern heroine who finds her strength within herself" template. Most of the performances are decent but unmemorable, except for the grotesquely skinny Vivica A. Fox who manages to completely annoy me in the two minutes she has on screen (I suppose that's her job in her role as drunken, misguided ghetto fairy grandmother, but still). Still, I enjoyed the imaginativeness of the story and its quirky modern touches, and I had some great laugh-out-loud moments with the "Batox" wrinkle-freezing treatment, a creative escalator-type water wheel thing and even Prince Charming/Charmont and his fan club. The anti-slavery/discrimination message was also cleverly presented, with one of the best scenes in the movie being the beautifully choreographed giant wedding. I have to say though, one of the things which really bothers me about modern musical-type movies is the tendency to repackage pop songs a la Moulin Rouge! - one of the reasons why Enchanted is one of my favourite movies in recent years and Ella Enchanted, Happy Feet and various others have just been blah for me. It's lazy, and no matter how charming the cover is, it's still going to sound rather cheesy unless it's a hugely imaginative staging. Anyway, rant over. Bottom line: Ella Enchanted is a fun afternoon in with your kids and has its funny moments but offers nothing really new. Worth a watch though. |
January 28, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Amadeus - R | January 23, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Juno - PG-13 |
Argh! I can't understand why the critics are praising this movie so much. I haven't found a single negative review about this rather annoying film, so, here you go, the other side of the story. First, the great: Jennifer Garner is absolutely magnificent and quite underused in her role as "desperate seeker of spawn;" I've never seen her as more than mildly appealing and could never quite get past those crazy cheekbones. But here she's vulnerable, luminous, quietly brave and just stunning, and puts in a star turn in her scene at the mall where she talks to Juno's stomach in an attempt to connect with her soon-to-be child, a scene which is easily, easily the best scene in this movie. The lines are nowhere near mindblowing, and it could easily have become the cheesiest scene, but somehow Garner charms and touches and wrenches at the heartstrings. Fabulous. Her quietly contemplative scene as she picks out paint for the nursery is also quite good, and where it could have been played for laughs she simply comes across as a mother excited and nervous to greet her new child and longing to make things the best they possibly can. And now for the rest: While I give Ellen Page mad props for being a proud Canadian, her performance is nowhere near as amazing as it's being hailed everywhere. In her defence, she does suffer from being saddled with a terrible script filled with catchy lines that no teenager in real life would spout, but that being said, she doesn't do much else with it. I looked out for tiny cracks in that smarteass armour, but found none. It's a decent performance, I suppose, but not one worthy of the accolades laden upon it by all and sundry. Perhaps the problem is how many indie-cool lines Juno has, because Michael Cera's Paulie Bleeker and Allison Janney's Bren stand out despite having pretty bland dialogue. Bren, in particular, reminds me of Janney's wonderfully sarcastic Ms. Perky from 10 Things I Hate About You, with a touch of motherly warmth. And Paulie is touchingly awkward, which I suppose is like every other character Cera plays, but he does do it well, and it's a character I do feel for at the end of the day. Lots of things bother me about this movie, especially the awful, obtrusive soundtrack. I think it makes this movie out to be trying way too hard to be indie, and while I suppose it helps you to notice the song at the end is also on the soundtrack, that's no justification for inserting nonsensical non-diegetic music every two seconds. I usually like this style of music, but not when it's shoved in my face, thank you very much. I'm also bothered by the opening sequence, which seemed to go on forever and was too much a copycat version of Wes Anderson-style stuff, but I suppose that's just me being overanalytical. The script, as previously mentioned, is also bash-worthy, by turns overly smart-alecky and unnatural and then awkwardly maudlin, such as Juno's dad's awfully clichéd monologue about "finding someone who loves you for you." Ugh. In the hands of a more subtle actor, it might have worked better, as in the case of Jennifer Garner, but J.K. Simmons simply comes across as blundering through. Ho-hum. |
January 3, 2008 | N/A |
568 ratings
227 reviews
