Showing posts with label ken watanabe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ken watanabe. Show all posts

June 21, 2014

Godzilla (2014)


3/5

Gareth Edwards's Godzilla reboot is not really a monster movie; it is a surprisingly well-constructed and engaging story that just happens to have some monsters in it. The acting is first-rate, the camerawork is top-notch, and the computer-generated creatures feel believable. But for all the things it got right, it got one big thing wrong.

The most glaring problem with this movie is the same one I found in The Shining: there's a lot of build-up without any follow-through (until the last few minutes of the movie anyway). It's exhausting and frustrating, not exciting and tense. Imagine thinking, "Something's gonna happen, something's gonna happen, something's gonna happen," and then nothing happens. Over and over again. I can't imagine watching it again; I'd just be skipping through the first 75 minutes because it's a lot of nothing followed by more nothing.

A pretty good movie otherwise.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831387/

July 19, 2010

Inception (2010)

5/5

Christopher Nolan's Inception is a near-perfect film. It follows a thief named Cobb (DiCaprio) and his team of extractors (Gordon-Levitt, Hardy, Rao, Page) as they invade people's dreams and steal their secrets. They are hired to carry out a new kind of job called inception: implant an idea in someone else's head through their dreams. In order to do this and convince the dreamer that it is their own idea, they must go three levels deep--a dream within a dream within a dream. With each level removed from reality, time slows down exponentially, such that entire lives can be lived within mere seconds. Imagine the life you're living now; imagine dying 80 years after being born and then waking up to find yourself still young. And that is the idea from which this entire movie stems, from which it will no doubt be compared to the likes of The Matrix. But what Inception has over The Matrix is that we all dream, and we all know what it's like to wake up from a dream. We can imagine that what we're living in now is just a dream, and maybe--just maybe--we can wake up and get a second chance at life.

The cinematography in this film is crisp and direct. Except for the impressive and awe-inspiring gravity-defying action scenes in the hotel, it's merely adequate. It's not particularly cumbersome nor is it particularly artistic, but it gets the job done. The acting feels much the same. It is written well enough to make the characters distinct and separate, but they never feel like more than just archetypes. Even DiCaprio's character, by far the most complex and mature, feels like a rehashing of the tormented soul he played in Shutter Island. And Marion Cotillard, whose acting I fell in love with in Nine, plays a representation of an idea instead of a real human being. But these are the weakest aspects of the movie.

Inception's strengths are its storytelling, directing, and editing. The story, as I've described above, is what will win this movie its fans and its cult following. The plot, compelling as it is, exists solely to propel the idea that the world we think is real may just be a dream. And as Cobb warns us in the film, an idea is the most dangerous, insidious, persistent threat to our health and wellbeing that we can imagine. The story is combined with precise editing to create an airtight film that never lets you catch your breath or blink your eyes. It is nonstop intellectual and visceral action from beginning to end, with stunning efficiency and economy. And Nolan's directing puts this movie together into an unforgettable whole, with nary a missing piece or unseen error. This is a movie that was not thrown together in a day; it took years of planning and execution and is all the better for it. No, it's not a perfect movie and it may not be for everybody, but it's one of the most riveting, revolutionary movies I've seen come out of Hollywood in a long, long time. I suggest you watch it as soon as possible, before all the water cooler chatter about it ruins the film for you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/

July 19, 2007

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

3/5

Letters from Iwo Jima follows the infamous battle from the point of view of the Japanese fighting for the island. The titular letters did nothing for the movie except foster cheap soap-opera melodrama and sloppy filmmaking. I found the cinematography pedestrian and the desaturated colors worthless. It was long and supremely unexciting; and it brought nothing new to the war movie genre. There were too many superfluous characters and side plots to the point where the story itself got to be confusing. And the sense of time in this movie was extremely difficult to follow (a month or two would pass randomly and we would have no idea) thanks to the plebeian editing. What I did like about the movie was the depiction of war. This is not your typical war movie because these men are not fighting, but merely trying to survive. There were some events that I wasn't expecting that jarred me and kept me interested. I really liked almost all of the acting. And it's not bad per se, there's just nothing new here. Not recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498380/