Showing posts with label gemma arterton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gemma arterton. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010, U.S.)

I truly hope the subtitle doesn't imply they're planning a sequel, because this one wasn't very good. It was better than some other things I've seen lately, but still, not great.

In my humble opinion, Jake Gyllenhall is one of the most talented actors of his generation. What was he thinking accepting this movie? He wasn't bad as an action hero, but he's much more attractive and convincing as the slender, nerdy boy next door or as a sweet, shy but self-assured cowboy (as in Proof and Brokeback Mountain, two of my favorite performances of his). Who was this buff hero? Also, he had a strange, mild accent of no discernible origin. I guess it was supposed to be Persian, but I don't know. At least you can still say it was consistent though.

There was some good action here, but the plot was a bit hard to follow at times. If this makes any sense at all, part of their failure was the introduction of an object's concept without showing said object (i.e. the titular sands of time). It didn't work.

The music was underwhelming, which was a disappointment to me. A score can make or break a movie, and a good score here would have made it a bit more bearable. (Especially disappointing because I usually love Harry Gregson-Wililams' work.)

I can say that there were a few mildly amusing lines. Alfred Molina was especially funny as an anti-tax, anti-government "small businessman." Almost incongruous in ancient Persia, but somehow it worked for this particular movie. On the other hand, his character and other things meant anachronisms all over the place. If you're looking for anything close to historical accuracy, look elsewhere.

Further faults? Predictable villain. Pretty tepid, weak romance—the movie would have been better off without it at all. Eh. Oh, and then there's the weird déjà vu feeling, a product of the very Aladdin feel at the beginning and the very Gollum at Mount Doom climax. Does that give too much away? Oh well, if you don't see it now, you're not missing much.

Rating: 2.0

Friday, November 14, 2008

Quantum of Solace (2008, UK)

I. Love. Daniel. Craig. There is no other Bond for me. To be fair, I've only ever seen the Brosnan and Craig films. And Casino Royale was my first Bond, and I already had a soft spot for it because I'd seen them filming it. But still.

The plot of Quantum of Solace was very typically Bond, probably more so than Casino Royale. Bad guys doing something extremely technologically complicated, creative, and deviously evil. (And as far as evil plots go, this one really takes the cake—but I don't want to give it away.) Sexy women getting in the way, sleeping with Bond, getting killed off. Car chases, shootouts, and explosions. Only this time, Bond had more than duty motivating him—he had revenge. And he very subtly reaches toward revenging Vesper's death. It's not an obvious plot point, but it nicely ties QofS with CR. I love continuity.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start with the beginning. I did not like the opening credits, nor the new theme song performed by Jack White and Alicia Keyes. (Surprising, because I do love Jack White.) I just don't think anything could touch "You Know My Name" and the clever gambling theme of the CR credits. I liked the "cut out" looking men more than the CGI women, even if it was less "Bond."

The opening scene of QofS is a car chase. I'm back and forth on car chases overall; they have to be really well done to get my attention. And while this one was pretty cool, the jerky camera movements were just a bit too much. It's hard to appreciate a scene when your eyes can't focus on it! It also took me awhile to figure out what was happening. Apparently the beginning of this film takes place directly after the end of the last film. Again, love the continuity—don't love that Bond was wearing a different suit. Confusing!

After that, it was all great. I'm still a bit confused on some of the plot points, but as far as I can tell, every Bond film takes at least two viewings to work out the kinks of who did what and why. The casting was fabulous. Of course I love Craig and Dench, so no surprises there. The actors who portrayed the main Bond girl and the main villian were both amazing. Olga Kurylenko was both fragile and tough, and she definitely held her own. Mathieu Amalric can only be described as "slimy." They were perfect.

The cinematography was well done (from gritty to stunning, depending on the . The score was understated and effective (though again, it didn't touch CR either). The choreography (I'm talking fight scenes here) was realistic and yet very dance-like (if that makes sense).

I'm pretty much dying to see it again.

Rating: 4.5