on IMDB
Characters: 4
Screenplay: 4
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 2
Overall: 3.5
It was very refreshing to see such a strong young female role. She brought back memories of Natalie Portman in Leon: The Professional, except with a more prominent role. Steinfeld does a stunning job on screen. At only 14 years, she fills the boisterous snarky shoes extraordinarily. And her character is rounded out quite well with the more natural undertones of her character as the stories goes on. Cogburn is a great as the drunken headstrong fool. Sprinkled with silly antics and one liners, his character is less fleshed out, but provides a great deal of entertainment when interacting with Mattie and Laboeuf. LaBoeuf rounds out the trio well, with the logical and structured side, albeit a bit odd. The interplay between the characters is priceless.
The film starts of strong. The introduction scenes are entertaining and memorable. The short caricature introductions each match the flavor of their characters exceptionally. The pacing is well done, with nice downtime scenes between. The film does a good job of rewarding careful viewers: little tidbits of foreshadowing that are followed through. Interspersed throughout the film are bits of comic relief between the trio, and it is well timed and fresh. Thankfully the film rewards logic over brash courage in the end.
My only concern is the ending. It’s a bit anticlimactic, which initially is a letdown. But there is a bit of appreciation for an unorthodox ending for an unorthodox story. It leaves you high and dry, which one may not always appreciate
Following the clichés of westerns, True Grit begins looking like standard fare. With a slow fade in scene, silhouettes, and warm tones, we’re pleasantly surprised when the film strays from the beaten path character wise. Some scenes are very well shot, such as the ending frame. The only problems I had with the cinematography were the stereotypical traveling fades: a bit too much. Yeah, I presume they were trying to mock westerns, but the cuts were too fast and short.
While the film attempts to build up the sympathy for Mattie, the emotional investment of the story is diluted by the unorthodox humor. It wouldn’t suit this film to become too invested in the film, it’s more akin to something you just sit back and watch. At the climax points of the film, I just didn’t find myself caring all that much.
View comments with spoilers.
After the climax, the epilogue’s continuation of the story shows how unremarkable everyone’s life is after such crazy events. It does a good job toying with our expectations. Mattie was totally supposed to go off and live a crazy life. She had some cojones, but nope, nothing. We never even get to see the others. It’s very well played. No lose ends were tied and it was refreshing.
But it was still highly entertaining and the ending was unique in a good way, once the initial dissatisfaction fades away. A radical western that will keep you entertained.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Spellbound, Alfred Hitchcock (1945 USA Mystery)
on IMDB
Characters: 3
Screenplay: 3
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 2
Overall: 3.0
Spellbound does a great job combining mystery, suspense, a chase, romance, and psychology. In addition, its Dali-esque dream scenes are spectacular. The acting and chemistry is great. The pacing of the story engaged me to the point of actively looking for clues and trying to predict what will happen.
The plot itself is a unrealistic, and its characters are a bit thin and one dimensional. The skiing scene is atrocious, as with the ending scene. Despite its flaws and dated elements, Spellbound kept me guessing and invested in the outcome.
Characters: 3
Screenplay: 3
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 2
Overall: 3.0
Spellbound does a great job combining mystery, suspense, a chase, romance, and psychology. In addition, its Dali-esque dream scenes are spectacular. The acting and chemistry is great. The pacing of the story engaged me to the point of actively looking for clues and trying to predict what will happen.
The plot itself is a unrealistic, and its characters are a bit thin and one dimensional. The skiing scene is atrocious, as with the ending scene. Despite its flaws and dated elements, Spellbound kept me guessing and invested in the outcome.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Nicholas Stoller (2008 USA Comedy)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008 USA Comedy)
Characters: 2
Screenplay: 4
Cinematography: 1
Emotional: 2
Overall: 2.5
This film felt different than other comedies. While some of the script writing stereotypical elements a bit far, it still left a nice fresh feeling in my mouth. Jason Segel did an great job with the writing and pacing. The jokes are well timed, and range from vulgar to funny digs. Even though the cast is filled with those known more for their TV shows, there were good performances all around.
The film starts off with shocking and memorable scenes revolving around Jason Segel and his seemingly distance star ex, but slowly unfolds to something more realistic and relate-able. The ex isn't portrayed as a complete bitch and cause of all the issues, and each character shows themselves to be more rounded than you'd expect. Jason Segel was excellent with the lead role he wrote, Mila Kunis is charismatic, Kristen Bell is crazy, but Russell Brand and his character is hilarious.
The only thing is that you don't really feel that there really could be a relationship between any of the people that were. But that certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the film. A refreshingly vulgar romantic comedy.
Characters: 2
Screenplay: 4
Cinematography: 1
Emotional: 2
Overall: 2.5
This film felt different than other comedies. While some of the script writing stereotypical elements a bit far, it still left a nice fresh feeling in my mouth. Jason Segel did an great job with the writing and pacing. The jokes are well timed, and range from vulgar to funny digs. Even though the cast is filled with those known more for their TV shows, there were good performances all around.
The film starts off with shocking and memorable scenes revolving around Jason Segel and his seemingly distance star ex, but slowly unfolds to something more realistic and relate-able. The ex isn't portrayed as a complete bitch and cause of all the issues, and each character shows themselves to be more rounded than you'd expect. Jason Segel was excellent with the lead role he wrote, Mila Kunis is charismatic, Kristen Bell is crazy, but Russell Brand and his character is hilarious.
The only thing is that you don't really feel that there really could be a relationship between any of the people that were. But that certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the film. A refreshingly vulgar romantic comedy.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Gongdong gyeongbi guyeok, Chan-wook Park (2000 South Korea Drama) aka Joint Security Area
Gongdong gyeongbi guyeok (2000 South Korea Drama) also known as Joint Security Area
Characters: 4
Screenplay: 3
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 4
Overall: 3.5
Excellently written and engaging emotional military drama of divided brothers. The film focuses not on war but on the regrettable situation that the once united country finds itself in. It isn't pretentious and overbearing, terms occasionally attributed by others to Park's later films, but instead relies on genuine emotional drama with real tension and a great ending. The writing of the characters and screenplay, aside from the investigators, is simply great. It's a sad yet very real situation, as we can see by the events that took place between North and South Korea on 2010-11-23.
The location that this takes place is the "Bridge of No Return", which is where prisoners-of-war were exchanged at the end of the Korean War. It is part of a 4 km-wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which also includes a Joint Security Area for both sides to meet. This has been the site of many incidents.
The film showcases a unique group of complex soldiers. They are all quite different, well crafted, and believable— even under the extremely stressful situation that changes who they are. Their actors do a great job in their roles, espeially Byung-hun Lee and Kang-ho Song. They are adept at displaying the depth and complexity of their characters. The other two roles were more subtle and hidden, but display their key moments with striking realism.
The characters and actors outside of the main group, in contrast, are lacking. The investigators feel out of place, both with their unconvincing characters, acting, and bad English, detracting from an otherwise great film.
The screenplay succeeds on bringing the viewer on an emotional journey of what initially appears as story of international aggression. The film manages to be uplifting yet tragic and natural way.
The movie almost leads the viewers towards the idea of a complex who-dun-it, centering around the extra bullet, and if you fall into that trap you may be disappointed. Instead, its flashbacks build upon a deeper complex emotional drama.
I only have minor criticisms about the screenplay. The buildup of the story and background a tad slow. The Major Sophie father subplot felt forced and contrived: a plot device and that leads to the worst scene by far. It's almost detracts from the notion that she could obtain Lee's trust.
The events that transpire, while moving, are probably unrealistic to occur at such a place as the Korean DMZ. This is the most substantial one that sticks out when thinking about it, but don't let it ruin the fascinating story that unfolds.
The scenes in this film are far from flashy, which lends itself well to the focus of the film. The film has a number of superbly shot scenes that succeed at showing the viewer the tense and atmospheric, the uncertain moments of the characters, and the warmth and friendliness of friendship.
This film's success is in the emotional investment it gets out of the viewers. The contrast between the descriptions of Soo-hyeok plays on expectations when we see the other sides of him. The screenplay is crafted so well for me. Just as I let the uneasiness of the situation go and slip into comforting happiness, it spins me around.
See comments with spoilers.
Characters:
Sergeant Lee showed the most depth and growth as a character. At the center of the film, his role is acted great, with a nice transition after the incident.
Sergeant Oh is the most complex character. Sarcastic, stern, yet loyal to those he lets close to him. He is also adept at manipulation, which doesn't always work in the military world.
Private Nam is the typical afraid of authority individual. When comfortable around friends, he is loud and easygoing. When authority steps in, he devalues his friendships and prioritizes his status over his feelings.
Private Jeong is a quiet, reluctant, and slow to trust kind of person. We see it in his hesitance to cross the border and how quiet he is in the beginning.
Even when he appears to let loose and trust them, he still holds the theory that it is all a bad idea and a trap in the back of his mind. We can see it in his eyes and the way he carries himself. Just when he begins to get comfortable and even wants to see them after the exchanges the North and South have exchanges, he gets confronted with the worst situation possible.
Yeong-ae Lee was unconvincing as Major Sophie, who seem a bit out of place. Relatively calm and collective, her lack of emotion contrasts harshly with the situation and other characters. Her and her comrade feel out of place, in addition to their distracting butchering of English.
The viewer can really feel the friendship build.
Screenplay:
The interviews with the South Koreans about how much of a badass Soo-hyeok is, in order to support their story, is sharply transitioned with a flashback showing him trying to be austere, until finally revealing his vulnerable side, in a wonderfully shot land mine scene. Then shows him trying sincerely trying to build up a nice friendship. This kind of contrast is well done. We find out that they share their ideas, do fun things, play cards, and even at a very poignant part of the film - exchange addresses in hopes that they can someday visit each other-- how idealistic.
The psychological trauma of Lee was handled quite well: blocking the memory that he shot Nam first out of his mind. When the truth is revealed to him and is too much to handle, he could no longer live.
The ending freeze frame is perfectly done: so much life captured in one picture.
One thing that does stick out is Sergeant Oh's actions. While his facade of unwavering loyalty to North Korea and how he deals with the commanding officer can be understood, his protection of the South Korean soldiers who have just shot his partner, Private Nam, odd under scrutiny. Logically, it makes sense, as one of his friends is gone, and now he has to protect the rest. But one of them killed him, albeit in panic. His clairvoyance in covering up is fast and too perfect, not typical of a stress reaction. Then again, he is a trained militant, but has just moved his loyalty to his new friends.
Could they really just walk across without anyone else noticing? They had to be familiar with Choi's occasional visits.
Cinematography:
Loved the scene where Jeong crosses the line the first time. Brilliantly conceived. Focusing on the feet really showed the nervousness. As it is known, the feet are where to look for sincerity.
Some other excellent scenes are the meeting between Sergeant Lee and the North Koreans, when he finds himself alone with his pants down in a field at night, and the last get together and escape scene.
Characters: 4
Screenplay: 3
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 4
Overall: 3.5
Excellently written and engaging emotional military drama of divided brothers. The film focuses not on war but on the regrettable situation that the once united country finds itself in. It isn't pretentious and overbearing, terms occasionally attributed by others to Park's later films, but instead relies on genuine emotional drama with real tension and a great ending. The writing of the characters and screenplay, aside from the investigators, is simply great. It's a sad yet very real situation, as we can see by the events that took place between North and South Korea on 2010-11-23.
The location that this takes place is the "Bridge of No Return", which is where prisoners-of-war were exchanged at the end of the Korean War. It is part of a 4 km-wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which also includes a Joint Security Area for both sides to meet. This has been the site of many incidents.
The film showcases a unique group of complex soldiers. They are all quite different, well crafted, and believable— even under the extremely stressful situation that changes who they are. Their actors do a great job in their roles, espeially Byung-hun Lee and Kang-ho Song. They are adept at displaying the depth and complexity of their characters. The other two roles were more subtle and hidden, but display their key moments with striking realism.
The characters and actors outside of the main group, in contrast, are lacking. The investigators feel out of place, both with their unconvincing characters, acting, and bad English, detracting from an otherwise great film.
The screenplay succeeds on bringing the viewer on an emotional journey of what initially appears as story of international aggression. The film manages to be uplifting yet tragic and natural way.
The movie almost leads the viewers towards the idea of a complex who-dun-it, centering around the extra bullet, and if you fall into that trap you may be disappointed. Instead, its flashbacks build upon a deeper complex emotional drama.
I only have minor criticisms about the screenplay. The buildup of the story and background a tad slow. The Major Sophie father subplot felt forced and contrived: a plot device and that leads to the worst scene by far. It's almost detracts from the notion that she could obtain Lee's trust.
The events that transpire, while moving, are probably unrealistic to occur at such a place as the Korean DMZ. This is the most substantial one that sticks out when thinking about it, but don't let it ruin the fascinating story that unfolds.
The scenes in this film are far from flashy, which lends itself well to the focus of the film. The film has a number of superbly shot scenes that succeed at showing the viewer the tense and atmospheric, the uncertain moments of the characters, and the warmth and friendliness of friendship.
This film's success is in the emotional investment it gets out of the viewers. The contrast between the descriptions of Soo-hyeok plays on expectations when we see the other sides of him. The screenplay is crafted so well for me. Just as I let the uneasiness of the situation go and slip into comforting happiness, it spins me around.
See comments with spoilers.
Characters:
Sergeant Lee showed the most depth and growth as a character. At the center of the film, his role is acted great, with a nice transition after the incident.
Sergeant Oh is the most complex character. Sarcastic, stern, yet loyal to those he lets close to him. He is also adept at manipulation, which doesn't always work in the military world.
Private Nam is the typical afraid of authority individual. When comfortable around friends, he is loud and easygoing. When authority steps in, he devalues his friendships and prioritizes his status over his feelings.
Private Jeong is a quiet, reluctant, and slow to trust kind of person. We see it in his hesitance to cross the border and how quiet he is in the beginning.
Even when he appears to let loose and trust them, he still holds the theory that it is all a bad idea and a trap in the back of his mind. We can see it in his eyes and the way he carries himself. Just when he begins to get comfortable and even wants to see them after the exchanges the North and South have exchanges, he gets confronted with the worst situation possible.
Yeong-ae Lee was unconvincing as Major Sophie, who seem a bit out of place. Relatively calm and collective, her lack of emotion contrasts harshly with the situation and other characters. Her and her comrade feel out of place, in addition to their distracting butchering of English.
The viewer can really feel the friendship build.
Screenplay:
The interviews with the South Koreans about how much of a badass Soo-hyeok is, in order to support their story, is sharply transitioned with a flashback showing him trying to be austere, until finally revealing his vulnerable side, in a wonderfully shot land mine scene. Then shows him trying sincerely trying to build up a nice friendship. This kind of contrast is well done. We find out that they share their ideas, do fun things, play cards, and even at a very poignant part of the film - exchange addresses in hopes that they can someday visit each other-- how idealistic.
The psychological trauma of Lee was handled quite well: blocking the memory that he shot Nam first out of his mind. When the truth is revealed to him and is too much to handle, he could no longer live.
The ending freeze frame is perfectly done: so much life captured in one picture.
One thing that does stick out is Sergeant Oh's actions. While his facade of unwavering loyalty to North Korea and how he deals with the commanding officer can be understood, his protection of the South Korean soldiers who have just shot his partner, Private Nam, odd under scrutiny. Logically, it makes sense, as one of his friends is gone, and now he has to protect the rest. But one of them killed him, albeit in panic. His clairvoyance in covering up is fast and too perfect, not typical of a stress reaction. Then again, he is a trained militant, but has just moved his loyalty to his new friends.
Could they really just walk across without anyone else noticing? They had to be familiar with Choi's occasional visits.
Cinematography:
Loved the scene where Jeong crosses the line the first time. Brilliantly conceived. Focusing on the feet really showed the nervousness. As it is known, the feet are where to look for sincerity.
Some other excellent scenes are the meeting between Sergeant Lee and the North Koreans, when he finds himself alone with his pants down in a field at night, and the last get together and escape scene.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Waking Life, Richard Linklater (2001 USA Drama)
This review contains an in-depth discussion of specific elements through ROT13 encoding.
Characters: 0
Screenplay: 1
Cinematography: 3
Emotional: 3
Overall: 1.5
An interesting stream of consciousness with good subject matter on a mismatched medium. While serving a great introduction to lucid dreaming and philosophy of life, it lacks many essential qualities of a good film.
The film revolves around Wiggin's character. An explorer of his subconscious, he learns from himself the meaning of life. Throughout the film, we see him grow from his humble beginnings as a simple observer— but there isn't much to it.
The rest of the characters, or rather, projections of his subconscious, don't have much depth or growth to them.
As a result, it's pretty hard to identify with any of the characters and care about any outcomes of the movie.
Thrown at us are a bunch of theories and philosophies, overheard by the protagonist at some point in his life. "They all sound familiar, like I'd heard them from somewhere." At this point in his life, his subconscious chooses to hash them out a bit.
While the theories and views of life are in themselves interesting, the protagonist and the audience is, for the most part, sitting quietly at a lecture. There are no debates, few real discussions, and nothing for the audience to look forward to or invest in.
In addition, the theories are strewn together seemingly randomly while potentially being quite hard to digest, when not acclimated. They don't build upon each other, or follow any kind of logical path. There is no questioning, refutation, conflict, or conclusion. We are just going from one rambling lecture to the next, learning of the raw theory.
On the other hand, it paints a realistic picture of the philosophical dreams we may have. And there is a nice homage to Before Sunset/Sunrise.
Nevertheless, there are a number of clues that give a deeper meaning and interpretation to the film.
This movie of well known for its unique rotoscoping animation. It gives an accurate visceral feeling of the dreamworld: walking the line of reality and fantasy. While it can be a bit nauseating or old at times, there is always something interesting to watch.
The score, mostly written and performed by the Tosca Tango Orchestra, is excellent. The tango club scene's music, in particular, was scintillating. Two of my favorite instruments: accordion and piano, in beautiful harmony.
The score does a good job of letting us relax between the heavy dialog, without being haughty or seeping into every scene.
The film does a great job of introducing people to areas of abstract thought about life and of lucid dream. Combined with the rambling stream of passion given characters and meaning behind the film, it reaches a certain level of appreciation for me.
View comments with spoilers.
While at first glance, it appears that it is a movie about waking up from a life of ignorance, there are a number of clues that point towards our protagonist being dead.
The beginning of the film starts off with his childhood, hinting at the possibility of life flashing before his eyes.&aofc; There are a number symbols of death: skull-and-crossbones, getting hit by a car, and many scenes involving him being transported somewhere on a train: a symbol of a journey one is not in control of.&aofc; He notes that this dream is "different" and "as if [he's] being prepared for something."&aofc; Near the end of the film, cryptic comments are made about death to Wiggins.&aofc; Lastly, the film goes from daylight and the protagonist "holding on" to the car to night time and not being able to hold on any longer, before going up to the heavens.
It is tragic that the protagonist makes all these insights just as he passes away.
Characters: 0
Screenplay: 1
Cinematography: 3
Emotional: 3
Overall: 1.5
An interesting stream of consciousness with good subject matter on a mismatched medium. While serving a great introduction to lucid dreaming and philosophy of life, it lacks many essential qualities of a good film.
The film revolves around Wiggin's character. An explorer of his subconscious, he learns from himself the meaning of life. Throughout the film, we see him grow from his humble beginnings as a simple observer— but there isn't much to it.
The rest of the characters, or rather, projections of his subconscious, don't have much depth or growth to them.
As a result, it's pretty hard to identify with any of the characters and care about any outcomes of the movie.
Thrown at us are a bunch of theories and philosophies, overheard by the protagonist at some point in his life. "They all sound familiar, like I'd heard them from somewhere." At this point in his life, his subconscious chooses to hash them out a bit.
While the theories and views of life are in themselves interesting, the protagonist and the audience is, for the most part, sitting quietly at a lecture. There are no debates, few real discussions, and nothing for the audience to look forward to or invest in.
In addition, the theories are strewn together seemingly randomly while potentially being quite hard to digest, when not acclimated. They don't build upon each other, or follow any kind of logical path. There is no questioning, refutation, conflict, or conclusion. We are just going from one rambling lecture to the next, learning of the raw theory.
On the other hand, it paints a realistic picture of the philosophical dreams we may have. And there is a nice homage to Before Sunset/Sunrise.
Nevertheless, there are a number of clues that give a deeper meaning and interpretation to the film.
This movie of well known for its unique rotoscoping animation. It gives an accurate visceral feeling of the dreamworld: walking the line of reality and fantasy. While it can be a bit nauseating or old at times, there is always something interesting to watch.
The score, mostly written and performed by the Tosca Tango Orchestra, is excellent. The tango club scene's music, in particular, was scintillating. Two of my favorite instruments: accordion and piano, in beautiful harmony.
The score does a good job of letting us relax between the heavy dialog, without being haughty or seeping into every scene.
The film does a great job of introducing people to areas of abstract thought about life and of lucid dream. Combined with the rambling stream of passion given characters and meaning behind the film, it reaches a certain level of appreciation for me.
View comments with spoilers.
While at first glance, it appears that it is a movie about waking up from a life of ignorance, there are a number of clues that point towards our protagonist being dead.
The beginning of the film starts off with his childhood, hinting at the possibility of life flashing before his eyes.&aofc; There are a number symbols of death: skull-and-crossbones, getting hit by a car, and many scenes involving him being transported somewhere on a train: a symbol of a journey one is not in control of.&aofc; He notes that this dream is "different" and "as if [he's] being prepared for something."&aofc; Near the end of the film, cryptic comments are made about death to Wiggins.&aofc; Lastly, the film goes from daylight and the protagonist "holding on" to the car to night time and not being able to hold on any longer, before going up to the heavens.
It is tragic that the protagonist makes all these insights just as he passes away.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
A Film With Me In It, Ian Fitzgibbon (2008 Ireland Comedy)
Characters: 2
Screenplay: 2
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 1
Overall: 2.0
The film does a good job of walking the line between tasteful and tasteless of dark comedy. Nothing in this film makes sense or is logical, but it isn't supposed to; each ridiculous twist and turn can be amusing. To me, it was amusing and I had a few laughs, but they can be a little sparse. And in the end, it leaves you feeling a bit empty. While that may be the point of the film, it also feels a bit like a television episode that was dragged on. Overall, I found it a good experience.
The characters are stupid and illogical. Entertainment depends on whether or not one can get over this fact. At times I could laugh, but at times I was just dumbstruck. The actors also did a pretty good job of appearing similarly dumbstruck. Huberman, particularly, did quite well. Moran is his usual self.
Not only is it hard to develop any kind of connection with the characters, but they can induce hate. At times, I just can't turn off shoe-switching. "WHY, YOU FOOL!" I scream in my head, but they never seem to hear me. Sometimes inducing this kind of emotion is good, but they overdid it and it can definitely begin to shift to annoyance, ruining the suspension of disbelief.
The screenplay was absurd, in a good way, but could have flown better. The characters are introduced haphazardly and the buildup is very slow. Eventually I began wondering where the dead bodies were. The clear foreshadowing does create an interesting little "whose gonna get it" atmosphere, but they needed to anchor more of the script around it. If it was worked and teased a bit more, it would've been great. It got better as the bodies began piling up and the absurdities amounted.
The tone of the film started off teetering between funny and serious, so some parts left the viewer uncertain as to how to feel. The ending expunged on the humor created and is a hate it or love it thing.
The cinematography, on the other hand, was surprisingly aesthetic. With no flair, the angles and composition is well done for a low budget film.
While I was never really drawn into the film, I enjoyed the brief nonsensical departure from sane people.
Screenplay: 2
Cinematography: 2
Emotional: 1
Overall: 2.0
The film does a good job of walking the line between tasteful and tasteless of dark comedy. Nothing in this film makes sense or is logical, but it isn't supposed to; each ridiculous twist and turn can be amusing. To me, it was amusing and I had a few laughs, but they can be a little sparse. And in the end, it leaves you feeling a bit empty. While that may be the point of the film, it also feels a bit like a television episode that was dragged on. Overall, I found it a good experience.
The characters are stupid and illogical. Entertainment depends on whether or not one can get over this fact. At times I could laugh, but at times I was just dumbstruck. The actors also did a pretty good job of appearing similarly dumbstruck. Huberman, particularly, did quite well. Moran is his usual self.
Not only is it hard to develop any kind of connection with the characters, but they can induce hate. At times, I just can't turn off shoe-switching. "WHY, YOU FOOL!" I scream in my head, but they never seem to hear me. Sometimes inducing this kind of emotion is good, but they overdid it and it can definitely begin to shift to annoyance, ruining the suspension of disbelief.
The screenplay was absurd, in a good way, but could have flown better. The characters are introduced haphazardly and the buildup is very slow. Eventually I began wondering where the dead bodies were. The clear foreshadowing does create an interesting little "whose gonna get it" atmosphere, but they needed to anchor more of the script around it. If it was worked and teased a bit more, it would've been great. It got better as the bodies began piling up and the absurdities amounted.
The tone of the film started off teetering between funny and serious, so some parts left the viewer uncertain as to how to feel. The ending expunged on the humor created and is a hate it or love it thing.
The cinematography, on the other hand, was surprisingly aesthetic. With no flair, the angles and composition is well done for a low budget film.
While I was never really drawn into the film, I enjoyed the brief nonsensical departure from sane people.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Inception, Christopher Nolan (2010 USA Sci-Fi)
Characters: 2
Screenplay: 4
Cinematography: 3
Emotional: 4
Overall: 3.5
Although not without its flaws, the premise and execution stands out as an epic. To draw unnecessary comparisons, it had Taken's pacing (not action scenes) and excitement with Matrix's imagination and depth, combined with good directing and immersion. The film had bits of action, suspense, drama, and of course thrills while touching on worthwhile subjects like love, family, meta-thought, and the evil of that men do. It does a great job of getting the viewer invested in the outcome of the movie.
Its weaknesses include mostly flat characters, unrealized ambition, unimaginative action scenes and a bit of hand-waving.
I'd think it was a competent release. Close to excellent, but not quite. An intelligent, thrilling ride that immerses you from start to finish.
Characters:
One of Inception's weak points is its characters. Amongst the one-dimensional characters, weak character development, and minimal character exploration is the character-driven story. I never was able to identify with characters or care about their outcomes.
The story revolves around the classic dark and mysterious protagonist. To me, it is a slight dissapointment that the other characters remain within the shadows. It does keep the movie focused and from getting too complex, as well as give headway to one interesting interpretation.
DiCaprio does -okay- with the only role requiring strong acting. I would've liked to see more emotion in him, given what he was dealing with. You could attribute the other parts of his personality being played by his projections. The rest of cast does a good job of filling in their respective characters. I really wanted to see bigger shoes to fill for Page, who did feel a bit miss-cast.
Screenplay:
A smashing success. This is what made this movie such a big hit across the board. The viewer is thrown into the action, and runs along with the movie. From the opening scene, the film establishes that you will have the pleasure observing something special, grandiose, and unique. It succeeds in maintaining that level of novelty throughout the majority of the film. The last hour of the film is complex and beautifully done. And there are little gems of depth are sprinkled throughout.
However, there is no downtime to process, and if you get caught up on the psychological insights, it can be a little hard to digest. The pacing could have used a bit more variety. There are points where it felt the story was being pushed along. For example, Cobb and his team constantly seemed to jump around all over the world. Also, due to the narrow focus of the film, there world of Inception seems a small and obscure and is juxtaposed against the grandiose premise.
Overall, plot was very pleasingly intricate, with a twist-and-turn, keep-you-on-the-edge-of-your-seat type feel. The beauty of the screenplay is its symbolism and the open interpretation of the story. There are red herrings placed all throughout. Analysts and film buffs can be gluttons for discussion. I have included a list of theories in the ROT13 spoiler section.
Cinematography:
The world of Inception is captured quite well. This film was very good at drawing me in for hours and transporting me to an alternative world. The viewers, having been explained parts of the concept, get to both see and feel premise and rules of the world around them. Suspension of disbelief becomes natural. The music flows wonderfully, save the never-ending climatic music at the end.
That said, in the aftermath, I was left wanting more imagination in a dream movie. The premise was novel, but the sets, action/fight/chase scenes could have been much more.
Emotional:
Despite the weak characters, Inception had everyone invested in the outcome of the story. Why? It felt so epic, with nuggets of insight, imaginative expansion on what we experience every day, and pacing.
It set out to be very ambitious and very deep, but the ideas are never developed and aspects remain unexplained. I didn't care about what happened for most of the characters and whether or not their lives were at stake. I just liked watching it because it was well put together.
View comments with spoilers.
Cobb's subconscious was the only one to enter in the dream worlds. Six characters' subconsciousness with everyone's own issues would be a convoluted mess.
Cobb's issues tie intimately with the premise. We see the impervious and knowledgable yet fragile and flawed man fight with his demons and jepardizing his heist.
Arthur really gets to step up and steal the show in the Matrix-feeling climax of level-2, and you feel a bit proud watching the young man from 3rd rock kick some butt. He gets one comic relief moment, his move on Ariadne, which was otherwise unnecessary, except for proving that they may not be projections.
Ariadne is expectedly introduced as an outstanding born-with-it prodigy, and it just kind of happens. Instead, the spotlight shines on the fact that she is the only one that even wants to come within 10 feet of Cobb's mess.
The rest of Cobb's heist-style team consists of the standard experts. Fischer's character also is portrayed as a little weak.
And what the hell Mal? Calm down, Stabby McStaberson. Okay, okay, she's a projection.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/board/nest/167276283?p=1
If anything shows the strength of the screenplay, it is the conception of the paradox theory: Inception was made to be an impossible staircase. It was crafted in such a way that there red herrings whether we walk up towards the idea that it is reality, or down towards the dream theory.
The film leaves much up to the imagination. The dream-sharing phenomenon/technology and architect's process is never explained, along with the time and place.
High points of the screenplay are the opening scene, explanation of the premise, Cobb being caught between two buildings while being chased, and Mal's suicide. I also enjoy the allegory of shared-dreaming to shared-movie-watching that occurs when we all enter the theater together.
Low points for me are Ariadne's training (went on too long, basically turned into her showing off 3d rendering. Although, the mirror thing was neat.), militant dream projections (I feel it is out of place for a movie of this premise, but certainly helped it's mass appeal), and parts of exploring Cobb's issues.
Mal's arc, an underlying drive for the whole movie, was also disappointing to me.
Everyone enjoyed the links between the dream world and the one above, with the water, music, and of course the van flipping around.
One question: why did the 3rd dream not experience free-fall? Also, Ariadne's physics bending is never used, not even in limbo. It felt like a tease. Okay, we do get a freight train.
The concept of the movie resonated very well with me. I used to be very into lucid dreaming, where you manipulate and control your dreams. Obviously the concept of this movie borrowed some from the art of lucid dreaming, which can include dreaming within a dream.
Although, it has a lot in common from this Scrooge McDuck comic "Dream of a Lifetime" circa 2004:
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&nzc;loc=D2002-033&nzc;s=date
http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/blinkuldhc/news/?a=21055
We are never told much about the corporation, and in turn the whole operation feels like a bit of a sham and a vehicle for Cobb's emotional trip.
Screenplay: 4
Cinematography: 3
Emotional: 4
Overall: 3.5
Although not without its flaws, the premise and execution stands out as an epic. To draw unnecessary comparisons, it had Taken's pacing (not action scenes) and excitement with Matrix's imagination and depth, combined with good directing and immersion. The film had bits of action, suspense, drama, and of course thrills while touching on worthwhile subjects like love, family, meta-thought, and the evil of that men do. It does a great job of getting the viewer invested in the outcome of the movie.
Its weaknesses include mostly flat characters, unrealized ambition, unimaginative action scenes and a bit of hand-waving.
I'd think it was a competent release. Close to excellent, but not quite. An intelligent, thrilling ride that immerses you from start to finish.
Characters:
One of Inception's weak points is its characters. Amongst the one-dimensional characters, weak character development, and minimal character exploration is the character-driven story. I never was able to identify with characters or care about their outcomes.
The story revolves around the classic dark and mysterious protagonist. To me, it is a slight dissapointment that the other characters remain within the shadows. It does keep the movie focused and from getting too complex, as well as give headway to one interesting interpretation.
DiCaprio does -okay- with the only role requiring strong acting. I would've liked to see more emotion in him, given what he was dealing with. You could attribute the other parts of his personality being played by his projections. The rest of cast does a good job of filling in their respective characters. I really wanted to see bigger shoes to fill for Page, who did feel a bit miss-cast.
Screenplay:
A smashing success. This is what made this movie such a big hit across the board. The viewer is thrown into the action, and runs along with the movie. From the opening scene, the film establishes that you will have the pleasure observing something special, grandiose, and unique. It succeeds in maintaining that level of novelty throughout the majority of the film. The last hour of the film is complex and beautifully done. And there are little gems of depth are sprinkled throughout.
However, there is no downtime to process, and if you get caught up on the psychological insights, it can be a little hard to digest. The pacing could have used a bit more variety. There are points where it felt the story was being pushed along. For example, Cobb and his team constantly seemed to jump around all over the world. Also, due to the narrow focus of the film, there world of Inception seems a small and obscure and is juxtaposed against the grandiose premise.
Overall, plot was very pleasingly intricate, with a twist-and-turn, keep-you-on-the-edge-of-your-seat type feel. The beauty of the screenplay is its symbolism and the open interpretation of the story. There are red herrings placed all throughout. Analysts and film buffs can be gluttons for discussion. I have included a list of theories in the ROT13 spoiler section.
Cinematography:
The world of Inception is captured quite well. This film was very good at drawing me in for hours and transporting me to an alternative world. The viewers, having been explained parts of the concept, get to both see and feel premise and rules of the world around them. Suspension of disbelief becomes natural. The music flows wonderfully, save the never-ending climatic music at the end.
That said, in the aftermath, I was left wanting more imagination in a dream movie. The premise was novel, but the sets, action/fight/chase scenes could have been much more.
Emotional:
Despite the weak characters, Inception had everyone invested in the outcome of the story. Why? It felt so epic, with nuggets of insight, imaginative expansion on what we experience every day, and pacing.
It set out to be very ambitious and very deep, but the ideas are never developed and aspects remain unexplained. I didn't care about what happened for most of the characters and whether or not their lives were at stake. I just liked watching it because it was well put together.
View comments with spoilers.
Cobb's subconscious was the only one to enter in the dream worlds. Six characters' subconsciousness with everyone's own issues would be a convoluted mess.
Cobb's issues tie intimately with the premise. We see the impervious and knowledgable yet fragile and flawed man fight with his demons and jepardizing his heist.
Arthur really gets to step up and steal the show in the Matrix-feeling climax of level-2, and you feel a bit proud watching the young man from 3rd rock kick some butt. He gets one comic relief moment, his move on Ariadne, which was otherwise unnecessary, except for proving that they may not be projections.
Ariadne is expectedly introduced as an outstanding born-with-it prodigy, and it just kind of happens. Instead, the spotlight shines on the fact that she is the only one that even wants to come within 10 feet of Cobb's mess.
The rest of Cobb's heist-style team consists of the standard experts. Fischer's character also is portrayed as a little weak.
And what the hell Mal? Calm down, Stabby McStaberson. Okay, okay, she's a projection.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/board/nest/167276283?p=1
If anything shows the strength of the screenplay, it is the conception of the paradox theory: Inception was made to be an impossible staircase. It was crafted in such a way that there red herrings whether we walk up towards the idea that it is reality, or down towards the dream theory.
The film leaves much up to the imagination. The dream-sharing phenomenon/technology and architect's process is never explained, along with the time and place.
High points of the screenplay are the opening scene, explanation of the premise, Cobb being caught between two buildings while being chased, and Mal's suicide. I also enjoy the allegory of shared-dreaming to shared-movie-watching that occurs when we all enter the theater together.
Low points for me are Ariadne's training (went on too long, basically turned into her showing off 3d rendering. Although, the mirror thing was neat.), militant dream projections (I feel it is out of place for a movie of this premise, but certainly helped it's mass appeal), and parts of exploring Cobb's issues.
Mal's arc, an underlying drive for the whole movie, was also disappointing to me.
Everyone enjoyed the links between the dream world and the one above, with the water, music, and of course the van flipping around.
One question: why did the 3rd dream not experience free-fall? Also, Ariadne's physics bending is never used, not even in limbo. It felt like a tease. Okay, we do get a freight train.
The concept of the movie resonated very well with me. I used to be very into lucid dreaming, where you manipulate and control your dreams. Obviously the concept of this movie borrowed some from the art of lucid dreaming, which can include dreaming within a dream.
Although, it has a lot in common from this Scrooge McDuck comic "Dream of a Lifetime" circa 2004:
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&nzc;loc=D2002-033&nzc;s=date
http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/blinkuldhc/news/?a=21055
We are never told much about the corporation, and in turn the whole operation feels like a bit of a sham and a vehicle for Cobb's emotional trip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)