Showing posts with label matthew beard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matthew beard. Show all posts
March 17, 2015
The Imitation Game (2014)
4/5
The Imitation Game tells a fascinating story spectacularly well. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, a British math professor who gets enlisted into a covert military mission to break the Nazi's Enigma Machine and help win WWII for the Allies. (Spoiler alert: he succeeds.) He plays the role to perfection, although I fear that Cumberbatch is well on his way to getting typecast. Here he plays an unlikeable genius lacking any interpersonal skills, nearly identical to his equally uncharming title role on BBC's Sherlock.
The writing somehow simultaneously represents the best and worst aspects of the movie. It is expertly paced, engaging from beginning to end, continuously drawing you in. But the timeline is also unnecessarily complicated, going back and forth between three distinct time periods much too frequently. Also, the film seems to use Turing's homosexuality sometimes to great effect and sometimes for shock value. It ends the movie in a surprisingly sad light and gives the title enormous new weight, but it also deviates from the character study we signed up to watch to tackle Britain's abhorrent policy on the matter.
There was also a little too much old timey footage, and its inclusion feels more like laziness rather than value-added benefit. Or maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, like unnecessary voiceover narration. Still, The Imitation Game is an engrossing and compelling watch. Highly recommended.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/
February 15, 2012
One Day (2011)
2/5
One Day feel like a concept film, an experimental trial of style regardless of its impact on content. The movie starts with Emma (Hathaway) on July 15, mid-2000, then reverses back to July 15, 1998 and goes forward year by year until we catch up to the start of the film. The relevance of this day is obfuscated for no particular reason. It initially seems as if it commemorates the day she first meets Dex (Sturgess), as it follows their interactions on that day each year, but the true "secret" is revealed near the end. After that secret is revealed, it goes even further back to uncover even more unseen scenes.
And that is the real problem with the movie. It is mysterious for the sake of being mysterious. It does it to hide the story in the hopes of surprising you at the end, instead of doing it for any thematic benefit. You watch the first half of the film wondering why you're sitting there watching the film at all. This frustration is made worse by the fact that there is no chemistry between the two leads. There is no electricity or excitement. The acting is competent, but there is nothing tying the two together through time and space. They are two independently adequate actors. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how good the technical aspects are (they are decent) because the movie fails to engage us with its storytelling.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1563738/
One Day feel like a concept film, an experimental trial of style regardless of its impact on content. The movie starts with Emma (Hathaway) on July 15, mid-2000, then reverses back to July 15, 1998 and goes forward year by year until we catch up to the start of the film. The relevance of this day is obfuscated for no particular reason. It initially seems as if it commemorates the day she first meets Dex (Sturgess), as it follows their interactions on that day each year, but the true "secret" is revealed near the end. After that secret is revealed, it goes even further back to uncover even more unseen scenes.
And that is the real problem with the movie. It is mysterious for the sake of being mysterious. It does it to hide the story in the hopes of surprising you at the end, instead of doing it for any thematic benefit. You watch the first half of the film wondering why you're sitting there watching the film at all. This frustration is made worse by the fact that there is no chemistry between the two leads. There is no electricity or excitement. The acting is competent, but there is nothing tying the two together through time and space. They are two independently adequate actors. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how good the technical aspects are (they are decent) because the movie fails to engage us with its storytelling.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1563738/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)