Change Your Image
rdeschene3
Reviews
Quantum of Solace (2008)
The Bond franchise is finally moving forward
In my opinion Moneypenny, Q the silly character names (Jaws, Goldfinger, Ms. Obtuse Sex Joke) fit their time but so did Tom Jones' swagger and you either move on or remain dated. This film makes me feel that the franchise holders have firmly decided to move on. I hope they maintain their resolve. The return of the PPK was questionable in this regard, but many others wont notice.
If you only saw Casino Royale once a few years ago, or not at all, this would probably be less enjoyable as you're not going to "get" the emotional state and interactions of various characters. The Casino Royale events aren't years ago to them but days or weeks.
Bond here is an emotionally broken person forcing himself onward and trying to find some quantum (smallest particle) of solace, and the other returning field ops aren't much better off. I don't think any other Bond has been able to convey that as convincingly as Daniel Craig, although Timothy Dalton did what he could the scripts weren't really written for it.
I don't care for the rapid fire editing style during chase and fight scenes, to the point where all I really know is they're trying to convey that it is perilous but I don't feel the peril. Speeding up the camera during fight and chase scenes in the old Bond films was far more distracting.
In the end this movie might fare better in the retrospect of the next few movies if they continue to develop Bond's character and he's not just "stuck" in his current emotional state.
Passchendaele (2008)
show me don't tell me
I was happy and excited to see a movie about Canadian soldiers in the First World War, but disappointed with the product. That young Canadians volunteered to a squalid life in the trenches, lost injured soldiers to the muddy fields, and had aid stations that operated at a fever pitch without antibiotics or, often, anesthetics -- these all show that there is a story to be told here. A difficult and heart-rending story yes, but certainly a story that can stand on its own. If told deftly.
The makers of this film tell us about so many things they could have more effectively shown. This is a film, not a book, and film is a visual medium so show us what you mean don't tell us. For example, the scene of the doctor in Calgary giving a little presentation describing battlefield wounds and passing around a piece of shrapnel could have been far more effectively conveyed visually on the battlefield. So why only spend 30 minutes in Europe ?
SHOW us why the Germans called the Canadians stormtroopers, and THEN TELL us that is the moniker the enemy bestowed on us. See how this could have worked ?
That there was a romantic interest was something I expected. This is a common device used to show the humanity of people who will later do brutal things. Think "History of Violence". Once again though the film relies too much on little speeches and pronouncements to tell us about their feelings rather than showing people relating to each other by how they treat each other. Vets of the First and Second World War are renown for their reticence, so that 1.5hrs of the movie especially didn't ring true.
The "stations of the cross" scene is some measure of just how far from the reality the film makers wandered. I've heard of the First World War trenches described as weeks of boredom and anxiety punctuated by short periods of shear terror and confusion. To me this movie was weeks of eager anticipation followed by hours of growing disappointment and frustration.
So I guess I'm still waiting for a movie that can really convey the pride, professionalism, necessary brutality and heart-rending emotional aftermath of Canadian soldiers who've seen battle. I guess I wanted a film that made me feel a combination of pride, disgust and grief and this film failed to do so.
I would nominate this film for cinematography, costume, special effects and maybe audio and acting but not screenplay or "best film" certainly. And I don't think more money would have fixed this.
Light Sleeper (1992)
Just watched it after years of searching
About 10yrs ago I became aware of this movie and, as a result of the Last Temptation of Christ, I was already very curious about Willem Dafoe's other roles. I have occasionally looked for copies of this movie in small town rental stores and discount bins to no avail.
I finally broke down and bought Light Sleeper on DVD and I am very happy I did. This is one of Dafoe's better roles -- his performance is almost always very good, but let's face it, he's taken on a few weak roles in the past: "Clear and Present Danger" springs to mind here. Not much script to work with.
But then there's Affliction (same screenwriter as Light Sleeper), LTofC, Platoon (an over-dramatic production, IMHO), Triumph of the Spirit, To Live and Die in L.A. (good fun for Michael Mann and William Peterson fans)...so that's why I finally bought this DVD.
Anyways, I think Willem Dafoe's performance was comparable to Triumph of the Spirit, as was the script and production. Susan Sarandon was a pleasant surprise - I thought she might bring the movie down by being too dramatic or "sex kitteny", but this is right around the period she began to play the role of a woman and not a girl.
As far as Michael Been's songs in the soundtrack are concerned: I'm a modest fan of "The Call" and I rather enjoyed the soundtrack. It is a movie of its time in that the songs are featured more prominently in the mixing level and duration than one would expect of today.
I found the story compelling: I cared what happened to the characters next. In my opinion, if a movie can't do that it's wasting precious minutes of my life. I donate exceptional movie DVDs to our local (small town) library collection, and this will be one of them.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
If there was an Oscar category for "most trite dialogue"...
This was on in the evening of New Year's Day, so as a way to kill 4:00hrs of your life it fulfills its function. Dr. Zhivago (1965) was on at the same time, and I kept switching to it to get more believable dialogue. And Dr. Zhivago is one painfully long, Harlequin Romance of a movie.
They try to follow so many characters in this movie, and switch between them so often, it is hard to get any continuity, or develop any sympathetic feelings for the characters. Despite this being set during a major historical event, this approach left me not really caring what would happen to the characters. There is little required anticipation, as what will next happen to the characters is basically the most formulaic and dramatic thing you can think of:
** SPOILERS - plot and dialogue ** Geez, I wonder if the pretty nurse who ISN'T Kate Beckinsale will die during the attack? Sounds predictable and dramatic, yep that's what happens in the movie. Geez, I wonder if the Kate Beckinsale pretty nurse will get between the two leading men? Of course. Geez, wouldn't it be ridiculously predictable and dramatic if pretty nurse Kate was pregnant, and wouldn't it be even more dramatic if these fighter pilots became bomber pilots, and then went on Doolittle's raid on Tokyo (not one of the other Japanese cities) and then the unborn child's father is killed but the other leading man in the end being with pretty nurse Kate? Oh, and what if the daddy-to-be doesn't even KNOW she's pregnant? Now you're getting the hang of it!
I can't exactly remember the dialogue, but I believe there are lines such as: "My heart aches for you", "Whenever I see a sunset I'll think of you", etc. and any memorable lines Roosevelt ever delivered relating to the historical incidents are in the movie too of course. As a rule, a few minutes of chatter are interspersed between the "dramatic speech" or "dramatic scene" by someone as there appears to be some need to have a really, really dramatic or CGI-filled or heart-rending scene every 5 minutes or so throughout the entire movie. It's like watching a musical in that regard, which I honestly don't like either. Add camera angle changes every 5 seconds, going off-focus and you have yourself one expensive, 3hour music video.
This film was manufactured to be what it is -- like a toaster oven, a dishwasher or a wheelbarrow. So long as there is adequate profit made by the corporations involved, such films will continue to be written, produced and edited. Because films like this are made by committee, and nobody takes ownership and so long as they're getting paid nobody gives a dang.
I give this 1/10, because I can't rate it 0/10 using the drop-down menu.
Between the Moon and Montevideo (2000)
This is not a S.F. film, but it is somewhat engaging
This movie is fairly frequently broadcast at odd times on Bravo Network and others -- you know, weekday afternoon movies and 3:00am time slots. It is set somewhere in space to make it feel like a location that is truly desolate and the chances of leaving are slim to none.
All of the characters in this are imperfect, not all bad people but definitely people in a bad, and almost hopelessly trapped, situation. That is true of many movies in the last 20-25 years or so, but many can't make the story or characters engaging. This one at least succeeds in that, where others have failed due to trying too hard in the acting or making the plot needlessly convoluted.
This is a story about how people in bad situations set their priorities, and in the end treat each other and themselves. And as that, it's fairly decent.
I've watched it twice on basic cable (basically for free) and it was certainly worth every penny. Heck, I'd be happy even if I spent 3-4 bucks on a rental for something "different" and got this. I've gone to the theaters and been far less impressed -- regardless of the $$$s spent or the $$$s made.
Have Mercy (1999)
Canada has made some interesting films
...and this is one of them. A group of women meet in a psych facility, and each show their strengths, weaknesses and by the end of the movie have all moved ahead, if only somewhat.
This doesn't get into the depth of the characters as "Strangers in Good Company" does, but it is also using a "show me" approach rather than a "tell me" approach. This is maybe a little more deft in its approach.
The acting is very smooth, very convincing when you consider the types of characters portrayed and how they portrayed them. Like I said: it's mostly the "show me don't tell me" type of script.