|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: quick review of recent films including, hollywood endings, frailty posted by njjohn on September 22, 2002 at 06:41:00:
Just teasin'! :o)BTW, I agree with you about Matrix, but wholeheartedly disagree with your criticisms of Lord of The Rings; that film, IMO, captures the epic nature of Tolkein's vision and is nothing short of a masterpiece for the ages! I've discussed LoTR elsewhere in this forum and I don't want to cover ground already explored, so I'll just add that this is one of my favorite films in recent years and a highly enriching experience for anyone who loves epic storytelling and is willing to give it a chance. My hope and expectation is that the next two films in the trilogy will live up to the grandeur and scope of first one.
Of those you listed above I've seen Changing Lanes and would concur with you about the interesting juxtapositions, but differ slightly about being disappointed in Samual L. Jackson. I think he did a marvelous job of demonstrating the decline of civility when desparation is replaced forst by outrage, and then by pure rage. This film captured an truism about the childish incivility in our society that is all to real; when adults draw a line in the sand and behave vengefully, things can escalate quickly to deadly levels in our culture. This film, in spite of it's patently moral feel-good resolution that's more Hollywood than reality approached the ironies, misfortunes, irrational behaviors, class and ethnic differences of the main characters with a basic gut-level intensity and it did so honestly (i.e., through a suspenseful story with a simple premise). This is not a great film by any means, but a very good one that provides lots of food for thought.
Follow Ups:
:) :) :)
my son recommended lord of the rings to the point that i bought it when i had the opportunity, instead of renting it. i offered to trade it for his copy of matrix but he was not interested in the trade.i might have to give it another chance. i was only commenting about all the action in it, yet for some reason all that action did not have too much of an impressionable effect. i was guessing that there was an overreliance on computer generated effects and this somehow had a dulling on the effectiveness of the whole film. probably, enough real action scenes were missing.
regarding changing lanes, i was not dissapointed in samuel jackson, but in the role type cast for him. perhaps the types of personalities of the two characters was too "who gives a damm about there stupid personalities, stupid selfishnesses, and stupid anger" . the personalities were contrived along lines that do not interest me.
on a positive note, i do have to say it was a bit of a contemporary film dealing with contemporary issues, particularly racial issues. but it was certainly biased against the black character. it took the samuel character role to a very stupid portrayal, a waste really.
it's a totally stupid scene to think that the character played by samuel jackson would be holding the lug wrench with a smile while the other guy's tires go rolling off. perhaps people do get that stupid and angry but the whole affair is kind of moronic and uninteresting to me.
i'd rather watch something more potentially real. "frailty, by contrast, although more incredulous altogether, at least explores a real life situation of a father going apparently crazy, and the two children being at his mercy and having to deal with it. the human relationships were much more real to me.
similarly with "the others". a much more unreal film, yet the human relationships were better done, and the issues between all the characters at least keeps you guessing. but then the way the film winds up, it moves many issues to another level, and it really amkes you wonder about the afterlife, and even the rights, concerns, and priorities of the dead. :)
we were soldiers seems worse than i originally imagined. it is so bad that i can't even play it up to what i imagine to be war action. just put mel gibson in front of the camera, pair him with a wife, just any actress, and we are suppose to buy into it. the script is so pathetic. i guearantee i will not watch another second of this film before i take it back to the video store.
...when you're not tired.LOTR is not about "action" sequences. It's *not* at all a typical action/swords & sorcery, beat 'em bang up kill the bad guys and it's over kind of film. It's what happens *between* the action seqyences that's key, otherwise you son't understand the struggle or its resolution.
Like the book, LOTR the film is about how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; about the passing of an age and the loss of innocence; about the nature of courage and the need for sacrifice; about friendship, loyalty, love and faith. It's a lament for a different, nobler age and sorrow at the devastation of nature by rmapant industrialization.
For starters. There's a good and evil thing going on too.
i'll definitely give it another try. with an open mind. but my son has it and i won't get it back for 2-3 weeks.i could definitely be wrong about this one film.
but maybe it's something you can get into and i will just not be able to do. "this ring, that ring, this is the most powerful ring", i don't know if i can get into the main premise about how a "ring" could control the couse of the world.
Saw Robin Williams yesterday in "One-hour Photoshop" (sic?), mainly due to your recommendation. Sorry, though I agree with a lot of your opinions on other films, this one wasn't worth the matinee entry (I am not asking for a refund...).
ATT: READ NO FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS FLICK!
First, the ending. Would any cops in their right minds first go to Robin's room and leave the "victims" alone all that time? No. A major mistake!
The darn thing took too long to get going. At least 20 minutes of sloooooow preamble, by which time I was daydreaming a bit.
It didn't help that the husband and wife are really tv-quality hacks. But the main problem, outside of pacing, is the director's lack of skill. It looks like he was assembling a collage of scenes, with no connection between them, either logically or stylistically.
And last, we get no reason for the psychopatholgy. None. I imagine the original script had Robin being a religious lunatic, but this was expunged for political reasons. After all, that level of prudery, carried to an obsession, must have religious roots, especially in our society.
I didn't find Robin's performance especially compelling, either. In eliminating his previous mannerisms, he left himself no palette to work with.
The plot was stolen from an upcoming re-make, anyhow. "The Red Dragon" takes the conceit of a photo shop and uses that as the springboard for a REAL story. If you haven't seen the original movie of the book (this movie had a trailer of the Hopkin's new version), called "Manhunter", I'd recommend it strongly. The Hannibal Lecter interpreter gives Anthony a some real competition.
Now, have you seen "The Interview?" This Australian film, now out on video, is the real deal. Chilling. Unforgettable.
Perhaps I'm also in the minority overall, although the 4 folks I viewed it along with were not very thrilled or excited. I don't believe they were going to tell friends to see it therefore.I don't believe it got a full movie house release across the country. Is it still playing??
For my wife, myself and several other friends who've seen this film we regard it as one of the year's best thus far! IMHO, Robin Williams turned in a creepy, entirely believable (Oscar caliber) performance; this is definitely going to be an addition to our growing DVD collection. As you warned folks of spoilers in your post, I don't want to give anything away for those who haven't seen or might be contemplating seeing One Hour Photo. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that you may have missed much of the film's nuances and subtext since the film really isn't about catching a serial killer as in Manhunter or it's remake Red Dragon. My suggestion would be to go to Rotten Tomatoes and read some of the critic's reviews there (i.e., over 80% positive across the board; that's out of over 130 reviews!). Now I'm not suggesting that all of the positive reviews are correct or that your impressions are wrong because it goes against the consensus, but some films just strike folks the wrong way some time; perhaps, in your case, this is just one of those kinds of films.BTW, if my wife weren't wrapped up working on a new novel I'd ask her to share her impressions of this film with you as well. She views films with a much more critical eye than I do from the standpoint of plotting, pacing, continuity, tension, character interpretation, etc., and it's rare when a movie impresses her to the degree that One Hour Photo has!
Thanks for the Aussie film recommendation; m'Shiela 'n I haven't seen The Interview yet, but crickey, we'll go on walkabout for it. :o)
to change the subject just a wee bit, was an excellent movie. The acting wasn't the best I've seen, no, but the random creepyness of the way the show played out was horrific-true horror. I think the subject matter and sense of helplessness that was an intregal part of Manhunter was missing in Silence of the Lambs. I didn't really care if they caught Hannibal L. The movie was always "watched" and never "felt" with me. It was too much of a spectacle.BTW
Did your wife like In Dreams (Annette Benning)? Just curious--I thought the movie took some bold chances and came out ahead.
mp
We usually like Neil Jorden's films and Annette Benning's acting, but as bold as In Dreams strives to be it just doesn't quite achieve it's ambitions, at least for us. I literally had to look the film up since it's been several years since we saw it and I'd forgotten most of the plot (Sorry, it's my shamefully poor memory, I guess.).
point occurred to me: did Robin take this movie so he wouldn't have to get out of character from his role in "Insomniac?" Two loonies, right in a row!
Insomnia was basicly an Al Pacino vehicle, but that film was poorly paced, dialogue impoverished and generally not satisfying (i.e., it cured any insomnia I might've had while watching it). William's character in Insomnia seemed to me to be somewhat over the top and cartoony and not especially creepy, which the role should've demanded.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: