Hmmmmm, I can't decide about this one. There is no denying that the lead actors were awesome. I've been a fan of Robin Wright since she was Robin Wright Penn and James McAvoy for... well, awhile anyway. (Probably 2007. You know why.) Their acting absolutely transported me, and Wright was particularly inspired. You know how it's all going to end, but you can't help but think the strength of her character and her convictions will be enough to change the outcome. To a lesser extent, McAvoy's character's determination to follow the letter of the law does the same thing. The supporting cast was filled with talented, big name actors as well. I'd say this film was a casting triumph.
Just as impressive as the actors was the entire period feel. The sets and lighting were incredible. I felt like I could nearly smell the smoke from guttering oil lamps and hear the crinkle of crinolines. It's rather hard to explain just how realistic it was. Fabulous work.
Even though the subject of the War can seem rather tired sometimes (especially around here), I really enjoyed the choice of topic. While the assassination of Lincoln is a frequent choice of content to include, he is always pictured as the blessed martyr and the conspirators as evil criminals. (I won't get into the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, bordering on becoming a tyrant as John Wilkes Boothe proclaimed, holding onto the Union at all costs despite the People's wishes. But anyway.) I thought the movie was pretty balanced and not hateful to the South as many fictionalized versions of the assassination are. In fact, the men of the president's cabinet seemed so corrupt, their trial of Surratt so unconstitutional, that they seemed to be the villains. I have to say that it was refreshing. The blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens in the 1860s was very upsetting, and I wonder how many people realize how strongly yesterday's civil rights violations echo today.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the film finished on a sour note. (Well, besides the anticipated unhappy ending.) This was a literal sour note. The music, which up until that time had been subtle, period-appropriate instrumentation, morphed into modern music almost the second the credits began to roll. It was very jarring and threw me right out of the world of the film. Very bad choice.
Rating: 4.0
Showing posts with label tom wilkinson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom wilkinson. Show all posts
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Friday, August 6, 2010
The Ghost Writer (2010, France)

I found the plot a bit strange, alternating between inexplicably complex moments and stagnant inaction. It wasn't bad per se, I just kept waiting for something to happen or something to make sense. Sometimes it was the good, suspenseful kind of waiting, but sometimes it was just a bit dull.
The last 60 seconds of the film were the absolute best. I love a good plot twist, and while part of this twist should have been more predictable, the other part came out of nowhere and completely made the film. Amazing what an ending can do to improve one's final impression of a film!
Rating: 3.0
Saturday, September 5, 2009
RocknRolla (2008, UK)

I can see why people who like this type of film would like it. It had some pretty extreme shoot outs and disgusting intimations of violence (such as dipping people in pools of man-eating crawfish). There were also some pretty funny lines, but not really my kind of funny.
Mostly I spent the whole movie confused about who was doing what and why, and whose relationships were what and why... and, of course, how sexy Gerard Butler is, even as a gangster!
Even though I'm giving it the same rating as Snatch, I believe I liked it quite a bit more. The twist at the end was especially awesome.
Rating: 2.5
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Duplicity (2009, U.S.)

First of all, the plot is completely over the top. Two companies trying to beat each other out in the market for hair care products or lotion or some such silliness. They are so extreme about corporate secrecy that they have whole security teams protecting the chemical formulas and laying false trails for the competitor. Enter Ray and Claire, who may or may not have known each other before and who may or may not be on friendly terms. Each is the head of security for one of the companies, and they may or may not be working together to fleece both of their employers.
It is truly remarkable the way the filmmakers integrated this complex plot with a touch of romance and a lot of humor. The writing was superb, and I was very impressed. Of course Owen and Roberts were great, although it was very strange to see them together for the first time since Closer without attributing some of their earlier characters' characteristics to the current set. But eventually that wore away, and their chemistry and acting skill was very apparent.
One other thing I have to say about this film is this—what a score. Of course, I'm biased because I love James Newton Howard, but I actually didn't realize it was his until the credits. Two of my favorite scores are his—Peter Pan and Defiance. Peter Pan is whimsical but beautiful, very fairy-ish. Defiance (which is my opinion was robbed, robbed, robbed of the Oscar by an infinitely inferior score) is heartbreakingly beautiful, tragically lovely, whichever set of seemingly contradictory terms you want to use. Anyway, I could gush about him all day. The point is, this score was very different, but just as perfectly appropriate to its film as the other two I mentioned. It was lighthearted and upbeat. (This part reminded me a bit of the Catch Me If You Can score). It had a hint of sneakiness that fit with the espionage, but also a hint of something else more appropriate to the romantic aspect. It was masterfully done.
I don't think I can offer any higher recommendation for a film like this than these two words: Fun. Smart.
Rating: 4.5
Friday, August 8, 2008
Batman Begins (2005, U.S.)

Otherwise, I have only good things to say about it. Some of my favorite actors, a collaboration of two of my favorite composers, and my favorite bad guy from the "Batman" TV series I watched as a kid—the Scarecrow. I say he was my favorite... He scared me to death, but then isn't that what bad guys are supposed to do? Not to mention, Cillian Murphy is on the top of my all time creepiest actors list. Don't get me wrong, I love him. He is absolutely fantastic. But even the movies I've seen him in where he played a good guy, like Cold Mountain or The Wind that Shakes the Barley, he still gave me the creeps. Probably because the first thing I ever saw him in was either 28 Days Later or Red Eye. Now that was some perfect casting.
Christian Bale is also a very strong actor. I've been watching more and more of his work recently, and I don't think I've seen anything that I haven't liked. If only he wasn't paired with an awful actress like Katie Holmes... Maggie Gyllenhaal was a great replacement there.
The last thing I'll say is about the visuals of the film. They're great. The way that they created Gotham was amazing, exactly as I've always imagined it—dark and dirty, but with some unexpected beauty here and there. Perfect playground for Batman. In fact, I think that's the one thing that was better in this film that in Dark Knight. The mood of the city, a very "Gotham" feeling. Good stuff.
Rating: 4.0
Friday, May 30, 2008
The Governess (1998, UK)

A few comments on the actors: First, I do have a newfound appreciation of Minnie Driver, who I thought could only play irritating characters, until now. Glad to see I was wrong. Also, I really did not need to see full frontal nudity of Tom Wilkinson (though I guess it was an important plot device). Of course, a nude JRM more than made up for it (though it had absolutely no plot relevance, as far as I could see).
I'd say a stronger overall opinion would require more thought or a second viewing, though I am disinclined toward either.
Rating: 3.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)