Reviews & Ratings

[One-Way]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

Why do you keep summing up the films in one sentences? That's not a review, that's a brief synopsis.

[MrHyeSev]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

Why do you keep summing up the films in one sentences? That's not a review, that's a brief synopsis.

Well, what's the maindifference between a review & synopsis
just curious?

[One-Way]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

The main difference is that a review is your thoughts and opinions about a film, whereas a synopsis is a brief summary of what the film was about. If you keep posting a synopsis about each film, that defeats the purpose of having a "Reviews & Ratings" threda because we don't know what your thoughts on the film was. In the end, all we have are your ratings, which don't tell us anything.

[MrHyeSev]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

The Zodiac

It wasn't as scary as I taught it would be.
Based on a true story, takes place in the 50's/60's

About a serial killer taunting the San Francisco police with letters & mind games, also drives 4 men crazy with mind games that they lose family etc to find the serial killer aka The Zodiac.

3/5

[One-Way]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

The King's Speech

The King's Speech is a peculiar film; in one way, it's cut from the same cloth as films that we're used to seeing receive Academy Awards recognition and, in another way, it's so much more diverse, in terms of its tones.

I'll discuss my likes and dislikes, because I have several on each side. I'll begin by saying how different this film looks, in terms of its cinematography. Danny Cohen's cinematography in this film is almost always incredibly beautiful, but I say that as an aspiring filmmaker who wants to make my own films. If I were a regular filmgoer, I probably wouldn't be saying that, and I think that's a problem. Cohen's use of canted angels, wide-angle lenses, and out of focus shots simply draw too much attention to themselves. In most cases, it's visually poetic and he tells a story in terms of space and color. In other cases, your eyes are jumping around the frame, trying to figure out what to focus on. I mean, as an aspiring filmmaker, it's all so cool because he's having fun with the camera, but it's not a good thing when audiences become aware of the cinematographer. If I had a problem with that, I think that's a major problem, to begin with.

Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush give outstanding performances. This is Colin Firth at his best, as well as Geoffrey Rush. The intensity of Firth's performance and his ability to express his vulnerabilities while expressing a sense of confidence is extremely convincing. The comedic timing of Rush is purely genius, who is both hilarious and heartbreaking. They both deserve a nomination and a win, and that's all there is from my end.

In terms of the narrative of the film and its direction, I'm rather mixed in my opinion. I think it takes a rather talented filmmaker to walk away from such a film, and Tom Hooper has certainly proved himself with this film. It's quite remarkable that Tom Hooper is receiving Academy Awards recognition because, keep in mind, he's facing David Fincher, Joel and Ethan Coen, and Danny Boyle. In a carefully crafted film, Hooper is able to put us in the room with his characters for an extended period of time and keep things interesting. The performances he gets from his actors show his true capabilities as a director. The film does, however, hit several slow turns, but gets back to interesting when necessary.

I was a little suspicious about a film that deals entirely with a King's speech impediment, because I figured they would resort to predictable plot devices. It's not that everything is predictable, it's really not all that bad, it's just that this goes to show how overdramatized films are. This is an entire film about a speech impediment. Yes, like The Social Network, but it's more than just a one thing (Facebook being the main plot device in The Social Network), it deals with so much more, such as the father and son relationship, regrets and failed dreams, and all of which are very deep and oddly personal. I just felt like the film lacked some of that emotion. I won't ruin anything here, but there are instances and scenes that are so terrific, such as the scene between Firth and Rush, where Firth declares "he has a voice." The ending, in my opinion, is oddly touching and touches on so much more than it seems, but it's downplayed throughout the majority of the film.

I don't know, but this is how I feel. I feel like there was a little too much comic relief in the film. I enjoyed all the laughs, which mostly came from Helena Bonham Carter (who was also equally amazing) and Geoffrey Rush, but I think the emotional resonance of the film would have been much deeper if the dramatic scenes were played out more clearly with the comedy supplying the undertones. In my opinion, it was an equal playing field. I didn't feel the gut punching drama kick in until one or two scenes near the end, as well as the climax of the film, which is cut to Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 "Emperor.' That's one of my favorite pieces of music off all time and I couldn't believe my eyes. The film is cut really well to that piece and it just elevates everything to a deeper level, especially the shots of Geoffrey Rush... but perhaps Tom Hooper could have included some more, or perhaps it's as good as it gets, and this is the best we could get with a film that deals exclusively with a speech impediment.

Solaris

Quentin Tarantino's New Beverly Cinema in Los Angeles finally brought Solaris on the big screen after I continuously begged them to offer more Andrei Tarkovsky films. I couldn't miss the chance to see this film in 35mm, and I was quite excited to see my third Andrei Tarkovsky film. I had previously seen Andrei Rublev and Mirror.

Solaris is probably the most linear and straightforward film I have so far seen by Andrei Tarkovsky, and that's quite bizarre to say in and of itself. The first half of the film builds up the idea of the outside world of Solaris, as he follow our protagonist there. The second half of the film, however, explores the inner-conscience of the characters, their hallucinations, the notion of memory, and our deep thoughts. I can't claim I understood everything, and like the other two films I have seen of Andrei Tarkovsky, they will take multiple viewings to begin forming ideas. I do, however, love his films because they're not so much concerned about the plot of the film. It's an experience that you undergo; you have to let your heart and mind free and absorb the images.

Solaris is beautifully shot, from beginning to end, and is hypnotic in the way images tell a story. In the beginning of the film, there is a shot of the protagonist returning to his home, which looks like a painting, until he steps in and out of the frame, and we realize that the true powers of cinema. Andrei Tarkovsky was able to create moving images, in the truest form, and this film allows us to understand what cinema is capable of. I love the "motionless" scene and the films that the characters watch. I constantly felt reminded of the theme of childhood, which the director is undoubtedly exploring with this film. In the end, the film feels like an experience, both psychologically and emotionally, and it's definitely a masterpiece. I don't mind that I don't understand everything, which usually tends to bother me, because this is a film that exists on its own.

127 Hours

127 Hours is a roller coaster from beginning to end. The film begins where Slumdog Millionaire left off, and I say that quite literally. The film begins with three split screens of action, leftover music from Slumdog Millionaire, and doesn't hesitate to throw you into the life of the protagonist. I literally chuckled when the film began because it all felt too familiar.

I can't allow myself to sympathize with a character when the awkward changes in the tone of the music serve as a distancing tool. The flashbacks were over the top; rocks from the canyon transitioning and literally finding itself in the living room of the protagonist and his younger sister playing the piano. There were some very effective flashbacks, however, such as the protagonist seeing himself as a young boy sitting on a couch. I felt like much of the film was filler scenes, with the director trying to keep us entertained and busy. This is, after all, a film about nothing, and we need a good enough reason to stick around. I think this would have been a better short film or documentary, and I'll get into that later.

127 Hours is too stylized and defeats the purpose of telling a story about a young man trapped by himself in a canyon. The musical cues, flashbacks, and other dramatized scenes were all very distracting. The instance with him touching his dry lips and thinking of his Gatorade bottle got the message across, but was completely unnecessary. I can see why the direction would go this way; to put us into the mind of the character, but it's much too formalist. I think this film would have been much more effective if it was a realist film rather than a formalist film. If the camera simply observed the life and focused on the character's struggle, we could feel like we were there with him. I think Danny Boyle had to find a balance between the stylized look of the film and making us observers in the character's life. Instead, he goes nuts with his camera and throws us up and down, and destroys any emotional resonance we have established.

I think this film would have been better suited as a documentary, perhaps because it's more interesting to know about what happened after. The scene with Ralston saying goodbye to his mother and father on the camcorder is really heartbreaking. I would love to know how his family felt, during the time he was missing, to when they found him, and when they perhaps saw that footage, or heard of his time trapped. I would love to know how Ralston's life was affected afterwards, clearly he had a newfound meaning on life. I'd love to see more about his life afterwards, not necessarily as a narrative, but learn more about what happened when he left. I feel like this film was focused too much on the visceral and the entire film was leading up to the brutal moment where he amputates his own arm. I would much rather get more personal and into the psyche of the character.

In the end, I felt like I had just watched a really long music video. The final moments of the film, when Ralston frees himself and finds a family in the canyon, including the conclusion of the film, is essentially a music video. I found the music to be jarring, from beginning to end, with awkward shifts in tone. The constant split screens were very stylized and didn't really work as a whole. James Franco was awesome and carried the film on his shoulders. I love his performance and I felt like he would have done much better if the camera didn't jump up and down and shift in tone so frequently. I suppose my overall problem was with Danny Boyle's direction. I felt like his stylized directing style benefited Slumdog Millionaire much more than it did this film, which is more about a single character and his struggle to break free, but which ultimately ended up looking like a music video.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

I still haven't seen 127 Hours. I was thinking of catching today as a matter of fact right there on Vermont. Oh well. You've ruined it for me!

[One-Way]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

I didn't ruin anything, loser. If you mean plot-wise, it's a given that Aron Ralston cuts off his arm. If you mean because I didn't really like the film, then sorry. There are better films out there, mate.

[arteom]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

I liked Solyaris very much, the idea of this unstable life force and what the main character was going through with his dead wife that kept coming back to life was very intriguing. You should check out Stalker by Tarkovsky if you haven't seen it.

[One-Way]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

The Fighter

I stood outside the theatre before the screening tonight, reading a promotional poster for The Fighter. There was some good word from the studio, attempting to hype up the film by comparing it to Rocky and Million Dollar Baby. Their approach was that these two films were works of fiction and could naturally hype up the material, while the story in The Fighter is true and based on the life of Micky War. I smirked, wondering why they didn't mention Raging Bull, and it's probably because Rocky and Million Dollar Baby both won the Oscar for Best Picture, and they were attempting to compare this film solely to other films which were Oscar worthy.

The Fighter tells a story that we have all heard before, whether that story is told through the character of a boxer or a family melodrama. Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is an amateur boxer, trying to make a name for himself, in the shadows of Dicky (Christian Bale), his older half brother, who is a legend in their small town. Micky cleans streets for a living and ends up meeting Charlene (Amy Adams), a local bartender, right before a big match. Micky loses, comes back half depressed, and sulks in his failure. Micky rises to success after his brother, now a criminal and a junkie, is sent to prison. This all serves as inspiration for Micky who, with his girlfriend by his side, tries to rise up the ladder and become a champion.

The story is painfully predictable. I don't know Micky's story, but I know where he's ending up. That's not the problem with this film. I've seen everything this film throws at me before, in previous boxing films and other films in general. That's not the problem with this film. The problem with this film, plain and simple, is David O. Russell's direction. The film is very heavy-handed and doesn't find a stable ground to allow us to immerse ourselves into the story. The switch from film to video during the boxing fights doesn't do much, probably because it's not even used effectively. It's all much too aware of itself, rather than being subtle in its use. In addition, Russell's use of pop tunes is distracting, reminding us of some of the worst films I've seen. The film, from beginning to end, is filled with music that is meant to reflect the time period of the story. I don't feel like this works and instead becomes annoying as the film progresses.

The film, however, isn't all bad and it's saved with several strong performances. Christian Bale delivers his best performance, as he literally transforms into a crackhead. It's shocking, surprising, humorous, and heartbreaking. The film begins with Christian Bale and the film ends with Christian Bale. The film is nothing without Christian Bale. In addition, the story with Micky and Dicky is obviously powerful and emotional. The ending is quite touching and their growth throughout the film works, but it only touches our hearts because of the bond these two have established. I can't say the direction of the film ever made me grow closer with these characters. If anything, the direction of the film distracting me from sympathizing with the characters.

Amy Adams is the other star of this film, as she plays against type as a rather sleazy bartender. If Christian Bale is the one who provides us with the in-your-face type of performance, it's Amy Adams who gives us the much more subtle and emotionally warm performance. There are moments of great authenticity in cinema, which allows the audience to emotionally connect with the characters, and Amy Adams delivers more than once in this film. There is a scene when Micky has hit rock bottom after the police break his hand, and as he sits in his house, Charlene appears at his door. There is no dialogue in the scene, and it plays out quite wonderfully. This is terrific storytelling and acting, allowing us to become emotionally involved with the characters. This is what I hoped for from David O. Russell in this film, and he only delivered sparingly.

I found myself entertained, but distanced for much of the film. It's impossible for me not to compare this film with Raging Bull, a much better story on the same subject matter; two brothers who grow up in the boxing ring. Raging Bull is much more effective in every form; writing, direction, cinematography. The use of the camera in The Fighter doesn't work. The film is often all over the place and distracts us from what is most important; its characters. I think, in the end, the problem I have is with the direction of the film. I can't help but wonder what this film would be in the hands of a much more competent and emotional filmmaker, such as Darren Aronofsky, who was originally going to direct. In the end, I don't think it matters. I've seen and heard this story before, and besides some really powerful performances and several touching moments, this film is rather forgettable.

[One-Way]

Re: Reviews & Ratings

Black Swan

Darren Aronofsky does things his own way. In this day and age, while every other filmmaker has made the switch to digital cameras, the young auteur is stepping back in time and working with Super 16mm. Black Swan is a gritty film, and a film only a young and passionate filmmaker can helm.

Black Swan is cut from the same cloth as the rest of Darren Aronofsky’s films. Darren Aronofsky is no longer writing his films, but a continuous trend in thematics that prevails in the work of auteurs seems to be occurring in his films. the characters in his films seem to be overtaken by an obsession; patterns (Pi), addiction (Requiem for a Dream), eternal love (The Fountain), and perfection (The Wrestler and Black Swan). Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Fountain are all very dissimilar in their style, but are all concerned with the endless search for hope. This presents us with an unofficial trilogy in terms of this specific thematic.

Read More