Change Your Image
twenty-four-fps
Reviews
Salt (2010)
Great Action Sequences !
Great action sequences. Questionable plot. Limited character development.
I enjoy spy films, and remember having liked the 1994 "Clear and Present Danger" (starring Harrison Ford), also directed by Phillip Noyce, so I decided to see "Salt" and bought the Blu-ray. The disk has all three versions and lots of interesting extra features, including a commentary by Phillip Noyce, and interviews with real-life spies, such as the famous former Counterintelligence KGB General Oleg Kalugin, now an American citizen.
"Salt" is an enjoyable film, better, I say, than all Bourne films, or "Mission Impossible" (with the possible exception of the first one, directed by Brian de Palma, where Angelina Jolie's father plays), and also better than many James Bond films, with, perhaps, the exception of the 1963 "From Russia with Love", from which "Salts" borrows something - remember Colonel Rosa Klebb played by Lotte Lenya ?
Moles in the CIA (and FBI), "sleepers", "illegals in dormant state waiting to be activated for sinister purposes against the West, Soviet/Russian (KGB, SVR, FSB) defectors after defectors ... all are true and not new - see "Telefon" (1977, with Charles Bronson), "The Fourth Protocol" (1987, with Pierce Brosnan, "The Good Shepherd" (2006, also with Angelina Jolie), "The Company" (2007, TV with Michael Keaton).
Angelina Jolie, Liev Schrieber, and Daniel Olbrychski do well as Evelyn Salt, and, like many others, I liked watching them, but I have two serious problems with the plot. Not so much the impossible acrobatics and escapes and infiltrations ... but the premise of the film itself:
- How is it possible to depict (and make us believe that) The Secret Service is so ineffective ... Bystanders ... ?
- The "defector".
1. A Russian spy comes to the CIA, and reveals top secrets about former Soviet, now Russian operations against the United States. He even uncovers the identity of a mole inside CIA ranks. OK - Good deeds ! But, if he is a genuine defector, why, after being interviewed, does he kills his CIA guards, and then escapes ... Doing this only discredits his testimony. That is not how a genuine defector behaves.
2. If, on the other hand he is not a genuine defector, but an active enemy agent, someone who came to activate "sleepers", why does he have to come in and reveal everything to the CIA, including uncovering the identity of a top mole in the CIA, thus, gravely endangering the mission his agents (the sleepers) are to carry out ? If he only needed to provide instructions to his undercover agents, he could have used other methods of communication. This is not how an offensive (let us call him "a non-genuine defector") behaves.
3. If, further, this was just a temporary defection, with the sole purpose of uncovering to the CIA the identity of a mole (the Theatrical and Director's Cut versions of th film, but not the Extended version suggests this), than it was not at all necessary to reveal the rest of the plan to the CIA (that this mole, a Russian agent will soon attempt to kill ...), and, definitely, it was absolutely wrong for the defector to kill his guards and escape. So, bad logic. Am I wrong ?
We, the viewers like thrillers, action, adventure, spy stuff (deception after deception, double-cross, multiple against and allegiances), but we also like solid, smart and plausible intelligence (brain, analytical) work behind the action - e.g. "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1979, TV) and "Smiley's People" (1982, TV) both with Alec Guiness Not too much "intelligence" work in "Salt", just a lot of (great !) action sequences ... there is too much Phillip Noyce expects us to accept, take for granted.
On the positive side: "Salt" may also be viewed the soul-searching journey of a double-agent who struggles with the question: "On which side am I ?" or "On which side should I be ?" In the end the agent decides where the allegiance should be placed, and chooses the side who advocates morality and humanity.
If you do not ask (too many) questions, "Salt" is definitely enjoyable.
Inception (2010)
"Non, je ne regrette rien"
Great Cinematography ! Captivating story, thought provoking, great visuals ! ... too much shooting and hunting ... Why not 10 stars ?
"Inception" is interesting, quite original, an attempt to explore the world of dreams. The exploration is a combination of known things about dreams (e.g. outside stimuli influence dreams), and less know things (questions), such as "What happens when we die in a dream ?", "How is a dream within a dream ?", "What happens if two or more people could share a dream ?" The answers Chris Nolan (both British and American by birth) offers, may be viewed as speculations, of course, but, nonetheless are interesting. Not seldom he gets the Physics right - Gravity (= acceleration, as Einstein points out): loss of it; creation of temporal artificial gravity. Chris Nolan suggest that Gravity effects propagate to dreams - true or not, but interesting. He even suggests that in a dream world, Gravitation my pull in multiple directions !
I have my own questions: - Will understanding dreams help us further uncover the mysteries of the mind ? - Will we ever be able to design dreams - ours and others ? - Will we ever be able to share dreams ? Will this be useful ? - Will we be able to visualize dreams, say on a TV scream dreams ? - ours and others ? - Will this help treat currently incurable and most destructive mind (brain) diseases such as Schizophrenia, Bipolar Syndrome, Alzheimer, Parkinson ? - Will we ever be able to do "Extraction" and "Inception" ? - for non- harmful, maybe good purposes ...
So, while we may not fully agree with the story proposed to us, the film is thought provoking, but, because of the nested layered dreams (dreams within a dream within a dream ...), hard to follow for many viewers. That is where the DVD/Blu-ray comes to the rescue - Rewind (many times) ! Not possible in the theatre, but easily done at home.
Next, please, pay attention: at the end of the film, the top is still spinning, which allows us, the viewer, to formulate two possible interpretations: 1) It is, finally reality; 2) It is (still) a dream - maybe, everything was a dream from the very beginning ... A fantasy ? A good work of art (visual or written) should be susceptible to multiple interpretations, right ? Hamlet: he is tormented - maybe he really saw (the ghost of) his father, maybe not, maybe his uncle murdered his father, maybe not ... should I take punitive action or not (" ... to be or not to be ... ") . The Penrose Steps (nice drawings by Max Escher !) - an optical illusion: are we going up or down ? Maybe both at the same time.
I like Leonardo di Caprio and Marion Cotillard a lot. The personal story of the characters they play (story which causes trouble to all) brings humanity and depth to this film, and the two actors are very convincing in their roles. By the way, "Mal" means "bad" in French.
My only real criticism is this (therefore 4.5/5 stars): too much shooting, too many people chasing each other, and too often - it makes it more attractive to some viewers, but ***lowers*** the overall value of the film ! It makes it look "less deep" than Chris Nolan would have liked. Notice this: The Academy nominated this film in several categories, among others: "Best Film" (which refers to the producers, one being Chris Nolan), "Best Original Story" (Chris Nolan), but not "Best Director" (who is also Chris Nolan). Maybe this is due exactly to the fact others noticed the same thing: long and frequent chases, lots of shooting ...
The thrilling should come more from the tension between characters, from the collision between their minds and souls, their problems, worries, and less from fast paced and sustained action sequences.
Last but not least I like the use of one of my longtime favorite songs: "Non, je ne regrette rien" sung by Edith Piaf. It is used in the film as a signal to wake-up the dreamers in a synchronized fashion (it even propagates from one dream level to the next), but, perhaps it also means this: no matter what happens, or happened, whether this is reality or it was just a dream, I do not take anything back (I regret nothing).
Traitor (2008)
A very good modern terrorism and espionage thriller
A good character study (excellent rendition by Don Cheadle), a well crafted story, an action thriller film mingled with ingenious espionage and conspiracies. The greatest line of the film, perhaps the morale of the story, I think, comes at the very end: "The Qur'an says that if you kill an innocent person it's as if you've killed all mankind", but "it also says that if you save a life it's like you've saved all mankind". Any gospel can be used to justify anything, but all affirm God, as the one who gave us all, regardless of religion, ethnicity, political affiliation the most precious gift of all, the gift of life. And no matter how we imagine the "after-life" (Paradise, eternal life ...), we should respect and protect life, for as long or short it's given to each of us.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Enjoyable and thought provoking, but could have been better !
I have just seen the film. I did not read the book.
- First and foremost I have to say this: I am a scientist and I also believe in God (who created everything, including life, and the process of evolution, and we all are, in a sense, indirectly His sons and His daughters) but I am not a Christian (I do not believe God is man, and man is God, and I do not believe in universal salvation, only individual) and I am not dogmatic. Therefore I cannot be offended. I am open to anything. With respect to what Jesus Christ is or was: I am convinced the great Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth really existed, and I accept many possible versions regarding his life.
- With respect to the film: The film is watchable, and even enjoyable, though the plot is not always easy to follow. It is, unfortunately, not a great adventure, thriller, conspiracy, historical, philosophical, or detective film. The main flaw is the story, the sequence of events, the connections between various scenes. As a result, what is hard to believe is not Akiva Goldsman's and Dan Brown's thesis regarding Jesus and Christianity in general (I am willing to believe it), but their own story, i.e. the film itself. The acting also seems a little bit forced. Good performance, but I have seen them doing better in much more memorable films: Hanks ("Philadelphia", 1993), Tautou ("Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain", 2001), McKellen ("Richard III", 1995), Reno ("Leon", 1994). Prochnow ("Das Boot", 1981).
- Watch and enjoy the film great places in France and England to see in real life (faith was always at the origin of memorable art: painting, architecture), however, if, like me, you are not dogmatic and, at the same time wish to watch a much better film, watch "The "Last Temptation of Christ" (1988) with Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel, Barbara Hershey, directed by Martin Scorsese, written by Paul Schrader, music by Peter Gabriel, and based on the very good book by Nikos Kazantzakis, who also wrote Alexis Zorba, upon which the film "Zorba The Greek" (1964) with Anthony Quinn was made.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
I will start by making the following statement: the two SF films of all times I liked the most are "Solaris" directed by Andrei Tarkovski, and "Blade Runner" directed by Ridley Scott.
I have been a fan of the Star Trek TV series since I came to the United States, about 15 years ago. I watched and enjoyed both the reprise of the original series and The New Generation (TNG), and later on a little bit of the spin-offs. I also watched the films that followed. A few of the episodes of the original series, and much more of TNG were good and very good: original and interesting stories, good acting, effective directing. It is quite likely the presence of Patrick Stewart that made TNG a solid show, and greatly increased its value. Patrick Stewart is a very good actor.
The 2002 "Nemesis" is watchable, well-directed, with some well-crafted scenes and dialogues (Copt. Picard - Data, Copt. Picard - Shinzon), but the story what is shown to us is not particularly attractive. When we first see Praetor Shinzon, Copt. Picard's alter-ego and nemesis, we pretty much anticipate what would happen. Too simple and predictable. Too many battle scenes
Lots of tech-muscle flexing
not balanced by an equal amount of brain
An SF film, I believe should not replace an action film ! An SF film is expected to be a thought provoking opportunity for questions and insights into philosophy ("who and why we are the way we are", "where we come from" "how we may interact we others, now and in the distant future"), and anticipation of how great advances in science-technology may influence our lives. Many TNG episodes, and some of the original series TV episodes raised to this level, while, also providing for action, battles, drama, and thrilling moments. "Nemesis" climactic end reminds us of "The Wrath of Khan" where the main idea, expressed by the Vulcan Spock was: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", "or the one", as Copt. Kirk later on says.
I say, if you are a Star Trek fan, watch "Nemesis" you will enjoy it, but if you want better Star Trek (and better SF) consider watching some of the TV episodes. Start with "Shore Leave" of the original series, and "The Measure of a Man" of the new series.
Orient Express (2004)
Appealing !
I have recently watched Orient Express on DVD (one of the very few Romanian DVDs/VHS provided with English subtitles !), and wish to provide IMDb's readers with a few comments.
The film is not that bad as some might believe. Directorial effort by Sergiu Nicolaescu, screen-writing, and casting with some flaws. Sergiu Nicolaescu is known well for pictures such as: "Michael the Brave" (1970), "With Clean Hands" (1972), "The Immortals" (1974), "The Doom" (1976). "William the Conqueror" (1982), "The Mirror" (1993), "Cry of Redemption" (1996), many of them action and war films. I dare say "Orient Express" (2004) is one of his few attempts at making a "character" film, and he does better than with the his previous attempt: "The Last Night of Love" (1979) based on the novel bearing the same title by Romanian 20th century writer Camil Petrescu.
It is an interesting story, and I assume the novel by Tudor Teodorescu-Braniste upon which the script is based is even better, meaning more fully developed.
Good shooting and editing, good acting. For interior and exterior shooting nice choosing of the Moruzeni Castle located in the always very beautiful and fully forested Moldova.
At first glance it looks like Sergiu Nicolaescu as old prince Morudzi performs rather flat, however the character he plays is supposed to be flat with few emotional variations. Dan Bittman (a Romanian rock star) does well as young prince Morudzi. I liked Imola Kezdi ("Holtvágány 1973) as Ana Criveanu, who falls in love for the prince, and later on kills herself when rejected by the prince, although I had the feeling she did not look exactly like a 20 years old girl, as the script requires. Maia Morgenstern ("The Oak" - 1992, "Betrayal" - 1993, "Ulysses' Gaze" - 1995, Procust's Bed" 2001, "The Passion of Christ" 2004) is excellent as Amalia Frunzetti, the prince companion and mistress, though she does not look like 30 (Maia was 42 in 2004 when the film was made). Ioana Moldovan is an attractive woman, and perform well as Isabelle Benny, the prince's love interest while wondering as a young man in Paris, however, she looks more like a tramp, instead of the supposedly poor and simply dressed French girl.
In my opinion director and writer Sergiu Nicolaescu tag teaming with the screen writers (Ioan Carmazan, Corneliu Dragomirescu should have worked more at showing what else prince Morudzi did throughout his life besides traveling and gambling in Paris. It is not unthinkable, however, are playboy attitude, good look, and highly cultivate language enough for so many women to fall for him right away ? I would have also liked to see more about the neighborhood, the places and people living around the castle, which is something that would have allowed the viewer to get a better feel of the time (pre WW1). Last but not least, much more of that Moldavian (Romanian) mesmerizing music.
About the DVD release: rather effective (mostly true to the original Romanian script) and easy to follow English subtitles, however, the person who did the translation seemed to have used some kind of "didactic", Romanian-English Dictionary based equivalents for many Romanian idioms. A more "down-to-earth" British and American English was within reach.
Last, but not least: some viewers have a problem with Sergiu Nicolaescu having been a well-connected individual for a long time, and also with his currently being a Senator in the Romanian Parliament. How about the Mikhalkov brothers (Nikita and Andrej Michalkow-Kontschalowski), the famous Russian theater and film directors ? Very well-connected artists, whose father, Sergei Mikhalkov wrote the lyrics for National Anthem of the USSR, now the Russian Federation ! They did outstanding work.