Del Toro's film's cinematography was excellent, but that may have been a curse, in the end. While I do believe great movies affect our psyches, I believe it is the responsibility of filmmakers to not betray our trust: this movie drags our innocence through the mud. The GRAPHIC VIOLENCE was unbearable. If you are not at all sensitive to violence, you may feel just a bit queasy when the face of a man is slit open. If you are sensitive to violence, please do not see this movie, not even on DVD. I feel sick and I am angry that the film did not merit some sort of X rating for violent content. Del Toro: you may have had reason to stun us, but at what expense? The reason violence is unwanted is because it's horrible, and to show the most violent things I have ever seen on film without warning (the opening stunner of the bottle through the face - IN your face) is betrayal. To conclude, the cinematography was perfect, but it was the unfortunate conduit for graphic violence.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Babel
(I) (2006)
Many themes, excellent acting & directing
13 December 2006
Part "Crash," part "Before the Rain," this film was beautifully shot, acted and edited. I knew nothing about it before I saw it, just went with a friend who had seen the trailer. I still am not sure what the main theme was, especially with regard to the title.
"Babel" was thought-provoking for sure, and some of the scenes left a durable impression on my mind's eye. But what tied it all together, this interwoven collection of stories set in 4 locales with 5 systems of language? The concept of karma? Anti-gun sentiment? Human pain and its lessening through love and contrition?
The contrast between the various settings was as huge as the similarity of the human emotions felt by the characters in each setting. We are all one, so why can't we all just get along? Maybe that's the theme, and it is a worthy one, especially when told in such a visually luscious manner.
"Babel" was thought-provoking for sure, and some of the scenes left a durable impression on my mind's eye. But what tied it all together, this interwoven collection of stories set in 4 locales with 5 systems of language? The concept of karma? Anti-gun sentiment? Human pain and its lessening through love and contrition?
The contrast between the various settings was as huge as the similarity of the human emotions felt by the characters in each setting. We are all one, so why can't we all just get along? Maybe that's the theme, and it is a worthy one, especially when told in such a visually luscious manner.
The Illusionist
(2006)
Like the Moody Blues song asks--"real or just an illusion?"
9 August 2006
Kind of a strange movie but very original and entertaining! It was a Gothic-romance period-piece drama-mystery, and quirky characters and a bizarre--or at least unusual--plot held my interest.
Edward Norton's character plays an inscrutable but romantic master illusionist. But is he just a master illusionist or has he developed powers to effect the creepy conjuring of those who have passed on? (Regardless, the guy is so easy on the eyes.)
Jessica Biel is beautiful and good in her role but I couldn't help thinking, "Hey, Jessica, Scarlett Johanssen called. She wants her lips back."
Paul Giamatti bothered me just a tad at first because he spoke in a near-whisper and had a scruffy beard so you couldn't read his lips. He got louder and his character developed pretty darned well, thank goodness. Actually, he was fantastic (so what else is new?).
The makers of this movie did the same thing the makers of Little Miss Sunshine did--made me want to see the film twice, but for different reasons: LMS because the first time I saw it, I laughed so hard I cried, and I really needed a laugh again (and got it); The Illusionist because I was like the audience for the title character's shows the first time I saw it--just kind of naive and awed and staring up at the action with my mouth hanging open. So I'll have to see it again and pay attention. Kind of like when my daughter told me to go see The Sixth Sense again and pay attention to what Bruce Willis's character was wearing. (Plot-wise, this is unrelated, folks--just a movie watcher's analogy.)
At first, the old-fashioned circle wipes seemed a little distracting, but in retrospect, they were part of the excellent movie-making decisions that created the illusion of time and place in this film. A really good story with really good art direction and really good actors, costumes and settings. Definitely worth a go-see--or two!
Edward Norton's character plays an inscrutable but romantic master illusionist. But is he just a master illusionist or has he developed powers to effect the creepy conjuring of those who have passed on? (Regardless, the guy is so easy on the eyes.)
Jessica Biel is beautiful and good in her role but I couldn't help thinking, "Hey, Jessica, Scarlett Johanssen called. She wants her lips back."
Paul Giamatti bothered me just a tad at first because he spoke in a near-whisper and had a scruffy beard so you couldn't read his lips. He got louder and his character developed pretty darned well, thank goodness. Actually, he was fantastic (so what else is new?).
The makers of this movie did the same thing the makers of Little Miss Sunshine did--made me want to see the film twice, but for different reasons: LMS because the first time I saw it, I laughed so hard I cried, and I really needed a laugh again (and got it); The Illusionist because I was like the audience for the title character's shows the first time I saw it--just kind of naive and awed and staring up at the action with my mouth hanging open. So I'll have to see it again and pay attention. Kind of like when my daughter told me to go see The Sixth Sense again and pay attention to what Bruce Willis's character was wearing. (Plot-wise, this is unrelated, folks--just a movie watcher's analogy.)
At first, the old-fashioned circle wipes seemed a little distracting, but in retrospect, they were part of the excellent movie-making decisions that created the illusion of time and place in this film. A really good story with really good art direction and really good actors, costumes and settings. Definitely worth a go-see--or two!
Little Miss Sunshine
(2006)
Laughed so hard my belly hurt
28 July 2006
Toward the end of this movie there were a couple of moments when I couldn't stop laughing. It was great entertainment, especially if you need a laugh and a break from violence and gore. I loved it!
The characters were a little weird, but the teen boy (Paul Dano) reminded me of my ex's son and he's probably more typical of teenagers than not. There was a little contrivance in the plot at one point (it just felt a little overdone but not that big a deal in the big scheme of things). The dad (Greg Kinnear) was a great character, William H. Macy could have played him, too, if that helps you picture him. Toni Collette did a super job and handled a tough part really well. Of all the cast she gets the least to do, really. Steve Carrell was good, probably developed most of all the characters.
But the real stars are listed as "with" on the playbill: Abigail Breslin and Alan Arkin. Wow. Abigail plays a 7-year-old regular kid. What a contrast to the dolls in the pageant--it creeped me out how they looked like miniature adults. You can't help but think of JonBenet when you see those scenes. Alan Arkin had such great lines, he was really the instigator of everything that happened in that movie. Emmett Walsh as the highway patrol cop did a great job, too.
I guess the real stars are the writers who thought up the relationships and development of characters, the directors who coached the performances out of these folks, and the producers who sank money into it even though it doesn't feature any huge stars, sex scenes, or violence. To all of them, THANK YOU--I HOPE YOU MAKE BUCKETS OF MONEY. I haven't felt so happy after leaving a theater since The Full Monty. Except I was a little sad the movie was over.
The characters were a little weird, but the teen boy (Paul Dano) reminded me of my ex's son and he's probably more typical of teenagers than not. There was a little contrivance in the plot at one point (it just felt a little overdone but not that big a deal in the big scheme of things). The dad (Greg Kinnear) was a great character, William H. Macy could have played him, too, if that helps you picture him. Toni Collette did a super job and handled a tough part really well. Of all the cast she gets the least to do, really. Steve Carrell was good, probably developed most of all the characters.
But the real stars are listed as "with" on the playbill: Abigail Breslin and Alan Arkin. Wow. Abigail plays a 7-year-old regular kid. What a contrast to the dolls in the pageant--it creeped me out how they looked like miniature adults. You can't help but think of JonBenet when you see those scenes. Alan Arkin had such great lines, he was really the instigator of everything that happened in that movie. Emmett Walsh as the highway patrol cop did a great job, too.
I guess the real stars are the writers who thought up the relationships and development of characters, the directors who coached the performances out of these folks, and the producers who sank money into it even though it doesn't feature any huge stars, sex scenes, or violence. To all of them, THANK YOU--I HOPE YOU MAKE BUCKETS OF MONEY. I haven't felt so happy after leaving a theater since The Full Monty. Except I was a little sad the movie was over.
Tell Your Friends