4/5
Love & Other Drugs is a remarkably tender, heartfelt, and mature "romantic dramedy." The movie focuses on Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal), a budding new sales rep for Pfizer, and his relationship with Maggie Murdock (Hathaway), a young woman recently diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson's. Their relationship is not the simple fare we have become accustomed to in today's romantic comedies, where characters get into predictable, stupid fights over meaningless misunderstandings. Instead it tackles difficult issues, and it does so with humor and poignancy. There is a phenomenal moment in the movie that touched me and moved me far more than I thought it would. It occurs when Maggie finally realizes that her life has meaning outside of her disease and that it is worth living--and when Jamie truly fathoms the repercussions of being in love with a dying woman. The way they react is mesmerizing and agonizing; it is immeasurably sad and simultaneously beautiful.
The movie was not without its flaws. Unfortunately, as with almost every single movie that tackles anything even remotely scientific, there are a few scenes where people just spew arbitrary medical jargon around without any sense as to what they're saying. It's more than frustrating; it's insulting too. Another negative is that there is a heavy dose of nudity and vulgar scenarios/jokes. I didn't mind it personally, but it can makes for an uncomfortable group viewing experience. As for the cinematography and editing, they were above average but not particularly memorable. The tone felt a little haphazard, with the mood jumping around like it didn't know what genre it was, although I haven't decided yet if that's one of the film's shortcomings or assets. Overall, this is a superbly made film, with just the right amounts of laughter and tears. I highly recommend it.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758752/
Showing posts with label edward zwick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edward zwick. Show all posts
April 17, 2011
March 24, 2007
Blood Diamond (2006)
3/5
Blood Diamond starts out strong and ends strong, but the middle wobbled. Its focus was action, while the rest was drama. The story as a whole and the acting by all three main characters was quite good. As a result, several scenes stood out as very powerful ones. The action in the movie was the archetype of relentless tension. However, the directing, writing, editing, and music were all adequate, but nothing special.
I thought it tried too hard to be too many things, which made each thing seem less important than if the movie had just been about that. It talks about conflict diamonds, child soldiers, the general situation in Africa, reporting and smuggling as professions, and family--but none quite satisfactorily. The love story between DiCaprio and Connelly was so forced and unnecessary. The final 5-10 minutes of the movie felt like poor filmmaking to me, telling us nothing we didn't already know and weakening the impact and power of the piece.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0450259/
Blood Diamond starts out strong and ends strong, but the middle wobbled. Its focus was action, while the rest was drama. The story as a whole and the acting by all three main characters was quite good. As a result, several scenes stood out as very powerful ones. The action in the movie was the archetype of relentless tension. However, the directing, writing, editing, and music were all adequate, but nothing special.
I thought it tried too hard to be too many things, which made each thing seem less important than if the movie had just been about that. It talks about conflict diamonds, child soldiers, the general situation in Africa, reporting and smuggling as professions, and family--but none quite satisfactorily. The love story between DiCaprio and Connelly was so forced and unnecessary. The final 5-10 minutes of the movie felt like poor filmmaking to me, telling us nothing we didn't already know and weakening the impact and power of the piece.IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0450259/
July 29, 2006
Glory (1989)
3/5
I saw this yesterday on my quest to see the IMDb top 250, which is perhaps my most foolish undertaking (not because of the length, but because of the abundance of terrible movies). It scored very high on IMDb and I was excited because I liked Edward Zwick's most recent directorial effort (The Last Samurai). Unfortunately, I did not find this film particularly commendable. Maybe I just hate Civil War movies (I don't like the parts of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly where it uses the Civil War as a backdrop). Something about the acting just didn't feel right to me. I never thought the characters were real; they were just actors playing those roles. And what were we supposed to feel about Matthew Broderick's character? The first half of the movie he treats his men like dirt and the second half they suddenly have an incredible rapport. What changed about him that I missed? Cary Elwes' character was overall pretty worthless (though I liked his acting--I thought it was the best in the movie). I just never felt the emotional impact in this film that I was supposed to feel.
Now don't get me wrong; it's not a bad movie. It's just not anything to talk about. I don't see how it could be anyone's favorite movie. There's nothing atrocious about the directing and cinematography; the action scenes weren't bad. But it's not really an action movie, is it? I was disappointed when I found out that none of the characters were real except Broderick's. I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie unless you are a fan of the Civil War and not a fan of history (although how those two could coexist is perplexing).
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0097441/
I saw this yesterday on my quest to see the IMDb top 250, which is perhaps my most foolish undertaking (not because of the length, but because of the abundance of terrible movies). It scored very high on IMDb and I was excited because I liked Edward Zwick's most recent directorial effort (The Last Samurai). Unfortunately, I did not find this film particularly commendable. Maybe I just hate Civil War movies (I don't like the parts of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly where it uses the Civil War as a backdrop). Something about the acting just didn't feel right to me. I never thought the characters were real; they were just actors playing those roles. And what were we supposed to feel about Matthew Broderick's character? The first half of the movie he treats his men like dirt and the second half they suddenly have an incredible rapport. What changed about him that I missed? Cary Elwes' character was overall pretty worthless (though I liked his acting--I thought it was the best in the movie). I just never felt the emotional impact in this film that I was supposed to feel.
Now don't get me wrong; it's not a bad movie. It's just not anything to talk about. I don't see how it could be anyone's favorite movie. There's nothing atrocious about the directing and cinematography; the action scenes weren't bad. But it's not really an action movie, is it? I was disappointed when I found out that none of the characters were real except Broderick's. I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie unless you are a fan of the Civil War and not a fan of history (although how those two could coexist is perplexing).IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0097441/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
