Set in 2003, in the months following the American invasion of Iraq, Army Chief Roy Miller (Matt Damon), in charge of the unit sent to search so-called WMD sites, keeps coming up empty handed. Miller starts to question the integrity of the intelligence information, and begins to uncover something much worse than faulty intelligence. He soon discovers the gravity of the situation and the danger when those involved will do anything to keep their secrets hidden. With the help of the CIA's Middle East expert and a local Iraqi called Freddie, Miller goes rogue to expose the truth behind WMD's (or the lack thereof) in Iraq. Chief Miller takes on the former Iraqi Army, the Pentagon, and US Special forces in an action packed, intellectual thriller.
Matt Damon was great. You're not watching Jason Bourne, Edward Wilson, or Colin Sullivan, you're watching Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller. Damon's ability to get into character is phenomenal. The character of Freddie, a local Iraqi, was complicated, but played very well. The other characters were also well written, and well executed.
The movie had good balance. There was enough action for those who love action, and enough plot for those who love a good story. The opening sequence will get your heart pumping; indeed all the action sequences will put you right into the heart of Bagdad. None of the action seemed unnecessary or cheesy, always pertinent to the story - which was gripping.
Some critics said that the movie is "too" political. Obviously a movie about the Iraq war and the lack of WMD's is going to be political, but it wasn't over the top. It was not a propaganda film with a political agenda. It doesn't portray conspiracy as much as conflicting agendas and conflicting methods for success in Iraq, and different ideas about what "success in Iraq" means. The movie is simply telling a story, not selling a story. And its worth seeing.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Alice in Wonderland
Don't call it a sequel.
I don't want to say too much to say about it, other than I liked it. Its worth seeing.
The whole film was very Tim Burton-esque, as I expected, although it seems Disney did put a restrictor plate on the Tim Burton throttle. It is a family film after all. We now see Alice as a 19-year-old returning to her fantasy world, although she remembers it only as a recurring nightmare from her childhood. (Apparently, she shares the same nightmare as most of us. As a child, the 1985 adaptation haunted me for years). We see many of the same characters, only less frightening than I remember. Johnny Depp did well as the Mad Hatter, and Helena Bonham Carter was captivating as the red queen. I didn't particularly care for the character of the White Queen though, played by Anne Hathaway. The CGI characters were stunning, as was all of the animation. The mixture of live action and animation was seamless, and even many of the live actors were digitally enhanced, allowing them to fit perfectly into the world that Burton creates for us. I hear that the 3D version is awesome, however I can't speak to that fact, as I saw the regular version. I don't much care for 3D movies, and thought the "old-fashioned" 2D version was plenty stunning visually.
Because of the nature of the film (beloved classic, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Disney, CGI dreamworld, 3D) there are many varied opinions about it. My advice is to ignore all reviews and just go see it. Whether or not you're amazed, it's worth seeing.
I don't want to say too much to say about it, other than I liked it. Its worth seeing.
The whole film was very Tim Burton-esque, as I expected, although it seems Disney did put a restrictor plate on the Tim Burton throttle. It is a family film after all. We now see Alice as a 19-year-old returning to her fantasy world, although she remembers it only as a recurring nightmare from her childhood. (Apparently, she shares the same nightmare as most of us. As a child, the 1985 adaptation haunted me for years). We see many of the same characters, only less frightening than I remember. Johnny Depp did well as the Mad Hatter, and Helena Bonham Carter was captivating as the red queen. I didn't particularly care for the character of the White Queen though, played by Anne Hathaway. The CGI characters were stunning, as was all of the animation. The mixture of live action and animation was seamless, and even many of the live actors were digitally enhanced, allowing them to fit perfectly into the world that Burton creates for us. I hear that the 3D version is awesome, however I can't speak to that fact, as I saw the regular version. I don't much care for 3D movies, and thought the "old-fashioned" 2D version was plenty stunning visually.
Because of the nature of the film (beloved classic, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Disney, CGI dreamworld, 3D) there are many varied opinions about it. My advice is to ignore all reviews and just go see it. Whether or not you're amazed, it's worth seeing.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The 82nd Academy Awards
I was mostly pleased with the Oscars this year. Although I did watch hours of the Red Carpet specials leading up to the show, I'll save my fashion comments for a different venue. However, I will say I pleasantly enjoyed watching Woody Harrelson deny Ryan Seacrest an interview. Woody just went up one more notch in my book. And even though I hate SJP, her dress was pretty awesome.
The Ceremony
I liked the fresh new format they used for some of the categories. I like how each film nominated for Best Picture was individually featured throughout the course of the show. I'm not sure about having 10 nominees, but it didn't seem to be a negative. I also thought it was nice how each nominee for Best Actor/Actress in a Leading Role was personally introduced by a fellow actor close to them. Being nominated for having the best performance of the year is a big deal, and this mode of introduction made it a little more special for the nominees, and helped the audience connect.
I wasn't impressed with the Neal Patrick Harris introduction song and dance, and thought it lacked class. Maybe at the Globes or MTV awards, but this is the Oscars - a higher class ceremony. And although the dancing was cool during the introductions for Best Original Score, I didn't really think it fit with the nature of the ceremony either.
Overall I thought the Awards Ceremony was well done and enjoyable, even though it ran a little long. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were splendid hosts.
Awards Highlights
Best Picture - The Hurt Locker
This award really made my night. It's no secret that I have a deep appreciation for real film-making. I saw this film many times before the Oscars, and loved it. It was through-and-through a 'real' film. It may not have been as visually stunning as another movie (ahem, Avatar), but the plot, the directing, the acting - indeed all aspects of the film - put me right into the streets of Iraq, almost a member of the team myself. The thing I loved the most about this film was the depth of characters - incredible. This is the type of film-making that deserves to be awarded Best Picture. It also deserves all of the other awards it won (Directing, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Original Screenplay).
Actress in a Leading Role - Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Although Sandra Bullock was stunning in her role, and certainly deserved the Oscar, a few of the other women were very close. Except Meryl Streep. I don't much care for her, and her role in Julie and Julia wasn't very groundbreaking.
Actor in a Leading Role - Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
I respect the other actors nominated in this category, but it seems as though Jeff Bridges ran away with this one, and deservedly so. I smiled at his acceptance speech, on the verge of being braggy, but still classy and graceful. I liked Jeremy Renner for this award as well - his character was very deep and complicated and he played the part beautifully. However, Bridges was superb.
Actor in a Supporting Role - Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Bastards)
I cheered out loud when Christoph won! His role as Col. Hans Landa of the Nazi SS was phenomenally entertaining. He was brilliant in the movie. The other actors in the category gave worthy performances, but nothing came close to the performance of Christoph as Col. Landa. Kudos to Tarantino for casting him in the role (he originally wanted Leonardo DiCaprio for the role, but decided to go with the German actor). A well deserved award.
Visual Effects, Art Direction, Cinematography - Avatar
Although I'm not a huge fan of effects-driven films, or the fantasy genre in general, Avatar deserved these awards. However, I thought Inglourious Bastards could have won the Cinematography award as well.
After all was said and done, I agreed with most of the awards. The Academy continues to honor those who deserve it. An enjoyable evening.
The Ceremony
I liked the fresh new format they used for some of the categories. I like how each film nominated for Best Picture was individually featured throughout the course of the show. I'm not sure about having 10 nominees, but it didn't seem to be a negative. I also thought it was nice how each nominee for Best Actor/Actress in a Leading Role was personally introduced by a fellow actor close to them. Being nominated for having the best performance of the year is a big deal, and this mode of introduction made it a little more special for the nominees, and helped the audience connect.
I wasn't impressed with the Neal Patrick Harris introduction song and dance, and thought it lacked class. Maybe at the Globes or MTV awards, but this is the Oscars - a higher class ceremony. And although the dancing was cool during the introductions for Best Original Score, I didn't really think it fit with the nature of the ceremony either.
Overall I thought the Awards Ceremony was well done and enjoyable, even though it ran a little long. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were splendid hosts.
Awards Highlights
Best Picture - The Hurt Locker
This award really made my night. It's no secret that I have a deep appreciation for real film-making. I saw this film many times before the Oscars, and loved it. It was through-and-through a 'real' film. It may not have been as visually stunning as another movie (ahem, Avatar), but the plot, the directing, the acting - indeed all aspects of the film - put me right into the streets of Iraq, almost a member of the team myself. The thing I loved the most about this film was the depth of characters - incredible. This is the type of film-making that deserves to be awarded Best Picture. It also deserves all of the other awards it won (Directing, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Original Screenplay).
Actress in a Leading Role - Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Although Sandra Bullock was stunning in her role, and certainly deserved the Oscar, a few of the other women were very close. Except Meryl Streep. I don't much care for her, and her role in Julie and Julia wasn't very groundbreaking.
Actor in a Leading Role - Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
I respect the other actors nominated in this category, but it seems as though Jeff Bridges ran away with this one, and deservedly so. I smiled at his acceptance speech, on the verge of being braggy, but still classy and graceful. I liked Jeremy Renner for this award as well - his character was very deep and complicated and he played the part beautifully. However, Bridges was superb.
Actor in a Supporting Role - Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Bastards)
I cheered out loud when Christoph won! His role as Col. Hans Landa of the Nazi SS was phenomenally entertaining. He was brilliant in the movie. The other actors in the category gave worthy performances, but nothing came close to the performance of Christoph as Col. Landa. Kudos to Tarantino for casting him in the role (he originally wanted Leonardo DiCaprio for the role, but decided to go with the German actor). A well deserved award.
Visual Effects, Art Direction, Cinematography - Avatar
Although I'm not a huge fan of effects-driven films, or the fantasy genre in general, Avatar deserved these awards. However, I thought Inglourious Bastards could have won the Cinematography award as well.
After all was said and done, I agreed with most of the awards. The Academy continues to honor those who deserve it. An enjoyable evening.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Book of Eli
Denzel certainly does not disappoint.
Although the previews spun it as an action movie, I wouldn't categorize it as such. Still, it did have some great action scenes. If you belong to the plague of modern movie goers who only want to be entertained by visual effects and cheap thrills, you may not enjoy this film. But, if you truly appreciate plot and character development and have a keen eye for great directing and great acting, you'll recognize it as the theatrical gem that it is.
Denzel Washington plays the role of Eli, a wanderer in the post-apocalyptic world. Eli is the guardian and possessor of the last remaining copy of an important book (I won't reveal it, but I was pleasantly surprised) that has the power to save humanity. Set in the desolate, burned up corpse of the American West, some 30 years after the "final war" and the "flash," all that's left is lawless wasteland. The small remaining population's only purpose is to survive - which they do by scouring the remnants of the "old world" or by preying on the weak. Eli, traveling alone for 30 years, is determined to carry the sacred book west. His path takes him through a "village" that has a crude sense of society, run by a man, Carnegie, who is searching for the book to exert power over more people. Mila Kunis plays the role of a Solara, a girl born and raised in this barren world. She is intrigued by Eli, one of the few people who survived from the old world, and very curious about the book. Eli, though religious and peaceful, will do anything (and does) to protect the book and finish his journey.
Two men. Two motives. One book. And a girl in the middle to complicate it. How will it end? With a twist.
The Book of Eli has a different feel than the Apocalypse films of late. The cause of the Apocalypse is never completely explained, and it is up to the audience to piece it together. The central theme of the movie is actually rather religious, but never preachy. The story was slow to develop at times, which lost some of the audience, but the initially slow story development was substituted by phenomenal character development. Eli is a deep and intriguing character and it takes the entire movie to completely reveal him. The variety of supporting characters are also done well. Hats off to the Hughes brothers for the directing. If I had one complaint, it was that the action scenes were a little too choreographed. Albeit this didn't bother me too much, because they were also extremely awesome.
All in all, this film was very well done. I recommend it. I will probably see it again in the theater. Enjoy.
Although the previews spun it as an action movie, I wouldn't categorize it as such. Still, it did have some great action scenes. If you belong to the plague of modern movie goers who only want to be entertained by visual effects and cheap thrills, you may not enjoy this film. But, if you truly appreciate plot and character development and have a keen eye for great directing and great acting, you'll recognize it as the theatrical gem that it is.
Denzel Washington plays the role of Eli, a wanderer in the post-apocalyptic world. Eli is the guardian and possessor of the last remaining copy of an important book (I won't reveal it, but I was pleasantly surprised) that has the power to save humanity. Set in the desolate, burned up corpse of the American West, some 30 years after the "final war" and the "flash," all that's left is lawless wasteland. The small remaining population's only purpose is to survive - which they do by scouring the remnants of the "old world" or by preying on the weak. Eli, traveling alone for 30 years, is determined to carry the sacred book west. His path takes him through a "village" that has a crude sense of society, run by a man, Carnegie, who is searching for the book to exert power over more people. Mila Kunis plays the role of a Solara, a girl born and raised in this barren world. She is intrigued by Eli, one of the few people who survived from the old world, and very curious about the book. Eli, though religious and peaceful, will do anything (and does) to protect the book and finish his journey.
Two men. Two motives. One book. And a girl in the middle to complicate it. How will it end? With a twist.
The Book of Eli has a different feel than the Apocalypse films of late. The cause of the Apocalypse is never completely explained, and it is up to the audience to piece it together. The central theme of the movie is actually rather religious, but never preachy. The story was slow to develop at times, which lost some of the audience, but the initially slow story development was substituted by phenomenal character development. Eli is a deep and intriguing character and it takes the entire movie to completely reveal him. The variety of supporting characters are also done well. Hats off to the Hughes brothers for the directing. If I had one complaint, it was that the action scenes were a little too choreographed. Albeit this didn't bother me too much, because they were also extremely awesome.
All in all, this film was very well done. I recommend it. I will probably see it again in the theater. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
