Change Your Image
robin_rubin
Reviews
The Cove (2009)
If you love them, set them free
In the 1960's, Ric O'Barry made a fortune as the dolphin trainer for the "Flipper" films and television series. "I could buy a new Porsche every year," he says now, in the new documentary, "The Cove." But if he could do it over again, he would set free the five dolphins who played "Flipper." Thanks to "Flipper," people fell in love with dolphins. They loved these beautiful, sensitive, highly intelligent sea mammals literally to death. People wanted to get closer to dolphins, leading to a proliferation of marine zoos and "swim with the dolphin" enterprises where, day in and day out, the animals were exposed to screaming humans and forced to dwell in tiny tanks. In the wild, dolphins may swim some 5,000 miles a day, and their hearing is almost preternaturally sensitive. Dolphins navigate by sonar, and communicate with one another by sound. When they are exposed to loud noises for a long period of time, they die from the stress. At the National Aquarium in Baltimore, several dolphins died because the constant din of the water filtration system killed them.
But even worse than the lives these captive dolphins lead is what happens to the dolphins who aren't chosen by the trainers and aquatic zookeepers, the dolphins who have the misfortune of being too old, or too young, or male -- and are hacked to death in the secret Cove of the movie's title.
O'Barry blames himself for the deaths, all of them, and for the dolphins' continuing plight in the 40-year wake of "Flipper." However, "The Cove" is more than a chronicle of O'Barry's efforts to make amends. The film, which deserves every one of the many accolades it has already garnered, and many more, is an amalgam of caper flick, nature documentary, and investigative journalism at its finest: Imagine a combination of Jacques Cousteau, "Mission: Impossible," "CSI," and "60 Minutes" -- and one of those films like "Old Yeller" where a beloved animal dies at the end, because, to be sure, the last 20 minutes of "The Cove" are very, very hard to take if you have any heart at all.
This is a Holocaust, and with my ethnic background I don't toss around that term lightly. But we can stop it. Getting the word out will help shame the Japanese authorities into curtailing the slaughter, which will start again in September unless we help stop it. Once again, it is within our power to say, "Never again!"
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Ending makes no sense - what's with the Death Eaters?
Spoiler alert.
OK, I understand that a film adaptation of a novel generally requires that plot elements and other details be left out. That means choices. It's the director who makes the choices, and different directors make different choices.
A different director from David Yates -- such as Alfonso Cuarón -- would probably have made choices more in keeping with the spirit of the books.
More to my liking, anyway.
Others commenting here have pointed out that Yates chose to emphasize the Ron Weasley/Lavender Brown romantic subplot at the expense of more important story arcs -- such as Harry's speculation over the identity of the Half-Blood Prince; or what items Voldemort used for horcruxes; or Tom Riddle's ancestors; or Harry's inheriting Sirius's property, including the house-elf Kreacher -- and I agree with them. He also chose to add a totally gratuitous scene of the burning down of the Weasley home -- but chose to omit the CRUCIAL battle between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix/Dumbledore's Army.
But if a director is going to omit the battle at the end, the battle that is necessary to drive the Death Eaters out of Hogwarts, which they want to take over, and keep them from killing or kidnapping Harry, then the director should find some other way to explain why the Death Eaters vacated Hogwarts without doing any damage to anybody, and what they were doing there in the first place.
It seems the worst thing the Death Eaters did while they were inside the grounds of Hogwarts (not counting killing Dumbledore because that wasn't the Death Eaters) was breaking the glass in the Great Hall and burning down Hagrid's hut -- hardly worth all the trouble that Draco went through to get them inside Hogwarts. The Death Eaters weren't there to help Draco, they weren't around on his previous attempts to kill Dumbledore.
After Snape kills Dumbledore and Harry chases after him, Bellatrix points her wand at Harry, but Snape stops Bellatrix from killing Harry, saying, "Save him for the Dark Lord." Then Snape, Draco, Bellatrix and the other Death Eaters just run away -- without even TRYING to capture Harry and take him to Voldemort.
These are Death Easters, Mr. Yates, not mischief-night pranksters or execution-hall witnesses. They would not simply depart Hogwarts unless they were driven out! Without the final battle, it would have made more sense to omit the Death Eaters from the ending completely, and just have Snape take over for Draco in killing Dumbledore.
Or drive them off some other way, if you are so determined not to show the battle.
This is the worst adaptation so far.
I understand Yates is currently filming Bill & Fleur's wedding scene for the next movie. Where will the wedding be held now that the Burrow is gone?
What an idiot Yates is.
The Reader (2008)
If you liked The English Patient...
I rented this movie with high expectations but found it insufferable and excruciating to sit through. Ponderous and overwrought. I similarly hated The English Patient, just like Elaine on Seinfeld.
Lots of soft-core porn in the beginning. Not my cup of tea, but your mileage may vary. And it only went downhill from there.
Kate Winslet's talents are wasted in this movie, but her performance was the only reason I watched to the end.
The worst scenes were those with Fiennes, who should stick to playing Voldemort and retire from the screen when the Harry Potter films are all finished.
Note to self: Never watch another Ralph Fiennes movie in which he has a nose.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Church? Or Empire?
**SPOILERS, I GUESS**
I don't know much about this period of European history so I can't speak for the accuracy, but one thing I gleaned from this film was that Philip of Spain was not interested in conquering England for the sake of the Catholic Church -- he wanted it for himself and his princess daughter. He betrayed the Catholic Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, precisely so he could have an excuse to attack. Certainly, he would have allied with Mary against Elizabeth and perhaps then married off his daughter to Mary's son or another heir to the throne, but it seems to me that Philip cared little for Mary or even the Pope, only for his own dynasty.
If there is a Tudor expert in the house who would care to comment, I would love to read what you have to say.
Juno (2007)
If I ever make a movie...
...I want to hire the publicist / marketing firm that the makers of "Juno" used.
This movie was hyped to the skies, and on several NPR programs yet, before it even opened.
But it's the biggest piece of dreck since "Knocked Up," with which it has a great deal in common.
I'm shocked to see them both so many lists of the best films of 2007. I think it was one of the worst.
The emperor has no clothes, people.
Stay away.
That is all.
Unfortnately, I have to fill ten (10) lines.
So, I repeat:
If I ever make a movie, I am going to hire the publicist / marketing firm that the makers of "Juno" used.
This movie was hyped to the skies, and on several NPR programs yet, before it even opened.
But it's the biggest piece of dreck since "Knocked Up," with which it has a great deal in common.
I'm shocked to see them both so many lists of the best films of 2007. I think it was one of the worst.
The emperor has no clothes, people.
Stay away.
Der Tunnel (2001)
Almost 3 hours, but doesn't feel like it
What a great movie! It's a very well made adventure flick that has the added advantage of being true.
I agree with the IMDb reviewer who said Heino Ferch, who plays the central character Harry Melchior, was a lot like Bruce Willis. I found the similarities profound.
And I thoroughly disagree with the New York Times reviewer (click on the EXTERNAL REVIEWS link to read it), who wrote: "They are joined by numerous volunteers hoping to rescue their own friends and family, and by the eager Fritzi (Nicolette Krebitz), whose solitary feminine presence complicates the team's relationships."
I don't know what movie that reviewer saw, but it wasn't this one. What a stupid remark, apropos of nothing, making it sound like a romantic triangle or quadrangle develops. There is nothing of the kind. In fact, Fritzi is a great female role model. When she first volunteers and the men wonder what sort of contribution she'll be able to make, she says, "I may look different from you when I'm naked, but I can work just as hard." Then she jumps into the tunnel and starts digging. Right on, sister.
I don't remember much about Germany before the Berlin Wall came down, beyond cinematic references to "Checkpoint Charlie" and the Brandenburg Gate and news reports I was too young to understand. But this movie really brings the horrors -- psychological as well as physical -- to life.
Another film that explores similar territory, psychological as well as physical, is The Lives of Others. Interestingly, the German actor Sebastian Koch has high profile roles in both films.
La Môme (2007)
Was the point to make us all do research?
I have always loved Piaf's music. I knew she travelled in the same social and artistic circles as Brel and Cocteau and Aznavour, and that she was very politically minded and active in the French Resistance, but little else. Now I can add the boxer Marcel Cerdan to those boldface names, but that's about all the new stuff I do know as a result of seeing this movie.
What I don't know:
Who were all those men who surrounded her -- husbands, lovers, agents, accompanists, composers, impresarios, doctors, who? I could never tell if they were the same men with all the time travelling.
Who were all those women who surrounded her -- sisters, lovers, secretaries, accompanists, composers, dressmakers, nurses, who? Especially Momone.
Why was she giving money to a pimp if she wasn't a prostitute?
Was the baby's father in the movie at any point before the end?
Why were WWII and her role in it left out?
This movie raises more questions about Piaf's life than it answers. I don't mind being inspired to do more research on a person, but I don't like being forced to do so in order to fill in the holes made by a woefully inadequate script.
The screenwriter, director and editor of this film deserve negative stars. They should have lots of regrets.
But I'd give the music, cast, costume designer, make-up artist and lighting director a 10.
I really wanted to love this movie. I am so disappointed.
rr
Fracture (2007)
Sympathy for the devil
I expected a lot from this movie, and it didn't deliver.
The plot, worth a B- in a scriptwriting class, pitted the complex villain played by Anthony Hopkins vs. all the one-dimensional good guys.
I wonder, where were the viewer's sympathies supposed to lie? Mine were with the villain. Because Mr. Hopkins was the best actor? Perhaps. But perhaps moreso because his character was the best drawn, the smartest, and the most emotionally complex.
Before he shoots his wife, who has just returned home from a weekend's assignation with her lover (who later turns up as the policeman dispatched to the house as a hostage negotiator), Hopkins' character tells her he loves her. She, cold as ice, tells him, "I know." Her lover, in the scene just before, had just told her pretty much the same thing, and her response had been equally cold.
So, I had no sympathy for her.
Her policeman/lover is cheating on his own wife and kids, responds unprofessionally at the scene of the crime and by taking Hopkins' confession despite blatant conflict of interest, and later plants fake evidence. He came off less as a distraught lover than an unscrupulous and incompetent sleaze.
I felt no sympathy for him, either.
And then there is Beachum, the lawyer: smug, conniving and ambitious. The best that can be said for him is that he refuses to take the bait of the faked evidence.
But he seemed much less smart than he thought he was, and so I wasted no sympathy on the lawyer, either.
Hopkins' was the character I was rooting for because Hopkins' was the only character with any depth, with more than a single dimension.
I wanted to see him prevail and was extremely disappointed when he did not.
And I don't usually side with the bad guys. I never sided with Mr. Hopkins' Hannibal the cannibal, for example. And I don't see the similarities that some reviewers do between that role and the one he plays in this film. I believe that if his wife had said she loved him, or seemed in any way conflicted, he would not have shot her.
No, I only side with the bad guys when their motivations are actually honorable, for this truly was a matter of "honor" in an old-fashioned sense, and/or when the good guys are no more than cardboard cutouts.
All in all, Fracture was nowhere near as well written or as satisfying as an episode of Law and Order.
But it's a huge credit to Mr. Hopkins that he did not simply phone in his performance in this film as Sam Waterson so often does on L&O. Hopkins, in fact, turned in a much better performance than the material deserved.
I give it six stars only because of the talented Mr. Hopkins. Leave out his performance, and it merits only three.
A Perfect Murder (1998)
It depends on what you want
If you are a fan of any of the main actors, you will like this film.
If you enjoy seeing Paltrow pose in refined interiors in expensive clothes, or very few clothes, as she talks through clenched teeth, this is a movie for you.
If you enjoy watching Douglas' subtle mastery of the acting art, and lending depth to a character that in lesser hands would be as flat as wallpaper, this is a movie for you.
If you enjoy watching Morgenstern sporting medieval hygiene and chewing the scenery, this is a movie for you.
If you enjoy lamenting that the always-remarkable Suchet is woefully underused, this is a movie for you.
But...
If you like movies that are intelligently scripted, plotted, cast and/or directed, this is not a movie for you. Save your time and money and rent the original "Dial M for Murder" instead.
Cold Mountain (2003)
Nicole Kidman needs to lay off the Botox
Her embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!
The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.
I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us "The English Patient." My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: "It sucked."