Showing posts with label robin wright penn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label robin wright penn. Show all posts
August 25, 2014
A Most Wanted Man (2014)
2/5
Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film is a maddening, frustrating, underwhelming film. Although the movie was described as a spy movie, I somehow mistook that to mean espionage thriller. Silly me. It is certainly about spies, but it focuses more on the bureaucracy of their lifestyle rather than the intrigue of the job. The acting was, unsurprisingly, the best part, with Hoffman delivering a phenomenal final performance. He leaves an indelible impression when the credits finally start to roll.
But it takes so long for those credits to roll. The movie was painfully slow and plodding. And while some individual shots were beautiful, there was too much lingering on meaningless objects that extend the length of the movie without deepening your understanding of the film. I suppose I shouldn't have been all that surprised, since A Most Wanted Man was directed by Anton Corbijn. (Corbijn also directed The American, another overly-stylized "spy movie" that would rather focus on lofty existential crises instead of espionage.) Even knowing this is the last Hoffman project, I still can't recommend this movie to any but the most diehard of fans.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972571/
December 25, 2011
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)
4/5
David Fincher's remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is as terrifying, gripping, and disturbing as the Swedish version. When I first heard Fincher was doing the American remake, I was ecstatic. The content and atmosphere was classic Fincher, and the extended 8-minute trailer was riveting. To say my expectations were high was an understatement: they were nigh unattainable. And, lo and behold, the movie failed to meet them.
Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that this is so similar to the Swedish version. I typically favor American remakes (such as The Departed) as they inherently bring uniquely American cultural and social viewpoints that we can better relate to, independent of the quality of the directing or the cinematic techniques. But here, I just didn't get that. It felt overly faithful to the Swedish film, to the point of zealotry, and there was very little that was new or different.
The changes that Fincher did make were fairly minimal, but had enormous impact. I was a little bit more confused by the Vanger family tree this time around (although you would think it would be less confusing having already seen it and having it in English this go around). The beginning felt extended while the ending felt rushed. And the minor variation in the ending had huge implications for Lisbeth's character that I just can't shake. I have no idea how the novel ended, but I feel that Fincher's ending broke down the entire essence and persona of the titular character. She feels like a completely different Lisbeth.
Don't get me wrong. This is an absolutely engrossing movie, made with directorial precision and technical finesse. Beautiful cinematography, phenomenal music, and stellar acting. Rooney Mara more than holds her ground against the powerhouse that was Noomi Rapace. Perhaps I just set my sights too high, and perhaps I am being much too critical of the film, but I feel like the Swedish version speaks to me more. It has its imperfections, as does this American version, but the Swedish version is the one I think of whenever I think of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/
David Fincher's remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is as terrifying, gripping, and disturbing as the Swedish version. When I first heard Fincher was doing the American remake, I was ecstatic. The content and atmosphere was classic Fincher, and the extended 8-minute trailer was riveting. To say my expectations were high was an understatement: they were nigh unattainable. And, lo and behold, the movie failed to meet them.
Much of my disappointment stems from the fact that this is so similar to the Swedish version. I typically favor American remakes (such as The Departed) as they inherently bring uniquely American cultural and social viewpoints that we can better relate to, independent of the quality of the directing or the cinematic techniques. But here, I just didn't get that. It felt overly faithful to the Swedish film, to the point of zealotry, and there was very little that was new or different.
The changes that Fincher did make were fairly minimal, but had enormous impact. I was a little bit more confused by the Vanger family tree this time around (although you would think it would be less confusing having already seen it and having it in English this go around). The beginning felt extended while the ending felt rushed. And the minor variation in the ending had huge implications for Lisbeth's character that I just can't shake. I have no idea how the novel ended, but I feel that Fincher's ending broke down the entire essence and persona of the titular character. She feels like a completely different Lisbeth.
Don't get me wrong. This is an absolutely engrossing movie, made with directorial precision and technical finesse. Beautiful cinematography, phenomenal music, and stellar acting. Rooney Mara more than holds her ground against the powerhouse that was Noomi Rapace. Perhaps I just set my sights too high, and perhaps I am being much too critical of the film, but I feel like the Swedish version speaks to me more. It has its imperfections, as does this American version, but the Swedish version is the one I think of whenever I think of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/
September 26, 2011
Moneyball (2011)
4.9/5
Moneyball is a superb film about a revolution in the game of baseball. Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager for the Oakland A's, is losing his top three players to higher-paying teams. While trying to find the cheapest "good" players he can, he discovers Peter Brand (Hill). Brand is an econ major who enjoys watching baseball, but he brings with him a new way to build a team, using statistical analysis to figure out which players are undervalued because of perceived defects (e.g., a pitcher who throws funny, a batter who waddles). Instead of scouting for the all-star with good looks, a clean swing, and a hot girlfriend, Beane and Brand are searching for the people with the highest on-base percentage and recruiting them for dirt cheap.
Although based on a true story, the only reason this movie feels as authentic as it does is because of the genuine performances from the stellar cast. We see regret in Pitt's face, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy from an actor we would expect the exact opposite out of. In Hill we see the everyman with a bright idea without the confidence to stand behind it. The dialogue is pristine and the cinematography and editing are crisp. Every scene is filled with energy and humor and Miller transforms all that verve into a lively, entertaining film. Much like Sorkin's previous screenplay, this one is about a small idea that challenges the status quo and changes a way of life. This movie is ultimately about progress, at the social level and at the individual level, despite being a "baseball movie." I am not a big fan of sports movies, but this is one of the best. Moneyball is a movie that just happens to be about sports, and an incredible one at that.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/
Moneyball is a superb film about a revolution in the game of baseball. Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager for the Oakland A's, is losing his top three players to higher-paying teams. While trying to find the cheapest "good" players he can, he discovers Peter Brand (Hill). Brand is an econ major who enjoys watching baseball, but he brings with him a new way to build a team, using statistical analysis to figure out which players are undervalued because of perceived defects (e.g., a pitcher who throws funny, a batter who waddles). Instead of scouting for the all-star with good looks, a clean swing, and a hot girlfriend, Beane and Brand are searching for the people with the highest on-base percentage and recruiting them for dirt cheap.
Although based on a true story, the only reason this movie feels as authentic as it does is because of the genuine performances from the stellar cast. We see regret in Pitt's face, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy from an actor we would expect the exact opposite out of. In Hill we see the everyman with a bright idea without the confidence to stand behind it. The dialogue is pristine and the cinematography and editing are crisp. Every scene is filled with energy and humor and Miller transforms all that verve into a lively, entertaining film. Much like Sorkin's previous screenplay, this one is about a small idea that challenges the status quo and changes a way of life. This movie is ultimately about progress, at the social level and at the individual level, despite being a "baseball movie." I am not a big fan of sports movies, but this is one of the best. Moneyball is a movie that just happens to be about sports, and an incredible one at that.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/
December 05, 2009
Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009)
3/5
I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.
Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.
(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/
I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.
Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/
October 01, 2009
State of Play (2009)
3/5
State of Play is a fairly typical journalism thriller with far too many conspiracies and plot twists to be believable, but just enough to keep you from accurately predicting the ending. The plot follows two journalists (Crowe & McAdams) writing separate articles, one on a dual homicide and another on a political sex scandal following a fatal accident, that later become linked by a far-reaching corporation and its deception. But the real focus of the movie isn't the unbelievable ending, nor is it the military conspiracy, nor is it the political cover-up. It's about two people putting their life on the line for something they believe in: discovering the truth and letting everyone know. And because you see their willingness to sacrifice everything for their ethics, you empathize with them. And because you empathize with them, the tension is remarkably palpable.
The cinematography was fairly good, but not consistently impressive. The writing was full of newspaper clichés about being the first to print the breaking story, holding the press for the ultimate story, blah blah blah. Does that stuff really happen anymore? Does anybody ever care about being the first to print a story? Does it provide them with some sort of financial gain? I've never worked in a newspaper before, but it all just seemed so overplayed and unrealistic. It didn't make any sense. As far as movies go, it's enjoyable, entertaining, and extremely gripping, but it's nothing special. If you enjoyed the trailer, you'll enjoy this movie.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473705/
State of Play is a fairly typical journalism thriller with far too many conspiracies and plot twists to be believable, but just enough to keep you from accurately predicting the ending. The plot follows two journalists (Crowe & McAdams) writing separate articles, one on a dual homicide and another on a political sex scandal following a fatal accident, that later become linked by a far-reaching corporation and its deception. But the real focus of the movie isn't the unbelievable ending, nor is it the military conspiracy, nor is it the political cover-up. It's about two people putting their life on the line for something they believe in: discovering the truth and letting everyone know. And because you see their willingness to sacrifice everything for their ethics, you empathize with them. And because you empathize with them, the tension is remarkably palpable.
The cinematography was fairly good, but not consistently impressive. The writing was full of newspaper clichés about being the first to print the breaking story, holding the press for the ultimate story, blah blah blah. Does that stuff really happen anymore? Does anybody ever care about being the first to print a story? Does it provide them with some sort of financial gain? I've never worked in a newspaper before, but it all just seemed so overplayed and unrealistic. It didn't make any sense. As far as movies go, it's enjoyable, entertaining, and extremely gripping, but it's nothing special. If you enjoyed the trailer, you'll enjoy this movie.IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473705/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


