Movie Review: The Reader

THE READER
Main Players: Ralph Fiennes, David Kross, Kate Winslet, et al.
Calling the shots: Stephen Daldry
Running time: 124mins
What's it about? Post-WWII Germany: Nearly a decade after his affair with an older woman came to a mysterious end, law student Michael Berg (Kross/Fiennes) re-encounters his former lover as she defends herself in a war-crime trial. - from imdb.com

What did I think? As with anything else that’s overhyped or talked about too much, this movie was a bit of disappointment. So much so that, I’m not even sure that it deserved its Oscar nomination as a Best Picture or Best Director movie. Kate Winslet’s break through win was well deserved but it can also be argued that her role was that of a Supporting Actress not a Leading one.

It’s not that it’s a terrible movie. It’s far from that actually. It’s well directed and the storytelling is done fairly well. The performances or rather “the” performance of Kate Winslet is what might elevate this movie to that higher echelon. The problem is it doesn’t grab your attention like it should. The story is compelling enough; it just takes a long time to get there.

The first half of the movie is extremely draggy. It’s essentially softcore porn and slight romance between the Hanna and Michael which is important in itself, but unnecessarily overly long. It is only when we begin the trial of the war-crimes that she is accused of that it even gets interesting. Even when that arrives though, you are not as emotionally connected to either character because of what’s happened before hand.

You’re more curious about whether she actually did it and whether she is in the wrong or not. Then the movie throws you a major revelation that proves to be the movies “wow” moment. And from there it suddenly picks up steam and becomes increasingly interesting and intriguing, but it all comes too late as before you know it, it’s over.

It’s an extremely interesting subject matter and important in terms of our history, but this movie is too laggy for it to be considered a great film. First half is too slow paced, though it may be important in the scope of things, and because of it, it doesn’t get interesting until well into the second and third act. By that time, you’re pretty much over it and are basically enjoying Kate’s handy work.

50%

Movie Review: He's Just Not That Into You

HE’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU
Main Players: Ginnifer Goodwin, Justin Long, Jennifer Aniston, et al.
Calling the shots: Ken Kwapis
Running time: 129mins
What's it about? The Baltimore-set movie of interconnecting story arcs deals with the challenges of reading and misreading human behaviour. - from imdb.com

What did I think? Here’s your first contender for chick flick/romcom/date movie of the year and boy is it drawing the, mostly female, crowd. It’s not really hard to see why. It might not be the most original movie you’ll see, but it has enough moments in this film for you to enjoy; some funny, some cute and some emotional and touching.

Those that know me, know that I’m a bit girly at times and do love my chick flicks; so needless to say I did enjoy this one. The ensemble cast and interconnecting storylines work well for this movie and has a feel like Love Actually. The connections between characters are not all that surprising but the crowd seemed to think it was. They were gasping in unison and there were several “aww”s as well. There are a lot of characters and stories introduced, but it is delivered very well.

The cast is most definitely impressive. And because of the numbers involved, not all of them get their share of screen time. But each of them leave the required impression and you watch each story caring about what happens because of it. I’ve listed Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long first because they seemed to have the central story (and because they bothered to visit Australia) but you could argue otherwise.

The stories themselves, as mentioned, aren’t all that new. A naïve girl looking for her true love, married man tempted by a hot new encounter, a world-wise man getting his own, etc. etc. You’ll have your favourite stories and characters and that’s the beauty of this one. All of it is also very “true” apparently and makes it all the more relatable in some aspects.

In the end you might be dragged along by your significant other, or go with a group of friends, or see it because there’s nothing else, you’ll still enjoy it if you take it for what it is. As I said, it’s cute and touching at the end. If you want any more of reason to see it, it made Ben Affleck likeable. I usually hate him in movies but he’s so gosh darn hard to hate.

60%

Movie Review: The International

THE INTERNATIONAL
Main Players: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts, Armin Mueller-Stahl, et al.
Calling the shots: Tom Tykwer
Running time: 118mins
What's it about? An Interpol agent (Owen) attempts to expose a high-profile financial institution’s role in an international arms dealing ring. - from imdb.com

What did I think? Sigh. This movie is like watching a family member perform in front of everyone and though they may think they are hot shit, they really aren’t. From the outset of this movie, it tries to be a Bond/Bourne type movie with international locations, a kinetic paced and intense music and some decent action but that’s all it does; tries.

The movie starts all of a sudden and at first it’s a little hard to keep track of what exactly is going on. And because it tries to be the said type of movie, it actually deters it from making any sense for a while. When it starts to flatten out become coherent enough, it begins to lag. You really do feel the full blunt of its running time and by the end if its uneventful climax, you are bored out of your mind.

As appealing as Clive Owen seems to be (he was set to be the next Bond at one stage, remember?) he is like you seem him in any other movie; nothing out of the ordinary for him here. And for those who are fans of Naomi Watts, you’ll be disappointed as you’ll have a hard time finding her on screen at all; the least work done by a leading lady and second headline name in a while I reckon.

The rest of the cast are solid without being spectacular. Most I imagine are European actors and I’ve never heard of them, so that helped a little with authenticity factor of the accents and characters.

Tom Tykwer is a very hit and miss director. When he stays within his limits or has decent material to work with (Run Lola Run and Perfume) he is great. This might be borderline; attempts to have the pace that Lola had but like I said it just deters it from the storytelling. It really is a wannabe movie. The music at certain points will remind you of a Bourne movie and they even use the same stretch of Road in Italy, as seen in the opening sequence of Quantum of Solace.

You might be inclined to see it if you are a Clive Owen fan but be warned. If you’ve seen the trailer, not only have you been deceived (because it did look good), you have also pretty much seen the entire movie.

40%

Movie Review: Doubt

DOUBT
Main Players: Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, et al.
Calling the shots: John Patrick Shanley
Running time: 104mins
What's it about? Set in 1964, Doubt centres on a nun who confronts a priest after suspecting him of abusing a black student. He denies the charges, and much of the play’s quick-fire dialogue tackles themes of religion, morality and authority. - from imdb.com

What did I think? I’m not sure I like this movie. And that could be because it felt more like a play than a movie. It’s definitely a picture that relies heavily on the performances of its cast, as the interaction between them is what drives this movie. And in that sense this movie has succeeded by casting some fantastic actors.

The movie was written for the screen and directed by the man who wrote the play itself (Shanley). You can’t help but feel that he needed to give the directing duties, at least, to an established director. As I mentioned, it feels very much like a play and it isn’t helped by the direction. Unlike Frost/Nixon which was also based on a play, there is too much emphasis on the dialogue between characters rather than each scene as a whole.

The performances are outstanding, if not all that spectacular, as each play characters that seem to come easy to them. They all definitely deserve their nominations for Oscars but I doubt any of them will win…no puns intended. Streep is in full flight bitch mode and only someone of Hoffman’s caliber can stand toe-to-toe, though at times he is outshone. Amy Adams plays the naïve young nun well and Viola Davis as the conflicted mother.

Without the performances though, the film doesn’t have much to stand on. Once the suspicion is raised, it becomes a battle between a head strong nun and a legitimately caring priest. We never truly find out if he did it or not, but that never is the issue here. The film tries to state the power of having “doubt” about anything you believe in, be that a person, religion, or otherwise.

It’s a message that gets through but you really don’t see the point of it. Appreciate this for what it is. A strong character driven play with some impressive performances and you might enjoy it. Otherwise, there’s not much to take note here. A good piece of work for all involved, but nothing they will be remembered for.

50%

Movie Review: Changeling

CHANGELING
Main Players: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Michael Kelly, et al.
Calling the shots: Clint Eastwood
Running time: 141mins
What's it about? A mother’s (Jolie) prayer for her kidnapped son to return home is answered, though it doesn’t take long for her to suspect the boy who came back is not hers. – from imdb.com

What did I think? It was very interesting to see two Clint Eastwood directed features so close to each other. They tell a very different tale, at a very different time, yet they both have the same unmistakable feel to them. The grainy, almost colour fade, blue wash screen that you see is almost his trademark as most of his films are about something tragic or emotional.

It is amazing how seamlessly Clint takes you back to the 20s. The decadence feel is definitely there and the backdrop, almost picture-like, is a fine touch to the unique, almost dream like setting we are brought back to.

Getting the best out of his actors is what Clint certainly does in a majority of his films. Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman and Sean Penn have all benefited from his direction. And in this case, Angelina Jolie is fantastic as the mother who never gives up finding her son, no matter what obstacles she comes across. You can argue that it is most definitely tailor-made for her to succeed. The role is so beefy and emotion charged, it’s what every actor should thrive on.

The other actors do a fine job as well, especially Jason Butler Harner (who plays Northcott) and Jeffrey Donovan (who plays Capt. JJ Jones). These two in particular perform in such a way that it draws out the right kind of emotion from us, the audience. Northcott turns out to be a frighteningly weird character and you literally just want to slap Jones in the face. In contrast, John Malkovich, though important in his role, was completely underutilized and looked like he always wanted more things to do.

As with Clint’s previous features, this leads you in one direction and completely throws you in another with a massive plot development. It is based on a true story, but how much of it really is factual is anyone’s guess.

Regardless, if catches the outrageous 20s well and leaves you with his trademark emotional ending which is neither happy nor sad but hopeful.

60%

Movie Review: Gran Torino

GRAN TORINO
Main Players: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, et al.
Calling the shots: Clint Eastwood
Running time: 116mins
What's it about? Disgruntled Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) sets out to reform his neighbour, a young Hmong teenager, who tried to steal Kowalski’s prized possession: his 1972 Gran Torino. – from imdb.com

What did I think? Leave it to Clint to get the best out of himself. In years gone by most of his films successes have come because he does such a wonderful job in them himself. He is a fantastic director with a certain feel to his movies that is undeniable, but you often forget that he is also a screen veteran with such presence on screen; he is a joy to watch.

Although for most of the film, it seems like he is just angry and growling all the time, you can’t understate that performance. He has the right balance of showing disdain for the world, the world that’s changing all the time around him, and showing his softer side when he takes Thao under his wings. He still yells insults at him, but you know there’s nothing to it.

That’s where the surprising humour of the movie exists as well. Kowalski’s continuous racially charged insults becoming increasingly funny as we know he says them much like mates bad mouthing each other. And Clint does well to deliver these lines and he doesn’t discriminate, he hates everyone.

It’s a shame then that the films weaknesses are its most important parts. The gang in comparison seems very one note and stereotypical. They aren’t Hmong gangs as much as they are Asians-in-black-clothing gangs. The young actors that try to keep up with Clint on screen at times fall terribly with Bee Vang (who played Thao) particularly terrible in one scene.

Regardless, the film is touching and particularly relevant in the multicultural world that we live in, though it might be slightly dated. It would have felt more at home, had it come about ten years earlier.

It is surprising to see that it didn’t garner many, if any, nominations or awards. Clint surely deserved it for his understated direction. As I said he brings a certain feel to it; something almost foreboding. You can definitely feel the emotional end coming but in what way? …you’ll just have to see to find out.

70%

Movie Review: Milk

MILK
Main Players: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, et al.
Calling the shots: Gus Van Sant
Running time: 128mins
What's it about? Based on the true story of openly gay politician Harvey Milk; his life, rise in the political world and his tragic end. It’s US in the 1970’s and the discriminations against them are obvious and wide spread. Yet he remains positive and strives to rises up against all odds to stand up for the rights of all.

What did I think? In the movie industry’s silly season, these gems start popping up every where. It’s a shame that the like of this and Frost/Nixon aren’t getting the wide spread releases that they deserve because unlike other these movies are worth your time.

Again it’s based on historical events so seeing it brought to life in such a magnificent fashion adds to the films achievements. The realness we feel due to the direction and performances delivered in this film are second to none and with such an engaging story, for all its money you’d expect to be depressing, is actually uplifting and very enjoyable.

Sean Penn, I must admit, I think often overacts. He is great but sometimes he will just do that little bit too much to draw attention. Not so in this one. The mannerisms and speech patterns are near on perfect and, though I doubt he’ll win an Oscar for it, deserve all the praise. As does the rest of the cast Hirsch, Franco, Brolin all do a fantastic job with only Diego Luna being the weak-link.

Their incredible performances as emphasized at the end of the film when we see snippets of the real people the cast members were portraying and how close they had come to bring them to life. Some of it is just simply uncanny.

It does have its flaws though. They could have explored more about Harvey Milk the person and not the later parts of his career. But that would be considered a minor detail given how well constructed the rest of the film is. It’s also quite funny in some parts showing that lighter side of an otherwise hard life he lived.

Milk is probably not going to win the Oscar this year; because of both its gay-overtones and the quality of the rest of the field. However it is a movie you should definitely see. If nothing else for Sean Penn and the rest of the casts performance but it truly is an enjoyable film. And let’s face it, that’s why we go to the movies right?

80%

Movie Review: Revolutionary Road

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD
Main Players: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon, et al.
Calling the shots: Sam Mendes
Running time: 119mins
What's it about? A young couple living in the suburbs ‘seemingly’ living the “All-American dream”, struggle to come to terms with their personal issues and aspirations as they try to raise their family. What follows is a tragic sequence of realizations and events that change their lives forever.

What did I think? You come out of this movie feeling really numb. Not because it’s particularly boring, or bad, or enjoyable. But because it’s a movie that really doesn’t go any where and has a very depressing ending. You come out wondering, “What the fuck…”

It’s certainly a movie that relies heavily on the performances and direction.

You really have to appreciate the performances. Leo is at his dramatic best, literally wearing his emotions on his sleeves, swinging from happy to angry but also still able to be charming. Kate is also at her best, having the more difficult role of the two. She also brings the emotions out, almost underplaying it, keeping you wondering how she is really feeling. Michael Shannon is the surprise performer here, stealing all his scenes playing the ex- mental patient who shatters their world (he is also quite good in “Bug”. Check it out).

The directing is wonderful as well. The flawless execution transport you right back into the States in 50’s (not that I know what that was like). The music is somber yet appropriate for what is going. Mendes uses some lingering shots to emphasis points well and leaves you with some lasting imagines.

The problem with the movie, and a big one at that, is that other than the two leads trading blows in the form of verbal fights they continue to have, the movie does nothing. You literally see them fall in love, fight, make-up, fight, make-up, fight and so on. Then you see the dissatisfaction in their lives and actions they take because of it…it’s just not a fun movie.

I take back what I said; this movie is rather uneventful and is quite boring. Other than appreciate the masters in their craft at their best, it’s a movie you can forget. Some said it’s what would have happened if the two had survived the “Titanic”. If that’s the case, then I’m glad it sank because they would have had depressing lives.

40%