Showing posts with label jim broadbent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim broadbent. Show all posts
August 21, 2013
Cloud Atlas (2012)
3/5
Cloud Atlas is an ambitious project for even the most visionary directors. It tracks six separate storylines that connect and intersect in moods and themes. Directed by three people, the Wachowskis and Tykwer attempt to use the same actors across time and space to link the storylines. That unnecessary dedication to a concept is perhaps the reason for dressing its white actors up in "yellowface" to make them look Asian, which is off-putting and unsettling to say the least. Ignoring that, the movie still has its imperfections and failings.
Although the movie intercuts six stories remarkably well, it feels lopsided and uneven. The stories are given equal weight even though some are far less interesting than others. While the book tells the various fictions sequentially, the movie unifies them into a singular, simultaneous narrative. I'm not sure it was the right decision, as it comes with numerous compromises, but it shows that the directors care about the story enough to attempt to adapt the ideas instead of the words.
As the movie ended, I wasn't sure what I got out of it. Its self-importance was lost on me. I felt like the movie is engaging and compelling for its storytelling, but not its story; its filmmaking, but not its content. It's appealing but empty, exciting but unsatisfying. It was made to be bold, not to be felt. I can't imagine anyone going into the theater will go out feeling anything but disappointed.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/
June 19, 2010
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
3/5
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an all right movie. It's very confusing if you haven't read the books, or if haven't seen the other three or four or five or six or however many movies there were that preceded this one, or if you saw them but you don't remember them. I fall in all three of those categories, and it was very confusing for me. I'm not certain of the plot except that there are some wizards and some bad guys and they are fighting each other. Some people think that Harry is the "Chosen One" but others do not--I don't really know what that means though. Voldemort makes an appearance as the child Tom Riddle. Helena Bonham Carter is evil and can fly around as a cloud of smoke, along with some other people who are dressed equally goth. There's a vanishing closet that's really just a portal to another vanishing closet. That's all I can remember about the plot.
I think this movie was really just there for the ending (where something terrible happens, but I can't reveal what or I would "spoil" the movie). Every other part of the movie is essentially just buying time until what I assume will be a final battle between Voldemort and Harry in the last movie (which will be in two parts to milk as much money out of you as they can). It's just kind of simple, mindless nothing. Some of that nothing is boring, some of it is exciting, some of it is scary, and some of it is funny; it's all equally worthless though. I'm fairly certain you could have skipped this movie and gone on to the next one if you wanted. But the movie is an entertaining one. You probably will not be disappointed if you just want to waste 2.5 hours watching something fun.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an all right movie. It's very confusing if you haven't read the books, or if haven't seen the other three or four or five or six or however many movies there were that preceded this one, or if you saw them but you don't remember them. I fall in all three of those categories, and it was very confusing for me. I'm not certain of the plot except that there are some wizards and some bad guys and they are fighting each other. Some people think that Harry is the "Chosen One" but others do not--I don't really know what that means though. Voldemort makes an appearance as the child Tom Riddle. Helena Bonham Carter is evil and can fly around as a cloud of smoke, along with some other people who are dressed equally goth. There's a vanishing closet that's really just a portal to another vanishing closet. That's all I can remember about the plot.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/
June 08, 2010
The Young Victoria (2009)
4/5
Going into the movie, I did not know anything about The Young Victoria. But it surprised me in ways I never expected a movie like this would. It is a period piece set in the early 1800's, as the young Princess Victoria (Blunt) takes on her role as England's new Queen at the age of 18. New and inexperienced, she enlists the aid of Prince Albert (Friend) of Belgium and the Prime Minister of England Lord Melbourne (Bettany). People become concerned that she may be manipulated to do their bidding, and indeed the political intrigue is present for those who like that kind of thing. She grows close to Prince Albert but appears to trust Lord Melbourne more, and indeed there is romance for those who like that kind of thing. But it does not fit snugly into a single genre, and that is what I liked most about this movie. It is simply a retelling of what happened in Queen Victoria's early life, and does not cater to plot conventions and predictable story arcs.
On to the technical aspects: the costuming, makeup, and set design were appropriately detailed for being a period piece, but this movie had so much more to offer. It is superbly directed. The cinematography is spectacular, made even more captivating by the impeccable editing. As complex as the editing can be, it is never confusing (at least, after the first 30 minutes of learning everyone's name and royalty status). The acting was equally remarkable, especially the sensational performance by Blunt. I had seen her before only in bits and pieces of The Devil Wears Prada, but here she was wholly convincing as the independent, unyielding new Queen. She manages to bring empathy and awe to the role of someone struggling against those who would have her do their bidding (quite the opposite of the puppet that Helen Mirren played in The Queen). However, the movie seemed a bit short and a little incomplete. It felt like a slice of life and, quite frankly, it left me wanting more. This movie is exquisitely crafted and intelligently told. I highly recommend it for those looking for good editing, good writing, or just plain good acting.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/

On to the technical aspects: the costuming, makeup, and set design were appropriately detailed for being a period piece, but this movie had so much more to offer. It is superbly directed. The cinematography is spectacular, made even more captivating by the impeccable editing. As complex as the editing can be, it is never confusing (at least, after the first 30 minutes of learning everyone's name and royalty status). The acting was equally remarkable, especially the sensational performance by Blunt. I had seen her before only in bits and pieces of The Devil Wears Prada, but here she was wholly convincing as the independent, unyielding new Queen. She manages to bring empathy and awe to the role of someone struggling against those who would have her do their bidding (quite the opposite of the puppet that Helen Mirren played in The Queen). However, the movie seemed a bit short and a little incomplete. It felt like a slice of life and, quite frankly, it left me wanting more. This movie is exquisitely crafted and intelligently told. I highly recommend it for those looking for good editing, good writing, or just plain good acting.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/
May 28, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
4/5
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is an enjoyable and entertaining thrill ride. It's a worthy successor to a historic lineage of awesome adventure movies. The plot weaves and wanders amidst side stories, double crosses, and misdirections, but at its core it tells the story of an aged Indy fighting Commies to restore a Peruvian artifact (the titular crystal skull) to its rightful place within the mythical city of El Dorado. Spielberg references and reunites old friends, which goes much appreciated by me. He is very much aware of the movie's roots, and this latest Indiana Jones sits firmly within its elders both in style and mood. Though some have complained of the "preposterous and outrageous" ending, of what we are expected to believe as audience-members, I believe it is no more preposterous or outrageous than the first three.
Perhaps my favorite part about this movie was the cinematography. The shot compositions and camera movements were unbelievable. Spielberg truly understands the medium of film and uses all his tricks here. I thought the editing and CGI could have used a little more work, but most of this is hard to notice because you're so entranced by the adventure. Which is simply astounding and breathtaking. The characters were believable and the acting made them come alive (although Cate Blanchett's character was a bit of a stretch). The music was fantastic: a perfect blend of nostalgia and reinvention. However, since it is a relatively simple adventure movie, there's not much to take home. Still, it's a must-see and one of the best movies of the year so far. Watch it.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is an enjoyable and entertaining thrill ride. It's a worthy successor to a historic lineage of awesome adventure movies. The plot weaves and wanders amidst side stories, double crosses, and misdirections, but at its core it tells the story of an aged Indy fighting Commies to restore a Peruvian artifact (the titular crystal skull) to its rightful place within the mythical city of El Dorado. Spielberg references and reunites old friends, which goes much appreciated by me. He is very much aware of the movie's roots, and this latest Indiana Jones sits firmly within its elders both in style and mood. Though some have complained of the "preposterous and outrageous" ending, of what we are expected to believe as audience-members, I believe it is no more preposterous or outrageous than the first three.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)