Showing posts with label stellan skarsgard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stellan skarsgard. Show all posts
December 31, 2014
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
2/5
Thor 2 is just as bad as Thor 1, but mired in even more CGI nonsense than its predecessor. The characters are boring, the plot is boring, and even the action is boring. It's like watching a bad video game. I really have nothing more to say about this movie.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981115/
November 08, 2014
Thor (2011)
2/5
Marvel's Thor is a surprisingly silly movie compared to the company's earth-centric counterparts: the Captain America and Iron Man franchises. Focusing on the inhabitants of an entirely fictitious world called Asgard, it naturally spends a good 30 minutes on definition and exposition. It's boring, bland storytelling, full of made-up methods of transportation like horse-riding across rainbow roads and being slingshot out of gyroscopic planetariums.
My biggest problem is that I find all the characters unlikeable, including the eminently pleasant Natalie Portman. Although he gains a little depth by the end of the film, Thor is essentially a loud-mouthed, arrogant, English-accented buffoon with an idiotic smile. (And, as a side note, how come all the Asgardians speak English?) Portman plays a physicist who enjoys hipster clothes and gets easily distracted by cut male figures. Happily, the movie has some gripping action scenes that pull you in and keep your eyes glued to the screen. But besides their visual appeal, they aren't particularly compelling aspects to the film. Some are outright ridiculous, like a muddy wrestle in the rain.
But Thor is not a particularly good movie. And certainly not a movie good enough to take the Marvel name and stand with the rest of them. To be honest, I only watched this movie so that I could see the second Thor movie so that I could be prepared for the second Avengers movie. I wish I had just never watched it. The best thing about my decision to watch this movie is that I won't feel bad deleting it from the DVR and recording something better.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/
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/
June 22, 2009
Angels & Demons (2009)
4/5
I did not expect to like Angels & Demons, because I hate the work of both Ron Howard (Cinderella Man) and Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), but I ended up enjoying it very much. The plot follows symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and his female compatriot (Ayelet Zurer) in the Vatican as a potential Illuminati threat to destroy the city becomes a reality. The plot is wholly convoluted and unnecessarily complex to an obscene degree; but if you suspend your disbelief, it entertains.
Like it or not, the story is where the movie really excels. The mysteries, the clues, and the suspicion abound in perfect proportion. As the movie progresses, the fear, the tension, and the uncertainty buid up to a climactic finale. The constant twists and turns are unpredictable, and they work. Technically, the movie was nothing to write home about. The acting is acceptable, the cinematography is mediocre, and the editing is average. Still, for its story and entertainment value, I cannot help but recommend this movie.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/

Like it or not, the story is where the movie really excels. The mysteries, the clues, and the suspicion abound in perfect proportion. As the movie progresses, the fear, the tension, and the uncertainty buid up to a climactic finale. The constant twists and turns are unpredictable, and they work. Technically, the movie was nothing to write home about. The acting is acceptable, the cinematography is mediocre, and the editing is average. Still, for its story and entertainment value, I cannot help but recommend this movie.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/
January 01, 2008
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
3/5
After the atrocity that was Pirates 2, I told myself I wouldn't see the third one. But I did anyway. Partly because Sameer said it was pretty good, but mostly because I had the option to see it in Blu-Ray. Here are my conclusions: Blu-Ray is amazing. Pirates 3 is okay.
The best thing about Pirates 3 is how pretty it is. The striking cinematography combines seamlessly with the special effects. And it is breathtaking in high definition. (The text was so crisp!) The second best thing is the humor. The drama and tension are very regularly punctuated by comic relief that I found hilarious. (I was especially happy when I discovered that Ragetti, the pirate with the wooden eye, was played by the same actor who played Gareth on the UK version of The Office.) The third best thing is the action. It was always fun, mostly because it was so utterly preposterous and fantastical. Also the music worked pretty well.
The worst thing about the movie was how unnecessarily convoluted the plot was. I had no idea what was going on. Ever. About an hour and a half through, I gave up, paused the movie, and forced everyone else to explain to me what was going on. That took about 20 minutes. Then there was another hour and a half of movie. Which brings me to the second worst thing about the movie. The length. It is unnecessarily long. This is probably to deal with the unnecessarily convoluted plot. But there are also literally about 30 minutes that could have been taken out without any effect on the movie, except making it better. Also, I'm sick of movies that lead into the sequel at the end. That also happened at the end of Heroes, season 1. And that show sucks.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449088/

The best thing about Pirates 3 is how pretty it is. The striking cinematography combines seamlessly with the special effects. And it is breathtaking in high definition. (The text was so crisp!) The second best thing is the humor. The drama and tension are very regularly punctuated by comic relief that I found hilarious. (I was especially happy when I discovered that Ragetti, the pirate with the wooden eye, was played by the same actor who played Gareth on the UK version of The Office.) The third best thing is the action. It was always fun, mostly because it was so utterly preposterous and fantastical. Also the music worked pretty well.
The worst thing about the movie was how unnecessarily convoluted the plot was. I had no idea what was going on. Ever. About an hour and a half through, I gave up, paused the movie, and forced everyone else to explain to me what was going on. That took about 20 minutes. Then there was another hour and a half of movie. Which brings me to the second worst thing about the movie. The length. It is unnecessarily long. This is probably to deal with the unnecessarily convoluted plot. But there are also literally about 30 minutes that could have been taken out without any effect on the movie, except making it better. Also, I'm sick of movies that lead into the sequel at the end. That also happened at the end of Heroes, season 1. And that show sucks.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449088/
October 09, 2006
Breaking the Waves (1996)
4/5
Breaking the Waves has the potential to be an extremely powerful, extremely emotional piece, if you get into it. The mood is difficult to get into because of its faded colors, handheld camerawork, and overly depressing plot. Maybe for me it just appears to try too hard to mean something, when it easily doesn't have to. The biggest problem I had was with Emily Watson's Bess, who was actually just crazy. It is hard to believe in a drama without a protagonist you can sympathize with. Also, there is some unnecessary and gratuitous sex and nudity. It seems like much of the plot gets its power strictly from the disturbing sex acts that occur. Some scenes last much too long or are just completely worthless, contributing to the overly long running time. I also really disliked the editing style.
Its length (150 min) can seem to be a factor, but von Trier has parceled the movie into eight chapters, which makes watching it much more manageable. The chapter separators have colorful scenic vistas with pop music as backdrops, which makes a surprisingly significant positive difference in watching the rest of the movie. There is a striking allegory of Bess as Jesus in her unconditional love, her suffering, her sacrifice, and her healing. Some of the dialogue is undeniably well-written and the acting is captivating. This is a violently emotional movie regardless of any imperfections it has. But it strives to be more than that; it approaches art.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0115751/
Breaking the Waves has the potential to be an extremely powerful, extremely emotional piece, if you get into it. The mood is difficult to get into because of its faded colors, handheld camerawork, and overly depressing plot. Maybe for me it just appears to try too hard to mean something, when it easily doesn't have to. The biggest problem I had was with Emily Watson's Bess, who was actually just crazy. It is hard to believe in a drama without a protagonist you can sympathize with. Also, there is some unnecessary and gratuitous sex and nudity. It seems like much of the plot gets its power strictly from the disturbing sex acts that occur. Some scenes last much too long or are just completely worthless, contributing to the overly long running time. I also really disliked the editing style.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0115751/
December 31, 2005
The Hire: Powder Keg (2001)
5/5
My favorite short film of all time. Iñárritu, always a master of emotions and tensions, shines in this short. The script is mind-blowing, and the actors delivering the lines are equally spectacular. Every word that is uttered is essential, every sentence integral, growing more depth the further into the film you go. It seems as if every extraneous word was stripped from the script and put on the film as an image, which is exactly the point of cinema.
--"So why are you a photographer?"
--"I don't know, I don't know. Because my mother taught me to see."
When you reach the end, the words have taken on a new meaning completely. The film covers so many topics in so little time so flawlessly that we feel so fulfilled when the credits roll after only ten minutes. The choice of cinematography, editing, and music was precise and necessary to evoke the proper mood; and they were carried out with just as much precision.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0285930/

--"So why are you a photographer?"
--"I don't know, I don't know. Because my mother taught me to see."
When you reach the end, the words have taken on a new meaning completely. The film covers so many topics in so little time so flawlessly that we feel so fulfilled when the credits roll after only ten minutes. The choice of cinematography, editing, and music was precise and necessary to evoke the proper mood; and they were carried out with just as much precision.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0285930/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)