Viewed in
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
Matt Damon stars as a New York Senator who falls in love with a ballerina (Emily Blunt), but mysterious men in hats keep them apart for mysterious reasons with mysterious powers.
Liked
The acting.
Disliked
The similarities to Dark City.
Thoughts
From the moment I saw the trailer, I instantly thought of my favorite film of all time. The plot, premise, and archetypes all looked too familiar. Sadly, I was right.
Having said that, it was still a good film. It obviously had much better star power with Damon as the lead. He was excellent as a promising politician with a checkered past, carrying the film through its sci-fi and romantic moments with natural ease. Blunt was lovely and had good chemistry with our hero. Like most American films, you need a British accent to let the audience know "don't mess with this guy", and Terence Stamp was very strong as the antagonist. I also liked solid performances by John Slattery and Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker).
For me, everything else was predictable because I had seen this story before in Dark City. Hero fighting the system? Check. His history and love life possibly manufactured? Check. Horde of baddies with abilities to control time and space? Check. Free will versus fate? Check. Retro metropolis setting? Check. Heck, even both films' bad guys have weaknesses against water! At least the Strangers from the 1998 masterpiece didn't need hats to keep them in power.
Obviously not everything was identical, but you get the picture. There were some aspects of this film that were superior, such as star power, special effects, better developed love story, and overall production value.
Look, I know The Adjustment Bureau probably got an unfair shake because of I happened to love Dark City with a passion. I highly doubt most moviegoers love or remember an indie sci-fi flick released a dozen years ago (though a quick web search yielded a surprising number of hits), so their experience won't be as deja vu as mine. So without bashing it any further, I thought it was a decent, accessible science fiction thriller that didn't dumb things down for the audience.
What I would change
No idea. I never read Philip K. Dick's short story, so I don't know how close this was to the original source, which would give it some leeway in terms of coincidental similarities with you-know-what.
Showing posts with label romance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romance. Show all posts
Adventureland
Viewed in
2009
Premise
In 1987 Pittburgh, a college graduate is forced to work at the local amusement park, and learns about life.
Who should watch
Those who like smart, realistic coming-of-age dramas.
Thoughts
No sophomore slump for director Greg Mottola.
Probably due to the marketing, I thought I was watching a teen sex comedy with wacky characters (which would make sense given the settings). I was pleasantly surprised by the believable story about a young man learning about love and complicated relationships. Given my lack of sexual/romantic experience, I totally related to the awkwardness and shattered idealism exhibited by the main character, played by Jesse Eisenberg.
The cast was very good. I know she gets blasted for lack of acting in the 'Twilight' series, but I thought Kristen Stewart was very sympathetic as the troubled love interest of Eisenberg. As for the minor characters, they were all excellent, kids and adults alike, unknowns and stars alike. Granted it was a small part, but I do not see why there is so much hate for Ryan Reynolds' acting. Krisetn Wiig and Bill Hader were hilarious as the bosses of the park.
As mentioned before, I did not classify this as a comedy whatsoever. Though there were some very funny moments, such as when the bosses are chilling in their office, Eisenberg runs in being chased by a an angry, dangerous cusomter, Hader deals with the customer, then the bosses return to chilling, as if nothing interested had just happened.
Another thing I really liked was the selection of music. There was a great collection of appropriate music for the era, from excellent (Velvet Underground and Lou Reed) to to popular (Falco and Foreigner).
While Eisenberg was very good at portraying a naive young man, his character lacked the charm for me to love this semi-loser lover boy. A bigger issue I had was the last act. The last complication was a love story cliche and the happy ending seemed a little too Hollywood after all the excellent realistic relationships and behaviors of the characters beforehand.
Overall, it was a nice little film with flawed young adults growing up before our eyes. It might be something that entertains and enlightens young moviegoers.
What I would change
Not sure.
2009
Premise
In 1987 Pittburgh, a college graduate is forced to work at the local amusement park, and learns about life.
Who should watch
Those who like smart, realistic coming-of-age dramas.
Thoughts
No sophomore slump for director Greg Mottola.
Probably due to the marketing, I thought I was watching a teen sex comedy with wacky characters (which would make sense given the settings). I was pleasantly surprised by the believable story about a young man learning about love and complicated relationships. Given my lack of sexual/romantic experience, I totally related to the awkwardness and shattered idealism exhibited by the main character, played by Jesse Eisenberg.
The cast was very good. I know she gets blasted for lack of acting in the 'Twilight' series, but I thought Kristen Stewart was very sympathetic as the troubled love interest of Eisenberg. As for the minor characters, they were all excellent, kids and adults alike, unknowns and stars alike. Granted it was a small part, but I do not see why there is so much hate for Ryan Reynolds' acting. Krisetn Wiig and Bill Hader were hilarious as the bosses of the park.
As mentioned before, I did not classify this as a comedy whatsoever. Though there were some very funny moments, such as when the bosses are chilling in their office, Eisenberg runs in being chased by a an angry, dangerous cusomter, Hader deals with the customer, then the bosses return to chilling, as if nothing interested had just happened.
Another thing I really liked was the selection of music. There was a great collection of appropriate music for the era, from excellent (Velvet Underground and Lou Reed) to to popular (Falco and Foreigner).
While Eisenberg was very good at portraying a naive young man, his character lacked the charm for me to love this semi-loser lover boy. A bigger issue I had was the last act. The last complication was a love story cliche and the happy ending seemed a little too Hollywood after all the excellent realistic relationships and behaviors of the characters beforehand.
Overall, it was a nice little film with flawed young adults growing up before our eyes. It might be something that entertains and enlightens young moviegoers.
What I would change
Not sure.
Annie Hall
Viewed in
2005
Premise
Guy meets girl, except guy is Woody Allen, and girl is Diane Keaton.
Who should watch
Woody Allen fans. Those who want to like dialogue-heavy, quirky romantic comedies.
Thoughts
Arguably Allen's best film and my favorite of his works. If you're going to only see one Woody Allen film in your life, this is the one to enjoy.
Like any Allen film, it was full of colorful, whip-smart dialogue. But what made this so special was the two lead characters that felt like genuine, quirky people whom I would have loved to be friends with.
The characters were wonderful, and the actors naturally brought them to life. It totally deserved all the Oscars, especially Diane Keaton.
Christopher Walken's minor role as a psycho brother. That's all I need to say.
As much as I relished the hilarious dialogue, strangely some of my favorite scenes were of unexpected slapstick, such has Allen sneezing into a plate of cocaine and Allen attempting to kill a spider.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
See if you can spot Jeff Goldblum and Sigourney Weaver.
2005
Premise
Guy meets girl, except guy is Woody Allen, and girl is Diane Keaton.
Who should watch
Woody Allen fans. Those who want to like dialogue-heavy, quirky romantic comedies.
Thoughts
Arguably Allen's best film and my favorite of his works. If you're going to only see one Woody Allen film in your life, this is the one to enjoy.
Like any Allen film, it was full of colorful, whip-smart dialogue. But what made this so special was the two lead characters that felt like genuine, quirky people whom I would have loved to be friends with.
The characters were wonderful, and the actors naturally brought them to life. It totally deserved all the Oscars, especially Diane Keaton.
Christopher Walken's minor role as a psycho brother. That's all I need to say.
As much as I relished the hilarious dialogue, strangely some of my favorite scenes were of unexpected slapstick, such has Allen sneezing into a plate of cocaine and Allen attempting to kill a spider.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
See if you can spot Jeff Goldblum and Sigourney Weaver.
The Apartment
Viewed in
1996
Formats
VHS
Premise
Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine star in Billy Wilder's classic about a man who lets his work superiors use his apartment for trysts, but complications and a romance of his own ensue.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, it's been a long time and the details are fuzzy. I do recall liking the characters and the dialogue, which should not be surprising considering the cast and Wilder's writing. Though I did not think it was as great as everyone said it was.
What I would change
Not idea.
1996
Formats
VHS
Premise
Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine star in Billy Wilder's classic about a man who lets his work superiors use his apartment for trysts, but complications and a romance of his own ensue.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, it's been a long time and the details are fuzzy. I do recall liking the characters and the dialogue, which should not be surprising considering the cast and Wilder's writing. Though I did not think it was as great as everyone said it was.
What I would change
Not idea.
Arthur
Viewed in
2011
Formats
Netflix streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
Dudley Moore plays a drunk millionaire who is forced to marry or sacrifice his riches.
Liked
The cast.
Disliked
The messy third act.
Thoughts
To my surprise, this film still held up, mainly thanks to the likeable cast.
This was truly Moore's greatest achievement. He managed to transform an annoying, undesirable, unrelatable character into an absolutely charming, memorable protagonist. This film would not have succeeded without the audience buying and sympathizing with Arthur. Even his high-pitched, overused cackle was somehow enjoyable.
As great as Moore was, the rest of the cast was equally strong. The dialogue and and acting allowed the supporting characters to be more than just foils. Liza Minnelli was spunky and charming as the love interest. There were some hilarious performances by the supporting actors throughout the film. But the true scene-stealer was the late, great John Gielgud as Hobson the unflappable butler. His deadpan delivery of tough love got the biggest laughs. I could see why he won best support actor.
The weakest link was the last act. First, it lost some momentum with tragedy, though it was well executed and did not come out of nowhere. Then the climax and resolution was a rushed, jumbled mess of attempted humor, suspense, and happy endings. Lastly, Arthur's character arc felt incomplete.
Going in, I figured Arthur would be antiquated and unlikable. Turns out I was wrong. Thanks to irresistibly charming performances by Moore, Minnelli, and Gielgud, and some sharp dialog, this film remained a timeless, enjoyable romp. Now if I could just get than annoying "Arthur's Theme" song out of my head...
What I would change
Improved the last act, just not sure how.
2011
Formats
Netflix streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
Dudley Moore plays a drunk millionaire who is forced to marry or sacrifice his riches.
Liked
The cast.
Disliked
The messy third act.
Thoughts
To my surprise, this film still held up, mainly thanks to the likeable cast.
This was truly Moore's greatest achievement. He managed to transform an annoying, undesirable, unrelatable character into an absolutely charming, memorable protagonist. This film would not have succeeded without the audience buying and sympathizing with Arthur. Even his high-pitched, overused cackle was somehow enjoyable.
As great as Moore was, the rest of the cast was equally strong. The dialogue and and acting allowed the supporting characters to be more than just foils. Liza Minnelli was spunky and charming as the love interest. There were some hilarious performances by the supporting actors throughout the film. But the true scene-stealer was the late, great John Gielgud as Hobson the unflappable butler. His deadpan delivery of tough love got the biggest laughs. I could see why he won best support actor.
The weakest link was the last act. First, it lost some momentum with tragedy, though it was well executed and did not come out of nowhere. Then the climax and resolution was a rushed, jumbled mess of attempted humor, suspense, and happy endings. Lastly, Arthur's character arc felt incomplete.
Going in, I figured Arthur would be antiquated and unlikable. Turns out I was wrong. Thanks to irresistibly charming performances by Moore, Minnelli, and Gielgud, and some sharp dialog, this film remained a timeless, enjoyable romp. Now if I could just get than annoying "Arthur's Theme" song out of my head...
What I would change
Improved the last act, just not sure how.
The Artist
Viewed in
2011
Formats
Movie theater
Premise
A silent film about a silent film star's fall from grace.
Loved
Silent film premise.
Liked
Performances.
Disliked
Story.
Thoughts
Sadly, this was a classic case of the premise being better on paper than on screen.
The premise and spirit of doing a silent movie about silent movies was brilliant. I enjoyed the fun acting by the cast. And I especially dug the play on sound and sound editing.
For me, I didn't find the story to be interesting, so the novelty of watching a modernized silent movie wore off about halfway in. Also, there was this wonderful moment when sound breaks through the "fourth wall", and I thought the film would venture into Pleasantville, only to be disappointed by its retreat back to status quo.
I really wanted The Artist to succeed because the hook was so interesting and cool, but the old dogma of "story is everything" still applies to movies new and old.
2011
Formats
Movie theater
Premise
A silent film about a silent film star's fall from grace.
Loved
Silent film premise.
Liked
Performances.
Disliked
Story.
Thoughts
Sadly, this was a classic case of the premise being better on paper than on screen.
The premise and spirit of doing a silent movie about silent movies was brilliant. I enjoyed the fun acting by the cast. And I especially dug the play on sound and sound editing.
For me, I didn't find the story to be interesting, so the novelty of watching a modernized silent movie wore off about halfway in. Also, there was this wonderful moment when sound breaks through the "fourth wall", and I thought the film would venture into Pleasantville, only to be disappointed by its retreat back to status quo.
I really wanted The Artist to succeed because the hook was so interesting and cool, but the old dogma of "story is everything" still applies to movies new and old.
As Good as it Gets
Viewed in
1998
Premise
A grumpy writer deals with a gay neighbor and a single-mom waitress.
Who should watch
Those who like well-acted, well-written films.
Thoughts
A very solid film with humor and character. The writing was full of funny lines and had four genuine characters. On top of that, Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, Greg Kinnear and Cuba Gooding Jr create a great ensemble performance.
It was hard to find any flaws with this film, but I would not consider it best of the year. Very satisfying, but not great.
What I would change
Nothing.
1998
Premise
A grumpy writer deals with a gay neighbor and a single-mom waitress.
Who should watch
Those who like well-acted, well-written films.
Thoughts
A very solid film with humor and character. The writing was full of funny lines and had four genuine characters. On top of that, Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, Greg Kinnear and Cuba Gooding Jr create a great ensemble performance.
It was hard to find any flaws with this film, but I would not consider it best of the year. Very satisfying, but not great.
What I would change
Nothing.
At First Sight
Viewed in
2000
Premise
A woman helps a blind man get eye surgery to see.
Who should watch
Val Kilmer fans. People interested about the science of sight and blindness.
Thoughts
As a love story, it was boring and over dramatic.
I recommend the second act and parts of the beginning for its exploration about how the eye works. It was like an entertaining science class. The material was full of interesting information that made me feel grateful for my eyesight, despite my incredible near-sightedness.
What I would change
Not bothered with a love story.
2000
Premise
A woman helps a blind man get eye surgery to see.
Who should watch
Val Kilmer fans. People interested about the science of sight and blindness.
Thoughts
As a love story, it was boring and over dramatic.
I recommend the second act and parts of the beginning for its exploration about how the eye works. It was like an entertaining science class. The material was full of interesting information that made me feel grateful for my eyesight, despite my incredible near-sightedness.
What I would change
Not bothered with a love story.
Atonement
Viewed in
2007
Premise
In 1930's aristocratic England, a young girl's misunderstanding causes her older sister and her lover to be separated and he is forced into fighting World War II.
Who should watch
Those who like epic romance type of movies, but with a strong stomach for the war scenes.
Thoughts
Note: I have not read the novel.
The last act with Vanessa Redgrave totally saved this movie from mediocrity. I could not fathom all the accolades it has received. In terms of epic, separated-by-war love stories, 'A Very Long Engagement', was much more interesting and emotional and romantic.
The most annoying part for me was the music. Except for a handful of exceptions, a score should never stand out. Throughout the movie, sounds from the story, such as the typewriter would 'blend' into the score. While my film maker persona thought it was clever, my film watcher persona found it pretentious and distracting. I think because of that, I also disliked the 'Rashomon'-like and time-jumping storytelling.
I did find two things I really liked. James MaCovey ruled. He was completely convincing as a leading man, and I look forward to seeing more of his future acting. The other gem in the movie was the twist in the last act with the great Vanessa Redgrave. I didn't even know it was her. Her performance and presence flipped the film upside down and caused me to forgive the rest of the story. Almost.
What I would change
Not sure.
2007
Premise
In 1930's aristocratic England, a young girl's misunderstanding causes her older sister and her lover to be separated and he is forced into fighting World War II.
Who should watch
Those who like epic romance type of movies, but with a strong stomach for the war scenes.
Thoughts
Note: I have not read the novel.
The last act with Vanessa Redgrave totally saved this movie from mediocrity. I could not fathom all the accolades it has received. In terms of epic, separated-by-war love stories, 'A Very Long Engagement', was much more interesting and emotional and romantic.
The most annoying part for me was the music. Except for a handful of exceptions, a score should never stand out. Throughout the movie, sounds from the story, such as the typewriter would 'blend' into the score. While my film maker persona thought it was clever, my film watcher persona found it pretentious and distracting. I think because of that, I also disliked the 'Rashomon'-like and time-jumping storytelling.
I did find two things I really liked. James MaCovey ruled. He was completely convincing as a leading man, and I look forward to seeing more of his future acting. The other gem in the movie was the twist in the last act with the great Vanessa Redgrave. I didn't even know it was her. Her performance and presence flipped the film upside down and caused me to forgive the rest of the story. Almost.
What I would change
Not sure.
Beauty and the Beast
Viewed in
1993, 2002, 2003, 2012
Formats
VHS, IMAX theater, DVD, Movie theater (3D)
Premise
Disney's masterpiece about a young lady who agrees to be the cursed Beast's prisoner in his castle to save her father.
Loved
Everything.
Thoughts
My personal favorite Disney animated film and a must-see film of the 1990's.
There was so much to choose from, but I guess my favorite aspect was the unforgettable music. Every time the first few notes kicked in, I got chills down my spine from memories and anticipation. The music was beautiful and the lyrics spot on. If I had to pick a best song at gunpoint, I'd probably be dead.
In addition, the characters were magical, the voice performances brilliant, the animation elegant, and the story timeless.
I've seen it in many formats, and they were all perfectly fine. The IMAX version had an additional song, but it paled compared to the classics. The 3D was decent post-conversion, obviously the CGI animated scenes like in the ballroom were breathtaking. But the original theatrical version is perfectly fine to enjoy.
If you've never seen/liked Beauty and the Beast, you are no friend of mine.
1993, 2002, 2003, 2012
Formats
VHS, IMAX theater, DVD, Movie theater (3D)
Premise
Disney's masterpiece about a young lady who agrees to be the cursed Beast's prisoner in his castle to save her father.
Loved
Everything.
Thoughts
My personal favorite Disney animated film and a must-see film of the 1990's.
There was so much to choose from, but I guess my favorite aspect was the unforgettable music. Every time the first few notes kicked in, I got chills down my spine from memories and anticipation. The music was beautiful and the lyrics spot on. If I had to pick a best song at gunpoint, I'd probably be dead.
In addition, the characters were magical, the voice performances brilliant, the animation elegant, and the story timeless.
I've seen it in many formats, and they were all perfectly fine. The IMAX version had an additional song, but it paled compared to the classics. The 3D was decent post-conversion, obviously the CGI animated scenes like in the ballroom were breathtaking. But the original theatrical version is perfectly fine to enjoy.
If you've never seen/liked Beauty and the Beast, you are no friend of mine.
Before Midnight
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
We revisit Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy nine years later, where we find them together with children in Europe.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Hated
That I'll have to wait another nine years to see the next chapter.
Thoughts
I adore this film series (it sounds too unartistic to call it franchise). It's been a long time since I've seen Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, but this one might be my favorite. Also, I might've missed some poignant shout outs to the first two films.
Much in the vein of the previous titles, it's mumblecore-like, but infinitely better because of character, themes, and execution. Every conversation/argument either pushed their relationship, revealed character, or explored the theme of love's impermanence. Sometimes it would do all three in intriguing ways.
Because what the couple talked about was full of truth and thought, the elongated one-take conversations transcended from gimmick to brilliance. Director Richard Linklater and crew's technical execution was marvelous, creating a stimulating, intimate window into Hawke and Delpy's chemistry as they flirt, bicker, reminisce, cross-examine, and push each other.
My favorite scene was the drive back from the airport. It deftly gave the audience backstory, set up complications, peeled layers off the leads, and delivered gut-busting parental slice-of-life as they argued whether to turn back around to a missed tourist stop because their daughters were napping.
Another fantastic part was the dinner scene with friends, as couples of different generations opened up about their various stages of romance in funny and heart-breaking ways.
But it's all about the hotel scene. First off, it's inspiring to watch a 40-ish woman in a non-Hollywood physique baring her body and soul to serve the story. What a lovely actress. But the true magic of the hotel scene was how genuine, honest, hilarious, painful, and hypnotizing it was to watch two flawed lovers fight. I've never been in a complicated-enough relationship to truly relate, but it sure felt like the real thing, as momentum shifted back-and-forth and unabated emotions crashed like a tidal waves. That moment as Hawke poured win. Oof.
While not for everyone, Before Midnight was brilliant. Thought-provoking, heart-tugging, and technically sublime. I wished I could time-jump nine years so I could see what was in store for these unforgettable characters in the next stage of their lives. It's a clear frontrunner for my favorite movie of the 2013.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
We revisit Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy nine years later, where we find them together with children in Europe.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Hated
That I'll have to wait another nine years to see the next chapter.
Thoughts
I adore this film series (it sounds too unartistic to call it franchise). It's been a long time since I've seen Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, but this one might be my favorite. Also, I might've missed some poignant shout outs to the first two films.
Much in the vein of the previous titles, it's mumblecore-like, but infinitely better because of character, themes, and execution. Every conversation/argument either pushed their relationship, revealed character, or explored the theme of love's impermanence. Sometimes it would do all three in intriguing ways.
Because what the couple talked about was full of truth and thought, the elongated one-take conversations transcended from gimmick to brilliance. Director Richard Linklater and crew's technical execution was marvelous, creating a stimulating, intimate window into Hawke and Delpy's chemistry as they flirt, bicker, reminisce, cross-examine, and push each other.
My favorite scene was the drive back from the airport. It deftly gave the audience backstory, set up complications, peeled layers off the leads, and delivered gut-busting parental slice-of-life as they argued whether to turn back around to a missed tourist stop because their daughters were napping.
Another fantastic part was the dinner scene with friends, as couples of different generations opened up about their various stages of romance in funny and heart-breaking ways.
But it's all about the hotel scene. First off, it's inspiring to watch a 40-ish woman in a non-Hollywood physique baring her body and soul to serve the story. What a lovely actress. But the true magic of the hotel scene was how genuine, honest, hilarious, painful, and hypnotizing it was to watch two flawed lovers fight. I've never been in a complicated-enough relationship to truly relate, but it sure felt like the real thing, as momentum shifted back-and-forth and unabated emotions crashed like a tidal waves. That moment as Hawke poured win. Oof.
While not for everyone, Before Midnight was brilliant. Thought-provoking, heart-tugging, and technically sublime. I wished I could time-jump nine years so I could see what was in store for these unforgettable characters in the next stage of their lives. It's a clear frontrunner for my favorite movie of the 2013.
Before Sunrise
Viewed in
2005
Format
DVD.
Premise
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy play two strangers who meet on a train in Europe, and strike up a conversation.
Loved
Premise, interesting conversations.
Thoughts
It's been a while, so my memory's a bit hazy.
This is a great film, but be warned that there is very little plot. They meet and they talk the rest of the way.
What made it great was the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Every conversation was intelligent and realistic, which made it surprisingly entertaining.
For me, I had already watched Before Sunset, and I do not think that diminished the experience for either film. I loved the little parallel scenes that just add that extra emotional payoff.
2005
Format
DVD.
Premise
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy play two strangers who meet on a train in Europe, and strike up a conversation.
Loved
Premise, interesting conversations.
Thoughts
It's been a while, so my memory's a bit hazy.
This is a great film, but be warned that there is very little plot. They meet and they talk the rest of the way.
What made it great was the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Every conversation was intelligent and realistic, which made it surprisingly entertaining.
For me, I had already watched Before Sunset, and I do not think that diminished the experience for either film. I loved the little parallel scenes that just add that extra emotional payoff.
Before Sunset
Viewed in
2004
Format
Movie theater.
Premise
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy meet again nine years later.
Loved
Premise, dialog, Hawke and Delpy.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, but I recall liking it a lot.
An excellent sequel to the first film. Once again, the dialogue and acting were just so amazingly natural and thoughtful. What I really liked was that this packed a bigger emotional punch because of the baggage from the first film.
I love it when filmmakers put themselves into a small box and try to be as creative as possible with it. Maximum respect to the camera work and blocking.
Like Roger Ebert, I hope they continue this story every nine years.
2004
Format
Movie theater.
Premise
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy meet again nine years later.
Loved
Premise, dialog, Hawke and Delpy.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, but I recall liking it a lot.
An excellent sequel to the first film. Once again, the dialogue and acting were just so amazingly natural and thoughtful. What I really liked was that this packed a bigger emotional punch because of the baggage from the first film.
I love it when filmmakers put themselves into a small box and try to be as creative as possible with it. Maximum respect to the camera work and blocking.
Like Roger Ebert, I hope they continue this story every nine years.
Beginners
Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Ewan McGregor stars as single man who meets an actress (Melanie Laurent), while reminiscing about the passing of his recently out-of-the-closet father, played by Christopher Plummer.
Liked
Cast, human dynamics, use of quirkiness to serve the story.
Thoughts
The gay father hook could've been a cheap gimmick, but thanks to strong writing, the movie was really sweet.
As the leads, McGregor and Laurent were absolutely lovable and deserved to be/stay together. McGregor's always been really good at playing charming and vulnerable. Laurent, on the other hand, was a surprise. In Inglorious Basterds, she was stoic and dignified. Here she was exotic yet subtly quirky. Their meet cute was quite creative and tender.
I also really liked McGregor's character's family relationships. His parents' subplot/backstory was genuine and heart-breaking. The movie did an excellent job of portraying an unhappy marriage in a realistic and understated manner that's rarely seen in cinema these days. Plummer's gay adventures served as poignant parallels to McGregor's own love troubles, treating the character's homosexuality as a reset button instead of cheap melodrama.
An underrated aspect of this film was how quirkiness was utilized to give us more information about these characters, instead of just being there for the sake of it. For example, the incredibly cute Jack Russell terrier. Each time they reused the running gag of it "talking back" it served as a cool sounding board for McGregor's inner thoughts, and for each iteration there was an extra layer/twist that kept it fresh. In fact, there's quite a few repeating devices that always added something funny/insightful/emotional. Normally, I'm not a fan of voice-over narration, but by accompanying charming/contrasting visuals instead of straight flashbacks, it also further illustrated meaningful backstories.
I wouldn't call it a big flaw, but the stakes in the movie were kind of small. From the outset you knew Plummer's character had died, so there wasn't much mystery or resistance between the characters. They were all nice, complex characters without potentially-catastrophic flaws. But sometimes you're in the mood for something that isn't going to bash your heart into a pulp of tears.
Also, while there was constant handheld cameras, it was surprisingly minimal in its swaying, creating that feeling of intimacy without the need for dimenhydrinate.
While Beginners did have an element of sadness, overall I found it to be a very sweet little gem of a movie. By channelling bits of Annie Hall, Before Sunrise, and Big Fish (which also included McGregor), it sported lovable human characters finding their way to love/happiness in sincere and amusing babysteps.
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Ewan McGregor stars as single man who meets an actress (Melanie Laurent), while reminiscing about the passing of his recently out-of-the-closet father, played by Christopher Plummer.
Liked
Cast, human dynamics, use of quirkiness to serve the story.
Thoughts
The gay father hook could've been a cheap gimmick, but thanks to strong writing, the movie was really sweet.
As the leads, McGregor and Laurent were absolutely lovable and deserved to be/stay together. McGregor's always been really good at playing charming and vulnerable. Laurent, on the other hand, was a surprise. In Inglorious Basterds, she was stoic and dignified. Here she was exotic yet subtly quirky. Their meet cute was quite creative and tender.
I also really liked McGregor's character's family relationships. His parents' subplot/backstory was genuine and heart-breaking. The movie did an excellent job of portraying an unhappy marriage in a realistic and understated manner that's rarely seen in cinema these days. Plummer's gay adventures served as poignant parallels to McGregor's own love troubles, treating the character's homosexuality as a reset button instead of cheap melodrama.
An underrated aspect of this film was how quirkiness was utilized to give us more information about these characters, instead of just being there for the sake of it. For example, the incredibly cute Jack Russell terrier. Each time they reused the running gag of it "talking back" it served as a cool sounding board for McGregor's inner thoughts, and for each iteration there was an extra layer/twist that kept it fresh. In fact, there's quite a few repeating devices that always added something funny/insightful/emotional. Normally, I'm not a fan of voice-over narration, but by accompanying charming/contrasting visuals instead of straight flashbacks, it also further illustrated meaningful backstories.
I wouldn't call it a big flaw, but the stakes in the movie were kind of small. From the outset you knew Plummer's character had died, so there wasn't much mystery or resistance between the characters. They were all nice, complex characters without potentially-catastrophic flaws. But sometimes you're in the mood for something that isn't going to bash your heart into a pulp of tears.
Also, while there was constant handheld cameras, it was surprisingly minimal in its swaying, creating that feeling of intimacy without the need for dimenhydrinate.
While Beginners did have an element of sadness, overall I found it to be a very sweet little gem of a movie. By channelling bits of Annie Hall, Before Sunrise, and Big Fish (which also included McGregor), it sported lovable human characters finding their way to love/happiness in sincere and amusing babysteps.
Benny and Joon
Viewed in
2005
Formats
DVD
Premise
Weird boy meets weird girl. Starring Johnny Depp.
Liked
The quirky first half.
Hated
The completely different tone in the second hour.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, other than that I hated it for suddenly turning into a different movie halfway through. It's one of my biggest pet peeves.
I liked Depp and female lead as the quirky couple, and the cute, memorable shoutout to Charlie Chaplain.
Second hour tried to be this serious tearjerker that came out of nowhere.
What I would change
Got rid of the second half.
2005
Formats
DVD
Premise
Weird boy meets weird girl. Starring Johnny Depp.
Liked
The quirky first half.
Hated
The completely different tone in the second hour.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, other than that I hated it for suddenly turning into a different movie halfway through. It's one of my biggest pet peeves.
I liked Depp and female lead as the quirky couple, and the cute, memorable shoutout to Charlie Chaplain.
Second hour tried to be this serious tearjerker that came out of nowhere.
What I would change
Got rid of the second half.
Blue Jasmine
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Cate Blanchett stars as a formerly-rich widow forced to live with her poorer sister after her crooked husband left her destitute. Written and directed by Woody Allen.
Liked
Charming performances, comedic messiness in second act.
Thoughts
Another enjoyable, and slightly unique, entry from Allen.
Blanchett definitely deserved all the praise. She brought her A-plus game in an unforgettable performance blending madness and snobbery that was inspired and evoked many laughs from me. Sally Hawkins, playing her exasperated sister, was also very deserving of her nomination. Meanwhile, the rest of the movie was littered with very fun performances from all sorts of dudes, from Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay(!), Louis C.K., and Alec Baldwin (perfectly cast as the immoral husband).
My favorite section was the middle, as Blanchett's vapid, conceited outlook on men rubbed off on Hawkins, leading to a very humorous tangle of webs of lies, infidelity, and false impressions. I adored the scene of Blanchett yammering on about herself while her sister's kids watched dumbfounded.
While some aspects of this movie was very Woody Allen-esque, like the parade of jazz songs, it actually wasn't as chatterboxey as some of his previous works. I also appreciated that he went out of his comfort zone by leaving the Big Apple, setting the story in San Francisco. But why was everyone in the Bay Area talking in New York accents?
There were other issues with the movie. Dice Clay's impact on the third act was a bit too convenient of a reveal. And while I enjoyed her performance, I usually find it hard to enjoy movies as a whole where the main character doesn't learn their lessons.
Overall, Blue Jasmine succeeded not just on Blanchett's acclaimed acting, but also on the surrounding cast, and a fun second act.
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Cate Blanchett stars as a formerly-rich widow forced to live with her poorer sister after her crooked husband left her destitute. Written and directed by Woody Allen.
Liked
Charming performances, comedic messiness in second act.
Thoughts
Another enjoyable, and slightly unique, entry from Allen.
Blanchett definitely deserved all the praise. She brought her A-plus game in an unforgettable performance blending madness and snobbery that was inspired and evoked many laughs from me. Sally Hawkins, playing her exasperated sister, was also very deserving of her nomination. Meanwhile, the rest of the movie was littered with very fun performances from all sorts of dudes, from Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay(!), Louis C.K., and Alec Baldwin (perfectly cast as the immoral husband).
My favorite section was the middle, as Blanchett's vapid, conceited outlook on men rubbed off on Hawkins, leading to a very humorous tangle of webs of lies, infidelity, and false impressions. I adored the scene of Blanchett yammering on about herself while her sister's kids watched dumbfounded.
While some aspects of this movie was very Woody Allen-esque, like the parade of jazz songs, it actually wasn't as chatterboxey as some of his previous works. I also appreciated that he went out of his comfort zone by leaving the Big Apple, setting the story in San Francisco. But why was everyone in the Bay Area talking in New York accents?
There were other issues with the movie. Dice Clay's impact on the third act was a bit too convenient of a reveal. And while I enjoyed her performance, I usually find it hard to enjoy movies as a whole where the main character doesn't learn their lessons.
Overall, Blue Jasmine succeeded not just on Blanchett's acclaimed acting, but also on the surrounding cast, and a fun second act.
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Viewed in
1996
Formats
VHS
Premise
Audrey Hepburn stars as a New York socialite who becomes interested in a young man, George Peppard, who just moved into her apartment.
Thoughts
Details are fuzzy, but I recall the two leads were very cute and likable, and they kept playing "Moon River". It was amusing to see a young Peppard outside of his Hannibal Smith role from The A-Team series. Laughably bad was the racially-insensitive Asian character played by Mickey Rooney.
What I would change
NA
1996
Formats
VHS
Premise
Audrey Hepburn stars as a New York socialite who becomes interested in a young man, George Peppard, who just moved into her apartment.
Thoughts
Details are fuzzy, but I recall the two leads were very cute and likable, and they kept playing "Moon River". It was amusing to see a young Peppard outside of his Hannibal Smith role from The A-Team series. Laughably bad was the racially-insensitive Asian character played by Mickey Rooney.
What I would change
NA
Bridesmaids
Viewed in
2012
Formats
DVD
Premise
Kristen Wiig stars as a woe-is-me lady who's life goes to hell when her best friend gets married.
Liked
Comedic performances.
Disliked
Crawling pace.
Thoughts
Even after waiting months for the overhype to die, it still could not escape underwhelming my expectations.
The best part of the movie were the performances. Wiig acted the heck out of her role and Melissa McCarthy's presence was definitely properly-hyped. But I also give props to Wendi McLendon-Covey as the bitterly disillusioned mother and Chris D'Owd as the absolutely charming state trooper/love interest. The jokes basically worked, from the scatalogical to the broad to the irreverent. My favorite scenes were Wiig breaking traffic laws to get the attention of D'Owd, and pretty much every line uttered by McLendon-Covey.
While I liked Wiig's performance, I found her character increasingly annoying with her blatantly woe-is-me attitude. Like many Apatow-stable movies, it felt 20-30 minutes too long: too many minor characters (Wiig's roommates were totally unnecessary), the temptation to cram every joke variation in each scene (instead of selecting the best), and the inability to know how to exit a scene.
Another annoying thing about Bridemaids was the misleading title. It was hardly an ensemble piece at all. Had it been called "Woe-is-me Annie" I would've liked it 15% better.
As for people calling it "Hangover with chicks", I do not get that one bit. Not only was it not ensemble, the premise was completely different. And the humor was much different. The Hangover was an unabashed onslaught of raunchy outrageousness. Here, it tried to balance broad comedy with some raunch, while still succumbing to some pitfalls of chick-flick-ville.
I know plenty of gals who are just as foul, unrestrained, and sexually unabashed as any normal American, so if the shock value of this movie is "Look! Girls can be dirty too!", my response is "duh". The Hangover succeeded because it took raunch to a new level, not because it was about a subset of people. A better comparison for Bridemaids might be Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, "Look! Asian can be dirty too!".
Bottom line, you can never have enough un-dumb, interesting female-driven movies, but we can do better than this as a watershed moment in cinematic history.
2012
Formats
DVD
Premise
Kristen Wiig stars as a woe-is-me lady who's life goes to hell when her best friend gets married.
Liked
Comedic performances.
Disliked
Crawling pace.
Thoughts
Even after waiting months for the overhype to die, it still could not escape underwhelming my expectations.
The best part of the movie were the performances. Wiig acted the heck out of her role and Melissa McCarthy's presence was definitely properly-hyped. But I also give props to Wendi McLendon-Covey as the bitterly disillusioned mother and Chris D'Owd as the absolutely charming state trooper/love interest. The jokes basically worked, from the scatalogical to the broad to the irreverent. My favorite scenes were Wiig breaking traffic laws to get the attention of D'Owd, and pretty much every line uttered by McLendon-Covey.
While I liked Wiig's performance, I found her character increasingly annoying with her blatantly woe-is-me attitude. Like many Apatow-stable movies, it felt 20-30 minutes too long: too many minor characters (Wiig's roommates were totally unnecessary), the temptation to cram every joke variation in each scene (instead of selecting the best), and the inability to know how to exit a scene.
Another annoying thing about Bridemaids was the misleading title. It was hardly an ensemble piece at all. Had it been called "Woe-is-me Annie" I would've liked it 15% better.
As for people calling it "Hangover with chicks", I do not get that one bit. Not only was it not ensemble, the premise was completely different. And the humor was much different. The Hangover was an unabashed onslaught of raunchy outrageousness. Here, it tried to balance broad comedy with some raunch, while still succumbing to some pitfalls of chick-flick-ville.
I know plenty of gals who are just as foul, unrestrained, and sexually unabashed as any normal American, so if the shock value of this movie is "Look! Girls can be dirty too!", my response is "duh". The Hangover succeeded because it took raunch to a new level, not because it was about a subset of people. A better comparison for Bridemaids might be Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, "Look! Asian can be dirty too!".
Bottom line, you can never have enough un-dumb, interesting female-driven movies, but we can do better than this as a watershed moment in cinematic history.
Bridget Jones's Diary
Viewed in
2001, 2003
Formats
Movie theater, DVD
Premise
Renee Zellweger star in a love triangle with Hugh Grant and Colin Firth. Based on a novel.
Thoughts
I don't remember much, except that it was a rather enjoyable chick flick, thanks to charming performances by the three leads.
What I would change
Not sure.
2001, 2003
Formats
Movie theater, DVD
Premise
Renee Zellweger star in a love triangle with Hugh Grant and Colin Firth. Based on a novel.
Thoughts
I don't remember much, except that it was a rather enjoyable chick flick, thanks to charming performances by the three leads.
What I would change
Not sure.
Broken Embraces (Los abrazos rotos)
Viewed in
2010
Premise
A complicated love triangle involving a blind screenwriter, a rich businessman, and the woman both loved.
Who should watch
Those who like entertaining, sexy soap operas. And can handle foreign films.
Thoughts
Once again, Pedro Almodóvar created another fascinating tale.
Throughout the film, I was thoroughly engrossed in the love triangle, and the minor characters who were affected by the lovers. It was definitely fun watching the layers of secrets peel away.
As a mostly straight guy, I definitely enjoyed the steamy sex scenes and plentiful topless moments involving Penelope Cruz.
Almodóvar director/writer's style unfortunately left the film a little unrealistic, thus I had trouble connecting to the characters and their feelings. It also suffered from slow pacing, due to the dreaded too-man-endings.
The soap opera style of the film made it very fun, but it was also its flaw. It was good, but not as excellent and memorable as 'Volver'.
What I would change
Drastically shorten the movie-within-the-movie footage. It would have made certain key moments more nice and tidy.
2010
Premise
A complicated love triangle involving a blind screenwriter, a rich businessman, and the woman both loved.
Who should watch
Those who like entertaining, sexy soap operas. And can handle foreign films.
Thoughts
Once again, Pedro Almodóvar created another fascinating tale.
Throughout the film, I was thoroughly engrossed in the love triangle, and the minor characters who were affected by the lovers. It was definitely fun watching the layers of secrets peel away.
As a mostly straight guy, I definitely enjoyed the steamy sex scenes and plentiful topless moments involving Penelope Cruz.
Almodóvar director/writer's style unfortunately left the film a little unrealistic, thus I had trouble connecting to the characters and their feelings. It also suffered from slow pacing, due to the dreaded too-man-endings.
The soap opera style of the film made it very fun, but it was also its flaw. It was good, but not as excellent and memorable as 'Volver'.
What I would change
Drastically shorten the movie-within-the-movie footage. It would have made certain key moments more nice and tidy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)