Reviews

From the get-go, it's clear that the latest Harry Potter film was directed by someone else. Unlike the first two, which do their damnedest to mimic Rawling's magical and slightly whimsical portrayal of the world she creates, Cuaron's interpretation focuses on a much darker element that is barely evident in the story. Aside from a few forced jokes, there is very little whimsy in his take on the book, which is a travesty.

One of the clearest problems in Cuaron's direction is the overly fluid way in which he moves the film. There are no stepping stones or key events which really stick with the viewer. Instead, he spends a good chunk of the movie showing the passage of time, which is just downright silly. This changes a bit in the last twenty minutes, but by that point I just wanted the film to end already...it had run its course. I didn't care about the characters because, apart from a few choice lines by Emma Watson, there was very little depth to the characters -- they were devices to move a simplified plot.

Apart from pacing, Cuaron also flops in his misunderstanding of the material he has to work with. Though he may have taken the song from Macbeth, I have a feeling Cuaron felt he was dealing with something more akin to Bradbury's "Something Wicked This Way Comes". This is just not the case. The Harry Potter books, even as the story becomes darker, just do not have that dark, haunting tone. Between the music (say it isn't so, John Williams!), the darkened visuals, and the over-use of the grim reaper characters, he tries to infuse Rawling's tale with something that just isn't there, turning a story which is very clearly made for kids into something that is clearly not aimed at children but far beneath what any adult moviegoer would have any desire to see. It's an unnecessary seriousness that just doesn't work. If you've seen Y Tu Mama Tambien, however, you shouldn't really be all that surprised, for there, too, he tried to make something out of nothing (or rather, too much out of not much, since he had three separate themes that diluted each other).

Hopefully the return of a less serious director (Mike Newell) will set the Harry Potter series back on course. As much as J.K. Rawling would like to take herself seriously, these are still just kids books -- Cuaron should have recognized that.

Was this the worst movie I've ever seen? Not even close. However, for such a great story, this movie is pretty horrible. I've never actually read the Iliad, so I have no idea how close this film is to that (nor do I really care that much). The plot progression in the film is interesting, for the most part, and (despite some awful dialog) flows fairly well with some glaring exceptions.

As others have talked about, Brad Pitt's character has too many dimensions for who he is supposed to be. The way in which his affection for Briseis so abruptly changes his character seems quite forced, and it's not like this is even the first time he's loved a woman (if we read into the mother's speech about him having a woman on the island to grow old and peaceful with).

Because I don't feel like spoiling the film for others, I won't go into some of the other abrupt transitions. I will, however, talk about the acting.

I already said Brad Pitt did a good job. What flaws there were with his character were not his fault, but that of the writer and some horrible dialog (this movie was chock-full of one-line "ponderous" statements).

Eric Bana, however, was tremendously flat, especially given how major a character he was. Every line was said with nearly the same emphasis. Unlike Achilles, Hector is supposed to have depth. He has a wife and child (who has the biggest baby head I've ever seen), has to defend his brother, etc...he is supposed to have reasons for doubt and emotion, etc. Instead, he's fairly tough and just kind of "there" throughout the entire movie.

Orlando Bloom, on the other hand, is just downright dreadful. It's a combination of over-acting and a poor charicature of a prince. In saying one line of dialog, you can watch Orlando Bloom's face go through about 42 different emotions...it's just so awful to see.

Those are the actors people are going to see this movie for, so I won't bother detailing the rest of the cast. Agamemnon was one dimensional, but good, and Priam was pretty interesting. The female characters are all quite hokey, but I've always thought epics were loved because you could have horrible female roles and no one would care.

As for what else is wrong with this film, I have to put some serious blame on the director. He didn't write this score, but he did have a hand in where it went in the film. Boy, did he screw that one up! The music is bad enough by itself, but the placement and volume of it and everything about how it works in the film is just awful. And then, on top of that, this film had some of the worst cinematography possible. He uses this 180-degree rotate and pan technique a number of times (too many), and we just don't care about the lay of the land in the end. He does everything he can to try and give it this "epic" feel, but ultimately it just rings hollow. The one positive thing he did do was that I felt like (especially the city of Troy) some of the shots were very reminiscent of films like The Ten Commandments or Ben Hur or other such old epic films. Unfortunately, he wasn't consistent in that style, and as such it detracted from the overall picture because these scenes are obviously going to come off as fairly childish and cheesy when compared with some of the more modern cinematic techniques.

I really don't recommend seeing this in theatres...unless you want to see a very nearly naked sixty-foot tall Brad Pitt (to which, I admit, the man is hot).

5/10

First off, this movie was better than I thought it would be. I think the central reason why I enjoyed it so much, though, had to do with the method of storytelling. Most comic book movies tend to take a comic book story and put it into a regularly styled film. However, Ang Lee went one further and actually incorporated comic book style into the film. From the beginning, I was amazed at the cut techniques he was using. At first, I found it interesting, but distracting. However, once I really began to see the purpose behind it, I thought it was genius. There is a distinct method to his framing, and the way in which he put up storyboard-style shots onto the screen with various overlays was really, really neat. It got a little over-the-top with the frozen shot of Talbot dying, but at least it drilled home the point that this was a comic book movie.

Hopefully, though, the story clued you in that this was a comic book flick. This story is just downright awful. As my friend pointed out, "It was great, though, it just gave them a reason to make 'Hulk SMASH!'" Heh heh...yup, that's right. It was pointless. However, the story may have been as shallow as can be, but that only adds to the comic book style of the film. When you really get down to it, a single comic book by itself is pretty shallow -- you introduce one aspect of the character, one dimension of his previous life, and then you have him fight someone. What makes the characters is the fact that there are tens of comic books about a given character. This works here, too, though I really, really hope there is no sequel.

The acting was okay. Eric Bana was decent as the dorky, emotionless scientist. I think a lot of this was due to his concentrating on Americanizing his accent, though, but that was fine 'cause it forced him to give a very stiff performance. Jennifer Connelly's character was just boring, so I can't really comment on her acting...it seemed like filler to me. Nick Nolte was stupendous as David Banner (old), and Paul Kersey was actually really good in his brief shots as David Banner (young). Everyone else isn't worth mentioning. Talbot's character is shallow as hell, but I suppose it was still played well by Josh Lucas. The military general or whomever he was supposed to be was just downright silly, so I'm not even going to try to comment on him seriously. I just hope it was the role and not the actor.

The CGI was alright. I personally got sick of the "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" bounding leaps that the Hulk made, and I really, really hated the ending to the film...it was actually very anti-climactic, and the battle didn't even look that good, disappointingly enough, though I like the man/cloud scene. The close-ups of the Hulk and his face were okay, but he just looked too out of place in most scenes. I'm not convinced that's not how it's supposed to be, though, given that he's a stinking neon green giant.

All in all, the movie was okay. The style made it worth watching for me, and it was definitely entertaining. Realistically, I'd give it a 6/10. However, given how slanted the IMDB ratings are (how many movies have you seen below a 6?), I'll probably rate it a 7.

I've seen this movie a number of times and every time I find something new that blows me away. The manner in which the stories intertwine is very unique in modern cinema. The nuances in what exactly is going on in the characters' heads are subtle, and the way in which Binoche and Fiennes intereact is mesmerizing, as well, of course, as Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas's exploits as the adulterous couple. The build-up to the affair is well done, with foreshadowing such as the campfire myth. The cinematography is drop-dead gorgeous, obviously. For me there just isn't anything to complain about in this film, which is saying a lot giving how critical I am of films. For those of you who are bored by the film, I suggest you stick to either action flicks or romantic comedies...something tells me you have trouble focusing on anything that requires any thought. And for those of you shrug this movie off as just another drama receiving too many accolades, I suggest you watch the film again. If you're paying attention to it, there are lots of subtle shifts in the characters' interactions/mannerisms that you might not catch if you don't realize what's going on. Having watched it once, no doubt you understand the whole story pretty well and you can now focus on character development.

-- 10/10...a very rare rating for me, but this stunning film deserves it

I went into the theater expecting an entertaining film, and I got my wish. However, if you go in expecting something challenging mentally, you will be sorely disappointed. Hopefully you've seen the first Matrix already, though, so you know better than to expect something witty.

On the plus side, the special effects were amazing. They most certainly improved upon the original style, though there was an awful lot of weird physics that was probably not intentional (unlike the scenes where the characters purposely utilize the properties of the matrix). The scene with the cloned Smiths was a little silly, but all in all the movie had a number of good fight/action sequences. The music/sound was very well done, too, with only a tad bit of cheesy trance thrown in for good measure. Most of it flowed well with the film, and if you ate up the first soundtrack you'll probably be stoked to hear this one as well. The best thing about the Matrix sequel (and what puts it better, in my mind, than the original) is the way in which they tie everything together in a neat little package, working in both the mysticism and technology of the matrix.

Now for the negatives. The dialogue is the worst dialogue I've heard in a long time. I think even George Lucas could've written better dialogue, and if you've seen any of the recent Star Wars films, you'd wonder how that was possible until you saw Matrix Reloaded. Yeah, sure, you can shrug some of it off as Agent Smith being his usual robotic self (since he is a computer program). And there's even one very, very excellent line in the film ("It's like wiping your ass with silk."). However, if you look at the lines that came from the ship's operator, you wonder how comic relief became so painful. When you listen to the romantic crap going on between Neo and Trinity, it should make you genuinely wonder how whoever wrote this isn't stuck writing soap operas. Hell, even Morpheus' speech isn't all that great, though it's given a very key placement right at the start of the film (though what follows is five minutes of my life I wish I could take back. Seriously, who decided to put a pointless music video in the middle of this movie?).

Worst of all, the ending ten minute sequence with the Architect is the most asinine part -- remember that "neat little package" I just wrote about? Well, the creators of the Matrix do their damnedest to obfuscate the simplicity of it as much as possible by having the architect use a large number of consecutive words rarely heard in the English language. They then complicate this further by throwing in as much technological mumbo-jumbo as they can fit. The reason for this is simple -- to make stupid people think they are watching a smart film. I was amazed by the number of people who were like "Yeah, the ending totally messed with my head, man." Whatever. Nevermind the fact that all the philosophy that was so shallowly explored in this movie had already been talked about, from literature centuries old to fairly recent films like "Ghost in the Shell"...what really slays me is that people think this is a deep film. If it really asks any questions you haven't thought about before, you must not think very much. And they don't even bother to touch deeply on the issue...instead, the cause/effect and free will/destiny philosophical arguments are used simply as a facade to make people think that the Matrix is more intelligent than your average action flick. While this may barely be true, it can't stand up intellectually to most dramas even Hollywood puts out.

Go for entertainment, and enjoy the stunning visuals and audio to the max by seeing it in the theater. But please, please, please do not try and tell me there's one shred of intellectual stimulation in the Matrix. It's all been done before...just read some cyberpunk, watch some anime, and hell, I could even recommend some books from as much as 2000 years ago that offered better insight into the same questions the Matrix Reloaded asked.

I love what Beatty tried to do with this movie...however, I just don't think it was really all that great. His political views are cleverly expressed most of the time, and the film has pretty good flow, but his and Halle's acting is pretty stale, and as much as I love Platt, he's stuck in the same rut as always -- funny, but enough is enough. I would recommend watching this movie simply because Warren Beatty's points as Bulworth should be very well taken -- we're much more afraid of death than honesty when it all comes right down to it. However, the ending was (as someone else pointed out) rather predictable and the romance cheesy. I didn't mind it being un-realistic, because you aren't going to be able to express political views like this very well in a realistic setting, but I thought it could have been much better than it really was. 6/10.

I thought the main problem with this movie is that it seemed like there was a lot of filler. Unlike Mallrats, there is no plot driving this movie -- instead, it is essentially Jay (Jason Mewes) who carries the film through. If you've seen any other films with Jay and Silent Bob, you know that they are extremely one-dimensional, one-line comic relief. Well, Kevin Smith did his best trying to make that one joke funny for an entire movie...unfortunately, it just didn't make it IMO. Most of the movie are fairly stupid gay jokes or piss'n'fart style comedy. This style of comedy has become extremely popular recently, and while some of the jokes used here were funny, most of it was just plain stupid. Yeah, people will laugh at the stupid stuff if that's your thing, but if you're used to the clever comedy of Clerks, Mallrats, and Dogma, this movie just doesn't have the stuff. There are some really, really funny scenes in the movie (Good Will Hunting 2, the Mark Hamill fight scene, even the Charlie's Angels rip-off scenes), and that's what made this movie so frustrating for me. Kevin Smith has a brilliant sense of humor, but for this film he wanted to make a Jay and Silent Bob movie, the antithesis of all his other films. Well, he certainly accomplished creating a movie fitting for the title characters, but there's no way it holds its own against the far more witty and intelligent comedies he's known for. 5/10

The reviews here seem to be taking this movie too seriously for its own good. If you look at this as another action movie, it's really quite pathetic. Some of the hand-to-hand stuff is decent, but the Matrix sequences really do detract from the action alot, the slowdown taking the energy away from everything. The nice thing about this film is that it definitely does not take itself seriously, and neither should the viewer. This movie pokes fun of itself and action movies in general. There is not one serious, emotional scene. There is no point to all of the nonsense, and it gratuitously mocks the Matrix. It throws in some James Bond music, a scene directly out of True Lies, one out of Austin Powers, a comic take on a scene from the Great Escape, not to mention all the film connections I probably missed. The director's take on this film wasn't to make an action film -- it was to make something fun and entertaining. The clearly gratuitous shots of the sexy women, the flips of the hair, the unnecessary slow-mo, all of these point to a movie that was trying to be as ridiculous as possible. Unlike c**p like the Matrix, which claims to have a (shallow) purpose, Charlie's Angels serves only to amuse. Some of the gags were a bit overused, but all in all, this was an extremely entertaining and completely pointless entertainment piece -- which is exactly what it was trying to be.

It is the quintessential Hollywood blockbuster, except it's smart and funny. And even Tom Green was amusing. 7/10

While Russell Crowe did a decent job in this film, the movie certainly lacked in substance. While I will say I was entertained, by the end of the film, I was very ready to leave. To start it off, not only is the storyline cliched, but a good portion of it was taken from Braveheart. In all fairness, any heroic tale will have similar concepts, but there were too many direct parallels to be ignored. Secondly, the acting was nothing spectacular -- Crowe did a wonderful job (with the little he was given to work with), but Joaquin Phoenix left his character as shallow as one comes to expect from a big-budget Hollywood film. There were two scenes I was impressed by in the film -- the opening battle, and the battle re-enactment in the Coliseum. The opening sequence was shot very masterfully -- I thought the camera effects and silence definitely added to the intensity. The scene in the Coliseum was pretty cool, too, but it lacked the depth and sincerity of the opening sequence. Instead, its use of teamwork and anticipation was stolen directly from the scene in Braveheart with the large wooden spears used against the cavalry. The storyline is very uninspired, the characters are shallow, and there is no need to use your brain at any point. All in all, the film lacked depth. It was what has become of Hollywood -- large budget = crowdpleaser = crap. Gladiator, you've failed as a film - 46%.

If you have trouble following this Mission Impossible, I'm sorry, but you are most definitely an idiot. This movie is SO obvious, from the plot to the action sequences, that it makes watching it about as boring as synchronized swimming. Every "twist" is seen in advance, every little crazy action sequence (excluding the cool hand-to-hand, which is obviously Woo's forte in that he makes Tom Cruise look like Bruce Lee) could have been scripted by anyone who has seen multiple Bond films, and every string tied to the romantic storyline is too sappy to be real. The writers are obviously too used to half-hour storylines, and the director too good at Hong Kong action flicks to reduce himself to this trash. Even the remade theme song deserves a knockdown. I'm sorry people, but this movie sucks. Go watch the first one again, and don't bother with this lackluster attempt at filmmaking.

One of the comments described this film as a true "Love it or hate it" film, and I couldn't agree more. As I skimmed the comments, I saw one of two responses -- "This film is genius" or "This film sucked." For those of you who missed the point of the movie, I have no doubt you thought it sucked. When you criticize the beautifully mastered direction of this film, you've obviously missed the point of the movie. Every scene, whether you liked it or not, served to make a point. The "I Love Mallory" sequence is marvelous; I found myself cringing at every sentence from Rodney Dangerfield while laughter resounded in the background. It seems that too many people focused on the violence of the scenes that they forgot to stop and think about what the violence is a result of...can anyone say "MEDIA?" The sequences of Hitler et al flashed on the backgrounds emphasized his point -- they were not just an example of psychadelic filmstyle you see in silly movies Mickey is the sum of all the evil in society, and Mallory is the result of the dysfunctional family...dysfunctional because of its extremist use of aggressiveness and passiveness. Mickey's dream sequences are the demon leaking out, the demon which he (in the end) overcomes by starting a family with Juliette Lewis. By the end of the film, while you may not want to see it again, you should have an appreciation for Stone's incredible take on our society. I watched it last night for the first time, and while I know I won't watch it again for awhile, I thought it was an incredibly moving documentary style look at what is wrong with our world.