Change Your Image
annam_s
Reviews
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
I'll think of all that might have been
To cut things short - that's the classic Hollywood everybody wants to watch in the cinema: grandiose, sumptuous, high-quality production. Most chances you'd enjoy it enough to justify the ticket price. And yet, it feels like the fast-chain snack food.
In the marketing campaign and the overall reviews all you can hear is about the Beauty, yet almost nothing about the Beast. If that's not a sign of a grave and essential problem with the movie, I don't know what is. His character is supposed to propel the story on the par with Belle. Yet, her 2 ball gowns received more coverage than him – and frankly speaking, both of them were quite disappointing from my point of view. So, just for a change I'll try to concentrate here on Prince/Beast character.
I never heard about Dan Stevens before, so I had no idea where he came from and what to expect from him. Most of the movie he spends under some of the unsuccessful CGI effects, including alternating his voice. The results are uneven and not really convincing, to say the least. Pretty hard to tell who's to blame – the actor himself or the technological wizards. We'll probably never know.
Let's start with the fact that only on premier photos I noticed that Stevens has perfectly suited eyes for the role – exactly as in 1991 version, piercing, blue color. Yet I didn't notice it in the movie at all. I'm not talking about some silly girly crush, but about the fact that the movie never lets us see the characters eyes, the main tool for an actor to express the emotions on screen.
The CGI/prosthetic free part – let's start with the opening prologue which shows us the prince before the curse and how he deserved it. While, ludicrously over-top, reeking with decadence, opulence and some stupid grimacing on the Dan Stevens' part, it's simultaneously hauntingly effective about hour and half later. It's hard to understand at first, but until the transformation scene we never see prince's real face/appearance. He's covered by the heavy, peacock style make up, luxury clothes and over-indulgent wig. Just in case we didn't get that he's a vain, cold-hearted jerk, not worthy our sympathy. (Subtlety, as the singing, isn't the strong side of the movie). Cut through the rest of the movie till the transformation scene and unexpectedly I was smitten by the delicacy of it. Not a word spoken. The human again prince, in bewildered haze, turns to Belle and just stares at her, deeply breathing, scared to make the first move. Suddenly, you can see HIM. An absolutely changed person who "finally learned to love" . And the interaction between them, how they touch each other and finally kiss
The movie hits its famous tag line purpose without any special effect, sophisticated dialog and special acting. For one little moment I was blown away by the fairy tale come to life.
But fear not, the next ending scenes successfully ruined the impression. The great celebration ball -another opulent, tasteless and overcrowded affair, just in brighter colors, and every peasant and servant participates this time. The supposedly madly in love couple barely registers somewhere in the middle of meaningless and polite dance, where he barely kisses her hand once. And she makes a joke. About him growing the beard! You see, him being stranded as a hideous beast for years of despair and utter pain (supposedly, isn't it?), now is a matter of laughter, smirks and joking growl. Which brings me to another, highly problematic issue, which wasn't mentioned so far. There isn't any physical believable interaction between the beast/prince and Belle. No buildup whatsoever. In the 1991 version you can constantly see how the beast treasures each moment Belle is in his arms, how he touches gently and playfully her hair when freeing her after the ball, and giving her the mirror. Love is naturally very physical without being vulgar and showy.
Here, except in 2 scenes - the quite flat in itself ball dance and the transformation scene I mentioned, it never happens. They walk and talk, glancing at each other from time to time. At best, hold hands like 2 hippies after shared joint (the reunion scene when the pair emerges to give some hugs to Lumier and Chip all of the sudden). I bet the 1991's cartoon didn't had to spent that much money on showing us, in the final scene, how deeply in love is the waltzing royal pair. They are the epicenter and the heart of the tale. They can't take their eyes of each other, while everyone's eyes are on them as well. Here? Nothing
Returning to the Mr. Stevens acting, I have to admit after all 2 important things. Unlike Watson, he knows how to move in period piece. You should just watch the way she picks up the dish to drink from, and the beast does the same after her, to understand what I mean.
Second –the guy probably isn't a great singer (it's hard to understand after auto tune and tinkering), like Josh Groban, yet he knows how to sing the character song. While tampered by bad directing choice in the movie (I didn't understand until reading some comments in Youtube, that all this weird jumping on the staircases was due to his desire to see Belle as long as possible) his singing solo left enough impression on me to go and check it on Youtube. Listening to it alone, via the headset, with random images from movie before my eyes, it was nothing less than revelation. I highly recommend you to listen yourself to Dan Stevens's version of Evermore on Youtube, close your eyes and imagine the movie you'd like to see with it. Then you'll understand why I summed up my review by the quote from it - I'll think of all that might have been
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
The big, fat and silly waist of my time.
There's a conspiracy around the world! I kid you not! Apparently me and my family saw some different version of the Kung Fu Panda movie than the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, reading the other comments assured me of the opposite. At least the plot and special effects/kung fu combats, mentioned by everyone else, seem just the same.
Look, I really liked the main idea of" there's no secret ingredient", which, by the way, was pretty obvious to me from the start. But throwing it in as a mere side note, instead of building a good story around this comfortably familiar (though redundant) concept, was a pretty lame idea.
The whole movie feels like a 5-minute silly and funny at some parts TV gag stretched for the entire hour and a half - no character development, including the main hero, not a single fresh idea (which could be forgivable sometimes, but no redeeming value here) - just wonderfully executed kung fu fights. So, if you're a fan of those - you'd be pretty satisfied. In case, you're not - you won't.
I was really hoping this movie has something under its sleeve, as some first facial exchanges between the two old masters took place, yet, ultimately, they had no special meaning at all. And while we saw a dubbed Russian version, I really can't understand why would anyone hire such a star-studded English cast for voicing a few lines for absolutely unneeded kung fu masters characters. I doubt Angelina Jolie's or Jacki Chan's voices could do any difference here.
Not to mention, that this whole idea of "a simple good guy" who comes and succeeds at what fail the long-time experts for absolutely no understandable reason (apparently learning all the principles in one day because he wanted to get some dumplings) - look, it really starts to get on my nerves. Really.
Babel (2006)
Bla-a-bel
Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers!!!
I loved Amores Perros. I really did. I mention this fact not even because i try to defend my objectivity on Babel.
It's because every damn movie made by this director is using exactly the same working formula - take three stories and twinge them together in one tragic accident.
Yes, i love ice-cream. But eating it every day and night would make me sick. Especially if it's ALWAYS the same vanilla with chocolate sprinkles. Of course, i'm talking about myself, everyone else can eat it up till their stomach ache. (Hello, Golden Globe guys, and, i'm afraid the Oscar's as well - Am i glad i'm not your bathroom).
But there are, besides the old formula, problems which i found to be too exasperating for me to ignore. Those stories... You see, only two of them are actually related. The Japanese part i've heard from some reviews described as the best (and i'll get to this later)is drawn to the rest, as they say it in Russian "by ears", or, winking to the others who already saw it - only by that sacred place miss Rinko flashes to us beneath her mini-tiny so-called skirt, a-la Sharon Stone. Unfortunately, not with the same style or reason behind it. And yes, you're right, that's one of the main reasons she's got the Golden Globe nom.
The other two stories are indeed deeply related,and, maybe if the movie would concentrate on them and actually made them logical, believable, or, at least, meaningful - it might've been quite a powerful film indeed. Nah! Never happens.
As it is - it's too long, too boring, too pretentious, defying human logic and common sense and sometimes simply lacking the vital information about the story and characters. Actually i can describe the movie to you just in 2 of its scenes:
2 young boys in Marroco shoot just for fun in the passing below bus. In the moment of shoot they clearly aim at the bus driver as HE IS directly in front of them, on the line of fire. But get this - they shoot a woman who seats at the OPPOSITE side of the bus FROM THEM. No one even tried to check this one up, when editing the movie.
Another one - when that Japanese deaf-mute girl writes near the end the note to the detective - we see her writing a few words. Later, in the bar, when he opens the notebook page, it's written all over, with no blank place left. And those are not accidental mistakes - they say it all about the movie.
There were some good moments, which at least felt real. I mean in Marroco and Mexican parts. Yes, life is a surprising thing and sometimes people do stupid things they'd never do upon revision, and yes, such "litlle mistakes" do lead to tragedies.
So why after all i'm more familiar with the Marrocan desert then with the main characters? And one of the few things the director decided to share with us was how one of them watches his sister naked and masturbates after wards? How really important it was to the story? Take this part out - and you won't notice anything amiss at all.
This is true actually of the whole Japanese section. Look, i don't know much about deaf people. But i saw some, as most of us did. None of them ever "talked" like miss Rinko does. If they'd do - i'd be dead on spot simply passing by - I'd be killed by one of her elbows, i kid you not. To me it seemed like screaming! Constant screaming! If she'd talk - we all'd be deaf 5 minutes after her hysterical screeches called acting. I just have to ask - do deaf people in Japan really act differently from the rest of the world? I might be mistaken but from what i saw, the actress is as deaf in real life as me. It seemed very fake to me. But if i'm mistaken, please, let me know and i'll apologize and erase this.
Besides, there were a couple of scenes that left me scratching my head. Why the deaf-mute from childbirth girl immediately looses herself in the most usual situations she certainly should be really well familiar with? Like, entering the café? Like starting with the regular guys? By the way, if she wants the sex so much- why not to try it with her familiar deaf guys like her? What's the matter, they're not good enough for her? Or for her desperate need in human communication as the director wants us to believe? Every deaf girl around her seems to be fine, so what's the problem with her in particular? Because of her mom? I didn't see her care about it for a single moment. And for those 5 minutes of his screen time her dad seemed to be a very patient, caring and loving person.
Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, feel for this sex-crazed angsty teenager (who seems to be at least 20 years old)? I think she needs a good spanking, shrink and good medicine - BEFORE she'd be able to communicate with normal people.
And why to throw in that dead mom story at all? To make us feel sorry about her a bit more? Well, it's official now- i'm a cold-hearted bitch because I didn't, not at the least. And nakedness+crying(which was so-o-o-o-o predictable, it's not even funny) doesn't account for purity and sincerity, desperation and openness. Only for the prestigious academy awards where it passes as "powerful acting".
If you want to be understood - try to make a better movie. Then, you won't need any tag lines at all.
Juuni Kokuki (2002)
The twelve kingdoms
First: I'm not an anime fan! I saw these series by a pure accident, simply because there was nothing else to watch on TV. Is it a masterpiece? Nah-h...I hate this word. Is it perfect? Again, by no means.
Is it wonderful in spite all it's flaws? Well, here my personal answer is a resounding YE-E-E-E-E-ES! This is not to everyone's taste, mind you.
It takes 45 episodes, 25 minutes each, of a true journey, this means the pace might be a bit slow for some. The show is overloaded with details and strange terms, which also may turn off many viewers. The animation, while very beautiful, is a bit lacking in movement department. You can see that for some seconds the picture stays still with only characters's mouth moving and many body movements are awkward and unintentionally ridiculous.
The story is, actually, just a fairy tale, which may turn off another part of the public and as for the anime/fantasy fans - the story sounds a bit too familiar and banal.
A young girl in modern Japan, Youko, suddenly finds out she actually belongs to another mysterious world, very reminiscent of ancient China, and some weird stranger takes her there, against her wish, apparently, to find her destiny. Which, of course, must be something special, because, why else this stranger named Keiki who commands some ferocious beasts, kneels before her and declares her to be his master? Yes, you've heard it hundreds times before and, definitely, will hear it another gazillion times - an ordinary man/woman finds out he's the chosen one who can save the world or whatever...bla-bla-bla...Matrix? Star wars? Lord of the Rings? Millions other versions?
Well, it's all the same all over again, i thought.Well, yes and no.
The "chosen one" here is a an insecure (and not in particularly sympathetic way)ordinary teenage-girl. She's a mumbling conformist of a worst kind, the one who's desperate to please everyone and ultimately fails on every level. Seemingly popular and "accepted" among her school friends, she's actually despised and used by everyone as a convenient mean to patch every uncomfortable hole. Youko will swallow every insult, hidden or open, will berry her head under the sand even before her parents, will do everything just to remain "a good girl" in the eyes of the others.
I won't tell you how exactly the things will flow from here on, and, yes, you can guess the general direction, but words can't describe the overall beauty of the wonderful, unpredictable (yes, i MEAN it) and very complicated storyline and fully realistic, flawed and human characters, which develop all along the series, coming a full circle of growth along with the viewer...
There's no triumphant endings, cheering crowds, big battles and sieges for 20 minutes each (well, there are some, but it's a relatively small part of the story). The ending is quiet and the whole feeling of the conclusion is very poignant, bitter-sweet and genuinely touching and rewarding.
It's about how life isn't a simple thing and its lessons are harsh and not always clear. And it's only your own responsibility which way to choose. While trying to please people you may take an easier path to became a "good" person in other's eyes, but there are things and principles that are worth fighting for, even when the closest to you don't share your opinion.
It's about the totally different world, which, at the end, appears to be not that different as it seemed. This is a movie about growing up and becoming a wholesome human being, who's ready to take upon himself not only the rights of grown-up life, but also a heavy load of the responsibilities that come with it and painful sacrifices.
Thanks to everyone involved in the production. Even without completing the whole 68 episodes as was planned, it's still a rare gem truly worth your time and money.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Kingdom of Heaven
We see the epics to enjoy the spectacle, the huge panoramic sights and battles, to care and feel for the protagonists and to hate and despise their enemies. We enter the cinema to be entertained. On epic scale. Damn the history! Deliver us a good story, just without the dumbness and obvious anachronisms.
KoH does deliver such things...occasionally. It's very well made from technical point of view, though, i'm probably the only one who wasn't blown away by the visuals. Beautiful for sure, but nothing new. Lawrence of Arabia it isn't.
Acting...Acting is OK, for the most part, except for the "bad" guys. Ouch!
Bloom is OK. He's...adequate, and he doesn't overact, like Pitt or Farrell. That's already not a small virtue. He moves well and he's quite convincing fighting with the sword. OK, not particularly memorable performance, i admit. :) Also part of the problem lies in the script. Yeh, the same question that haunts many after seeing this movie is, how come the poor and illiterate blacksmith suddenly becomes the experienced warrior,tactician, estate manager and noble knight almost in one day? That's definitely not Orlando's fault.
Eva Green - i really wish someone would explain me what she's doing in this movie?
Liam Neeson is a great actor, but here he simply does what's required and that's not a big stretch for him. Still it's nice to see him once again on the big screen.
And it was good to see Jeremy Irons even if it's quite hard to feel anything for someone who "bravely" leaves Jerusalem in the most difficult moment, before the siege, with his so much needed knights, because he suddenly has " His Jerusalem" dead with the late king. Huh?
David Thewlis character jumps in and out of the movie so that ultimately you stop caring.
Salladin also isn't given much time and lines, appears and disappears. Cudos to the actor playing him (sorry, forgot how to spell his name) for making the best of the little he's given to work with. Only the mutual efforts of him and Edward Norton save the confrontation scene before Keirak. You see, Salladin gathered his army before the fortress simply to meet king Baldwin personally, exchange 2 phrases and go away comforted by king's promise to punish the guilty Keirak owner. Duh?
Which brings me finally to the 2 standouts for me in the movie - King Baldwin the 4th and the siege itself.
I have no idea why Edward Norton performance goes almost uncredited. Maybe because he's only voicing the character and we see on the big screen a stand-in? Can someone, please, enlighten me on the subject? Because, if he does both - he deserves cudos for the best scene in the movie, imho. Though, at first, i couldn't fathom a normal explanation to why poor leper king looks like a damsel in distress in his clothes (ok, i can understand why he speaks like one, for sure) and wears a SILVER mask (isn't it a bit too hot and therefore simply uncomfortably painful for a leper?) and i wasn't quite moved by his tale of how he defeated Salladin at the age of 16, but then...When he enters Keirak and faces Raynold (sp?)...Movie suddenly comes to life. That's called a cinematic language, folks - show the character, don't TELL us about him. Now i believed in his victory at 16 and understood a whole lot more the deepness of his pain! And all this takes place for, like, less than 2 minutes? Unfortunately, the movie turns to sleep almost immediately after that until the siege comes. Ultimately, i have to admit, the poor king was the only one i felt sorry for. Maybe it's simply historically the most compelling figure of the movie, i don't know.
Yeh, the siege...It's spectacular. Really. Worth the price of the ticket alone. You actually can see the tactics by which such things were won, though the tough question of how Bailian knows them only thickens without formidable answer, but who cares now? ;)
So...what's the real problem of the movie? IMHO, it's the 21th century morality brought upon us in the 12th century. It's as ridiculous to hear the pacifistic ramblings from 12th century blacksmith or knight as to see the splendid flower arrangements on the 12th century dining table or reception room. What is it? Corporate meeting in Microsoft? Yes, there were reasonable people who made peace treaties with their enemies - simply because they knew they can't win or survive otherwise. And if you talked too much about "why can't we just all live happily together" you'd be dead long before this movie end. Those were the times. They were a bit different from ours and a bit like ours. But somewhere mr.Scott stepped into the wrong direction explaining this.
The other problem, FOR ME PERSONALLY, is, simply put, the lack of heart, the emotional core, the" why should we care about these characters at all" reason. Some explain this by nearly an hour left on the cutting floor. Yes, that might explain some things. But if you need more than 3 hours to explain the hero's motivations and other movie ideas, sir, i'm afraid to report you - you're in big trouble. The episode in Keirak shows that you need less than 2 minutes to explain it and almost no dialog. And most important - you CAN do it. It's a pity that during more than 2 hours the director and screenwriter were too busy creating "a serious" Oscar-contender instead of cinematic magic.
Overall - just an OK movie, imho. Way better than Troy or Alexander (but come on, i hated those!), but for me it's simply not enough. Again, just my humble opinion. :)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
The pirate life for me? No, thank you!
It's ultimately very romantic to be a pirate, it appears... Or so dear Keira, oops, Elizabeth, would like us to believe. She read a lot of books about it. And she can kick everyone's butt too, even though she wears the painful corsets from time to time. Actually her dialogs and behavior reminded me of another sea-located movie's heroine. Which was just as improbable and illogical as this one. Every minute Keira was on screen, i was afraid she'd burst out into another Freud discussion. Thankfully, she didn't, and, i guess, Gore Verbinsky thinks now we should be grateful at least for this.
OK, OK, Gore. We've got it. Thank you.
As for her acting - did anyone notice that in her previous movie, Bend It Like Beckham, the critics praised mostly her co-star and the actual heroine Parminder Nagra? Didn't it ring the bell of warning to no one? And look who's now hot in Hollywood! The irony of being blond... Apparently it's not all that tough as Reese Witherspoon would like us to believe.
The same goes for Orlando Bloom. Don't get me wrong. He's cute. He knows how to move in the frame. He knows sword fighting and he knows to shoot arrows and wear a blond wig and pointy ears gracefully (not exactly in the same movie, but you've got the point ;)). He may be the most intelligent and thoughtful human being on Earth, i don't know him personally. But his talents ON THE SCREEN are unfortunately restricted to the ones mentioned above. He's given his share of pretty amusing lines and he fails to deliver them to amuse the audience, except for his fans (who were absent from my screening). With his each new movie the directors try to find the acting talent beneath his clothes, so he becomes less and less... erh... burdened with costume detailes (check the set pictures from Troy). Maybe they've become pretty desperate. The next time they'll try to look behind his Troyan skirt, i guess. I won't mind, surely ;).
The less said about the poor Governor and Commandor - the better. The same can be said for the rest of the cast with 2 exceptions, the special effects, which left me totally unimpressed (though one good point - they didn't overshadow the movie, but, alas, there was not that much to overshadow). The direction and cinematography were decent, but nothing worth crowing about. The fights were OK, i guess, with some actually funny moments (the forks were priceless). Though some showdowns were staged simply for the sake of staging (like the duel between Sparrow and Turner with the tagline "let's try to do this shtick, sounds impressing").
But the main problem of the movie is that it simply overstayed its welcome. At least half an hour could've been left in the editing room with a couple of the unnecessary turns (not twists, just turns, back and forth, like a dog after its own tale). And the ending... OK, i'd better stop right now. Oh, mine...
But to the only 2 BIG (though not big enough) pluses: Depp and Rush. They were great. Simply put - great. But, considering their reputation and the previous work, it didn't surprised me. I only wished they were given more screen time. The rare actors which, while having a ball with the camp they have to be in, can share their fun with the audience. And make this camp way more deserving than it has any right to be.
Ultimately The Pirates isn't a really bad movie, mostly because of those two wonderful talents mentioned above, just not a particularly good one.
And this summer, as i see, we don't have much choice. It's a pity we don't deserve better. And the thought "Come on, it could've been worse!" doesn't help. IMHO, of course...
Ying xiong (2002)
Wonderful set of postcards from China
To make it clear - i'm a regular moviegoer. I'm not a fan of the genre (martial arts). I didn't study Chinese philosophy. Sorry. I just like to watch movies. Of all kinds.
I saw CTHD (well, everyone mentioned it already) long before it's USA release. I was wowed in some parts, bored to death in others, but overall entertained. I laughed upon hearing it was declared to be a masterpiece, but... whatever floats your boat, folks, really ;).
Now back to Hero. I saw the cutted version and honestly, i have no idea what was missing in it. I'm glad i saw only hour and a half - quite frankly, i was bored to death after 20 minutes. Each frame frozen still is a visual masterpiece indeed - the wind is blowing the wonderful (and undoubtly too expensive, too clean, too ironed and ALWAYS bloodless for people on hide, but i digress)clothes of striking colors of every hero. Did i mention it ALWAYS matches the color scheme of the surrounding landscape and cinematography lense? And there's ALWAYS the wind? And the heroes ALWAYS stand in the most photogenic pose? And if they are on the lone sand rock (or whatever it is)it's VERY lone and VERY distant and extremely convenient for the helicopter shoot? And ALL the actors have the strictly-limited range of facial expressions? Except for Jet Li - he has exactly one.I saw these actors in other movies and i know they are far more capable than this.
Another thing - slow-motion. My first impression was that 3/4 of the movie reel consists of slow-mos. It might be exciting for some. For me it was a bit too much. I wanted to be carried away by the fantasy (though this one is based on the historical facts - see the earlier version The Emperor and the Assassin) - instead i've got the set of fascinating soulless stills. I wanted to be entertained - and, very simply put, i wasn't.
I know that the critics will go ga-ga over this movie (i think it's 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes)and there're more than enough ardent supporters which to every remark i've made will scream with laughter - "you just don't understand this masterpiece and the philosophy that stands behind it - it's supposed to be that way".
Well, my uneducated mind was sufficient enough for absorbing Rashomon, which Hero resembles, though only in style but not in substance. Maybe Kurosawa pandered too much to us, lower tastes. Or maybe the Oscar glory potential didn't cloud his creative judgement...
And by the way... Good movie doesn't change it's cinematic value according to the screen size. My humble opinion, of course.