There is science fiction, there is space opera, there is science fantasy, and there are superhero stories. The reader or the viewer needs to make a judgement about what kind of story they are in and dial the suspension of disbelief to a level that works. Is this 2001, or is this Star Wars? Once I know what kind of universe I am in I am cool and set my expectations accordingly.
Interstellar tries to be at the science fiction end of the spectrum and fails miserably. It's like watching the 1960s TV show "Lost in Space" except that the protagonists are idiots this time.
That is my major beef with this movie. A more minor issue is that rather than letting the camera tell the story, Chris Nolan subjects us to what seems like days of exposition which turns out to be meaningless science babble anyhow. The soundtrack is impressive only for its dynamic range. The film was shot and edited so that it only really works visually in IMAX. Good for 70mm film activism, but bad for Cinema. (The last film that touted 70mm as a selling point was "Far and Away". 'nuff said.)
Aside from that, Matthew McConaughey does a great job as Cooper and Anne Hathaway is more than convincing as Brand. If you can get over your anger at the first two and a quarter hours, the last 35 minutes is actually pretty good and satisfying. There are a couple of very good ideas in this film and they come to the fore at the end.
I am a huge fan of Christopher Nolan as a director. Other than "Batman Begins" and "Inception" all of his other films that I have seen are outstanding, and "Inception" is more than good. "Memento" is a masterpiece. This movie is Nolan's "Waterworld." BTW "Waterworld" wasn't nearly as bad as everyone seems to say.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Red Hill
(2010)
You still have to have a story.
4 June 2011
This movie is the poster child for the case that a film can have great production values and still not be any good. The cinematography and art design of this film are superb and very atmospheric. Problem is, there is no plot, a terrible screenplay and no good acting. (mind you, given "Red Hill"'s screenplay, it would be hard for any actor to look good.)
A couple of the scenes were obviously setup in the way that they were only because the cinematographer thought it would look great. Admittedly, it did look great but it also detracted from the film by making it seem even more cartoonish. There is some humour to be had from this film, but it is mostly unintentional.
A couple of the scenes were obviously setup in the way that they were only because the cinematographer thought it would look great. Admittedly, it did look great but it also detracted from the film by making it seem even more cartoonish. There is some humour to be had from this film, but it is mostly unintentional.
Inception
(2010)
Good, but not *that* good.
17 December 2010
I rarely write reviews here because I think that in general there are a bunch of people out there doing a very good job and I am not sure I have something to add. So I was amazed when I started reading the reviews for "Inception". Comparing Nolan with Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky and Alfred Hitchcock? C'mon! And a solid stream of 10/10s for a movie that is admittedly very innovative, but misses the mark in several key places? What? Then I changed the sorting to "prolific reviewers" and then I saw it. People who watch and review a lot of films have a much more nuanced and diverse set of views about this film, which is what you would expect for a movie that genuinely tried to do something different. Obviously the marketing budget for this film extended to a big effort to pervert the integrity of IMDb.
And my view on the film? Acting - great! CGI and general cinematography - excellent. Soundscape - better than average. General ability of a thriller's storyline to create and build tension and then release it quickly at the end - tick! Where this movie failed for me is in the storyline. Nolan should have spent another ten years on this one, because it fails to work on many, many levels. For a start, I didn't recognise many of the real qualities of dreams in the dream sequences. Not convincing from that point of view. Second, there are holes in the plot line you could drive a truck through, and for this kind of film I expect the storyline to be very, very tight and stand up to multiple viewings.
This film is a worthy offering in the line of "Memento" and "Mulholland Drive", but Nolan didn't quite pull this one off and it cannot be rated in the same class as those two movies.
For heaven's sake don't let this review stop you from watching this film. 7/10 from me means that it is definitely worth paying real money to go and see, and it is one of the better movies of 2010, make no mistake about that. It's also a thriller that keeps you thinking throughout, and that is uncommon in a summer blockbuster.
And my view on the film? Acting - great! CGI and general cinematography - excellent. Soundscape - better than average. General ability of a thriller's storyline to create and build tension and then release it quickly at the end - tick! Where this movie failed for me is in the storyline. Nolan should have spent another ten years on this one, because it fails to work on many, many levels. For a start, I didn't recognise many of the real qualities of dreams in the dream sequences. Not convincing from that point of view. Second, there are holes in the plot line you could drive a truck through, and for this kind of film I expect the storyline to be very, very tight and stand up to multiple viewings.
This film is a worthy offering in the line of "Memento" and "Mulholland Drive", but Nolan didn't quite pull this one off and it cannot be rated in the same class as those two movies.
For heaven's sake don't let this review stop you from watching this film. 7/10 from me means that it is definitely worth paying real money to go and see, and it is one of the better movies of 2010, make no mistake about that. It's also a thriller that keeps you thinking throughout, and that is uncommon in a summer blockbuster.
Gran Torino
(2008)
Close, but no Cigar
8 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, don't assume that I am trying to discourage you from seeing this movie by giving it a relatively low score. As escapist entertainment, it works very, very well. Just don't let the fact that this movie uses some politically incorrect and downright racist language that comes from the mouth of someone who turns out to have a heart of gold and comes to love the objects of his racism con you into thinking there is any great depth to this movie. There isn't. Depicting an oddball and a dinosaur who turns out to be able to learn things and teach things may be entertaining, but unless it brings something new to the table, it isn't philosophy. This is a movie about redemption, but in the end, the main character, who is initially depicted as a thinker and a secretly religious man, claims redemption and salvation by denying all hope of redemption and salvation to other (admittedly evil) characters. For me, this just didn't work and the contradiction ruined the movie for me. The character just would not have done that. He was neither stupid nor selfish.
Clint Eastwood turns in a great performance. Nobody else did, although most carried their part competently. I genuinely enjoyed this film while I was watching it. get it on DVD.
Clint Eastwood turns in a great performance. Nobody else did, although most carried their part competently. I genuinely enjoyed this film while I was watching it. get it on DVD.
Vantage Point
(2008)
High-class concept with low-class execution.
10 June 2008
If you are a high-jumper and you clear the bar at 7 feet, then you are a hero. If you are a high-jumper who can only jump 4 feet then setting the bar at 7 feet just makes you look stupid as you plough into it.
That's what his movie did. It takes the idea of telling the same 12-minute story from 8 (count 'em!) different vantage points, rewinding to the start each time. In Memento, this kind of messing around with time produced a very interesting film. If this movie had been shot and edited well, the audience would have been on the edge of their seats as each pass revealed new pieces of the story for them to try to reassemble into a whole narrative.
Instead, we have a mess. Continuity is ignored, at least two of the vantage points are redundant as far as the story is concerned, and many elements of the plot are just laughable.
Perhaps some of the acting was good. I was too busy looking at my watch. Mercifully the movie only lasts about 90 minutes.
That's what his movie did. It takes the idea of telling the same 12-minute story from 8 (count 'em!) different vantage points, rewinding to the start each time. In Memento, this kind of messing around with time produced a very interesting film. If this movie had been shot and edited well, the audience would have been on the edge of their seats as each pass revealed new pieces of the story for them to try to reassemble into a whole narrative.
Instead, we have a mess. Continuity is ignored, at least two of the vantage points are redundant as far as the story is concerned, and many elements of the plot are just laughable.
Perhaps some of the acting was good. I was too busy looking at my watch. Mercifully the movie only lasts about 90 minutes.
Transformers
(2007)
IMDb ratings have gone to the dogs
17 December 2007
I was astounded when I saw the ratings on this movie. nearly 40% of people had given it 10/10 stars.
Now I give it 5/10. The story is facile to the point of not really existing. Except for Shia LaBeouf, the acting was phoned in. The soundtrack was, well, just loud. It seemed to me that the whole point of the movie was to be a vehicle for product placements. In principle, with these flaws I normally wouldn't give a movie more than 4/10 (watch it on DVD on a rainy afternoon).
But I'm willing to cut it some slack because it does have some cool FX and there are some funny moments in there. I did laugh several times. And of course it is supposed to come from a cartoon heritage so maybe we shouldn't expect *too* much. (But there are other cartoon-based movies that were way, way better. Remember Spiderman, Dick Tracy, Sin City, even the first of the X-Men series). So I gave it 5/10. （Well worth renting the DVD. Entertaining if not uplifting.) I'm willing to see that rational people could disagree with me and because they have different expectations, give this movie a 7/10. (i.e. very well worth paying good money to see it at a cinema.) I can even accept that some people work on a different scale to me and give it 8/10 because they really enjoyed it.
But 34% of people giving it 10/10? Up there with Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Gone with the Wind, Apocalypse Now, Lord of the Rings, City Lights, Blade Runner, Pulp Fiction etc etc etc.... Gimme a break! Seems most of the people rating movies these days are more interested in pushing ratings and driving box office than in giving any kind of honest opinion. Over half the raters gave this movie 10, 9, or 1/10. There is no way you could possibly say this movie deserves any of those ratings.
Now I give it 5/10. The story is facile to the point of not really existing. Except for Shia LaBeouf, the acting was phoned in. The soundtrack was, well, just loud. It seemed to me that the whole point of the movie was to be a vehicle for product placements. In principle, with these flaws I normally wouldn't give a movie more than 4/10 (watch it on DVD on a rainy afternoon).
But I'm willing to cut it some slack because it does have some cool FX and there are some funny moments in there. I did laugh several times. And of course it is supposed to come from a cartoon heritage so maybe we shouldn't expect *too* much. (But there are other cartoon-based movies that were way, way better. Remember Spiderman, Dick Tracy, Sin City, even the first of the X-Men series). So I gave it 5/10. （Well worth renting the DVD. Entertaining if not uplifting.) I'm willing to see that rational people could disagree with me and because they have different expectations, give this movie a 7/10. (i.e. very well worth paying good money to see it at a cinema.) I can even accept that some people work on a different scale to me and give it 8/10 because they really enjoyed it.
But 34% of people giving it 10/10? Up there with Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Gone with the Wind, Apocalypse Now, Lord of the Rings, City Lights, Blade Runner, Pulp Fiction etc etc etc.... Gimme a break! Seems most of the people rating movies these days are more interested in pushing ratings and driving box office than in giving any kind of honest opinion. Over half the raters gave this movie 10, 9, or 1/10. There is no way you could possibly say this movie deserves any of those ratings.
The Constant Gardener
(2005)
Well Made, but a left-wing tract.
19 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, let it be said that I loved "City of God".
This movie ain't "City of God". Whereas I was completely drawn in and consumed by "City of God", gaping holes in the plot of "Constant Gardener" kept throwing me out of the movie every time the acting and cinematography managed to draw me in.
I can swallow that Kenya is a fairly corrupt place. I can believe that individuals in the foreign service can become corrupted. I'll concede that big pharma will cut corners at times.
But I kept getting jerked out of the story by the utter irrationality of the underlying plot here. Even evil organisations operate rationally in order to further their interests. Why would a drug company continue to test a drug that is obviously killing people? What's the benefit? They can never bring it to market an make money out of it anyway. When a blockbuster drug takes over a billion dollars to get to market, why would they cavil at spending "millions" to fix a product that is worth nothing as it is but would be worth billions if it worked? The good guys in the movie were well done - characters were believable, well acted, and consistent with their universe. But the bad guys were stupid and irrational. Who would believe that Sandy would just hand over a letter that would destroy his career and allow Tessa to walk out with it when there was no need? Even Tim Donohue's turning from the dark side was shallow and convenient.
The thing that annoys me most is that, had the writer *cared* a little, all of the plot holes could have been fixed quite easily, without substantially altering the story. (e.g. Evil pharma company skips a step to get a drug into mass trials quickly, kills a lot of people, then goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that the trial ever existed so they can fix the drug and start again. Tessa photographs the letter and Sandy somehow finds out. Donohue discovers something that he didn't know before, or gets betrayed by his masters and "turns".) Then maybe I could have enjoyed the movie for what it was, rather than having my suspension of disbelief bubble continually pricked by sharp inconsistencies in the movie's world.
The love story worked. Tessa was wonderful. But the writing sucked, because the writer obviously didn't *care*. Not a bad movie for video, but I can't give it more than 5/10.
This movie ain't "City of God". Whereas I was completely drawn in and consumed by "City of God", gaping holes in the plot of "Constant Gardener" kept throwing me out of the movie every time the acting and cinematography managed to draw me in.
I can swallow that Kenya is a fairly corrupt place. I can believe that individuals in the foreign service can become corrupted. I'll concede that big pharma will cut corners at times.
But I kept getting jerked out of the story by the utter irrationality of the underlying plot here. Even evil organisations operate rationally in order to further their interests. Why would a drug company continue to test a drug that is obviously killing people? What's the benefit? They can never bring it to market an make money out of it anyway. When a blockbuster drug takes over a billion dollars to get to market, why would they cavil at spending "millions" to fix a product that is worth nothing as it is but would be worth billions if it worked? The good guys in the movie were well done - characters were believable, well acted, and consistent with their universe. But the bad guys were stupid and irrational. Who would believe that Sandy would just hand over a letter that would destroy his career and allow Tessa to walk out with it when there was no need? Even Tim Donohue's turning from the dark side was shallow and convenient.
The thing that annoys me most is that, had the writer *cared* a little, all of the plot holes could have been fixed quite easily, without substantially altering the story. (e.g. Evil pharma company skips a step to get a drug into mass trials quickly, kills a lot of people, then goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that the trial ever existed so they can fix the drug and start again. Tessa photographs the letter and Sandy somehow finds out. Donohue discovers something that he didn't know before, or gets betrayed by his masters and "turns".) Then maybe I could have enjoyed the movie for what it was, rather than having my suspension of disbelief bubble continually pricked by sharp inconsistencies in the movie's world.
The love story worked. Tessa was wonderful. But the writing sucked, because the writer obviously didn't *care*. Not a bad movie for video, but I can't give it more than 5/10.
Tears of the Sun
(2003)
Propaganda
9 April 2005
Look, this movie was quite well done. Bruce Willis does a good job, although he is better than this.
But it is a propaganda tract depicting American troops going out solving the problems of the world for all the grateful savages, whereas in real life not many problems get solved, the people aren't savages, and they are often stubbornly ungrateful.
I wish I could go back to simpler times when I could have enjoyed this for the well-done action thriller that it is, but these days It just isn't a fantasy that works for me any more. Too many holes in the story, and the politics was plain annoying.
5/10
But it is a propaganda tract depicting American troops going out solving the problems of the world for all the grateful savages, whereas in real life not many problems get solved, the people aren't savages, and they are often stubbornly ungrateful.
I wish I could go back to simpler times when I could have enjoyed this for the well-done action thriller that it is, but these days It just isn't a fantasy that works for me any more. Too many holes in the story, and the politics was plain annoying.
5/10
Dogma
(1999)
Long and Shallow
27 June 2004
I usually enjoy religious satires and there have been some very good ones in this vein in the past (e.g. Life of Brian, etc.). When I watch one, however, I like to see something with something new and/or thoughtful to offer. "Dogma" was way too long at 2 hours and 10 minutes, and at the end I actually felt like it had been 3 hours long. While there were a few funny moments, it is pretty difficult for a comedy to stay funny for that long. Had the movie stayed within the confines of what the bible says, I'd have given it points for being clever. Unfortunately it introduces a lot of pseudo-religious trash along with the real material and completely loses its point on that score. Poking fun at theology is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's easy to take the cheap shots. So if you are going to go there, it's best to introduce something cleverer than wee-wee poo-poo jokes and a level of analysis somewhat above that of drunk freshmen on a Friday night. Except for one or two exceptional moments, Kevin Smith completely failed to do this in this movie. I may have been a little harsh in giving this movie 3/10 (highest level of "don't bother") and maybe should have given it 4/10 (lowest level of "rent it only"), but then you can get better laughs and deeper philosophy watching re-runs of "Friends" on TV, and you can do that for free any day of the week
3/10
3/10
Cleopatra
(1963)
Much better than its reputation
20 March 2002
I watched this movie over 3 nights on DVD, and was captivated through the whole 4 hours and 10 minutes or so it took.
Elizabeth Taylor did a pretty good job in the title role as perhaps the greatest seductress in history, and Richard Burton was superb as Antony, but for my money Rex Harrison (Julius Caeser) and Roddy McDowall (Octavian) stole the show.
For me the highlight of the film was the historical backdrop - Egypt vanished as a nation and Rome reached the peak of its power and started the descent into decadence - all in one movie, and as you watch this epic you gain some insight into the psychology and power politics that made the 4 major historical figures of the time. If Antony had been a little smarter, Cleopatra might have done it after all!
8/10
Elizabeth Taylor did a pretty good job in the title role as perhaps the greatest seductress in history, and Richard Burton was superb as Antony, but for my money Rex Harrison (Julius Caeser) and Roddy McDowall (Octavian) stole the show.
For me the highlight of the film was the historical backdrop - Egypt vanished as a nation and Rome reached the peak of its power and started the descent into decadence - all in one movie, and as you watch this epic you gain some insight into the psychology and power politics that made the 4 major historical figures of the time. If Antony had been a little smarter, Cleopatra might have done it after all!
8/10
Taxi Driver
(1976)
Robert de Niro Masterpiece
24 January 2001
I say "Robert de Niro" masterpiece and not "Martin Scorsese Masterpiece" because it is de Niro who makes this a masterpiece. I have not seen a better acting performance in a film. Of course, the direction helps de Niro make the view feel s/he completely understands the character of Travis Bickle without any need for sympathy or even empathy, but it is de Niro who does it for me.
On the other hand, I felt the story was a little confused in places and left too many questions without clues to guess at the answers. I give this movie 8/10.
On the other hand, I felt the story was a little confused in places and left too many questions without clues to guess at the answers. I give this movie 8/10.
Piao liang ma ma
(2000)
Strong Story, Well Acted
20 January 2001
I saw this movie on a poor-quality VCD but the quality of the movie still came through. Gong Li is usually more outstanding in the beauty department than in the acting department, but this time she played a great film in dowdy clothes and almost no makeup.
Tell Your Friends