Change Your Image
spiritedbree102
Reviews
Lost in Translation (2003)
In Short - A Beautiful Film!
Lost In Translation is the kind of film which after viewing it leaves audience members with a sweet taste in their mouths like they have just had something absolutely delicious to eat. This anyhow is my feelings towards the film, which I'm shocked in this case to find that not everyone agrees with. My taste in movies is quite diverse and I will sometimes adore movies when i haven't read a single good review, or absolutely detest films which have been consistently praised! In the case of Lost in Translation, quite a few of my friends have classed it as 'boring', or 'too simple'. Usually I'll take this criticism in my stride, accepting that everyone has their different opinions but in this particular film I couldn't help but argue against what my friends were saying - After all how could they call such a beautifully made film as this, boring? How can such a comment possibly be justified?...Naturally I asked them to explain.
'Yes...Yes Johnny the film does boast some great acting, I'll agree with you there and yes certainly Coppola has shown plenty of skill both behind the camera and in her writing of the script - I found the truthfulness of the language spoken between the two key characters to be wonderfully startling.' This is a relatively vague remembrance of what one of my good friends said to me upon their viewing of the film. Naturally I asked why, when they had nothing but compliments to add, did they not like it and this was the response I got, 'It's just not for me Johnny - It moves along at too slow a pace and I just wasn't satisfied enough by the premise to be willing enough to be taken along for the ride.' My friend spoke this in such an articulate manner that I was left to marvel at his clarity - he understood perfectly why he didn't like the film and it was at this moment when I realized that I just couldn't argue anymore - I had nothing more to say.
I understand that readers may by now be getting frustrated at why I'm not really 'reviewing' this film. Personally I believe Lost In Translation is a near masterpiece -It boasts strong performances, great dialogue, a touching yet realistic story and excellent direction. Despite my recommendation though to go and see the film, I should very much like to emphasize that it's not for everyone - there will be some people who will be bored out of their minds and while I certainly didn't feel that way in watching it, I understand perfectly well how there will be those who will be frustrated at its simplicity.
Abandon (2002)
A not entirely satisfying ride!
OK how should I begin? I'd love to keep this as short and sweet as possible. Abandon is a film that I loved the first time I watched it. After numerous attempts at watching the whole movie again however,I have noticed flaws in my original judgement.
The movie is set on a collage campus, with student Katie Burke (Katie Holmes) being a prime example of how the characteristics of being both intelligent and hardworking can exist with the student body (most movies tend to portray collage students as mega party animals). A couple of years ago Katie was involved in a relationship with Embry Larkin (Charlie Hunnam), an arrogant though extremely talented musician, who she fell deeply in love with. His mysterious disappearance prompts the investigation led by cop, Wade Handler (Benjamin Bratt).
This is the premise of the film, and while watching it the first time, I considered it to be an interesting, thought-provoking thriller/drama, and yes, to an extent I still believe it is. However after watching it again and again, I have noticed that there are moments which to be very simple put, are rather boring. The scenes which involve Katie Holmes character with Benjamin Bratts' character, are a few of those which involve me feeling bored. The pair have absolutely no chemistry!!! Now that's not to say that Holmes and Bratt aren't fine in their roles. It's just that together, they don't sizzle! And as I'm sure everybody knows it is vital that any on-screen attraction be understood by the audience. In this movie, the on-screen attraction just seems very forced; I didn't feel their supposed connection.
Due to lack of time, I'll end this review with a note to people wishing to view this movie. This isn't an 'on the edge of your seat' kind of thriller. For those who like their films to move slowly and leave them in deep thought, Abandon may be the movie for you. If not, I wouldn't recommend it.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Unique, top notch acting, nice idea. What more do you need, art-house lovers?
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind you would say is a comedy, but to me just as much a drama. I actually had more sorrow than laughter in this movie, especially from the lead parts. I am not going to go into huge detail into what the plot is about. I am just going to say that this is a romantic comedy that really you should find in the art-house section at your local video store.It is mainly about a man and a woman who happen to fall in love one day, and suddenly the woman erases all memories of her times with him and now the man has to go on this big quest to win her over.
The movie is fun to watch, as we see time travel sequences constantly and some supernatural happenings as well. I actually quite forget most of the movie, not because it was boring or anything, but because I really couldn't understand it myself. You see, I have a hard time understanding most twists that occur in movies.
The acting is superb, with Jim Carrey playing his part excellently, usually stealing scenes from Kate Winslet who did a decent job too. Co-stars Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood and Tom Wilkinson as the doctor conducting the procedures to erase the woman's memories are all solid in their roles, but as I said, Jim Carrey is a standout.
This is not the type of movie I'd go out and buy, but I just can't get past the originality of it. There is nothing more you could want out of this if you are into these kind of movies.
New Best Friend (2002)
Trashy yet significantly better than average!
I would have to disagree on most of the user comments on this movie. Most insist it is a piece of trash, not worth viewing. And yes perhaps they're right about the trashy part but in my humble opinion, New Best Friend is in the same kind of league as 90210 - entertaining trash that as much as we hate to admit it, we actually find ourselves engrossed in.
Yes, the story is unoriginal and the script poor but the performances by the key actors are good enough to keep viewers interested. Mia Kirsher (Exotica, The Crow:City of Angels) delivers a stellar performance despite the bad material she was given to work with. An actress of her calibre should be choosing better parts in significantly better movies but I'm willing to forgive her for making one bad decision (but that's only because personally I didn't find New Best Friend a complete waste of my time). Meridith Monroe, Dominique Swain and Rachel True are all effective in their roles however one bad performance has to come from Taye Diggs as the officer in charge of investigating Alicia's (Kirsher) overdose which has suspicious circumstances. Diggs usually turns in fine performances but in New Best Friend he just looks bored. Perhaps that's due to the lack of good material he had to work with.
Overall I found New Best Friend to be an entertaining movie. Sure there was a lot of things wrong with it and it certainly won't go down as one of my favourite films of the year but it succeeds for what it is - great trash!
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
Better than the first, but not by far.
Charlie's Angles movies are the sort of films that you watch for a laugh at the funny parts of it or the enjoyment of watching hot chicks running around doing jobs set by their boss Charlie for the good of mankind. Personally, I prefer watching it for the laughs value as there is some very funny parts in the movie. Everything is good about it except for the fairly mediocre action sequences. OK, I'm being harsh, they're good, but nothing compared to the Matrix or Lord of the Rings.
I seem to enjoy commenting on sequels as I have done so for the movies I have reviewed so far. I guess I just like comparing one to another, and in this case, the second only narrowly is better than the first. The first and second aren't really that much different from each other. The laughs are no higher in the second, the action not much different, and the villains are all just the same, with the returning of the weird guy in the first movie who was constantly pulling out the angels hair enlightening the second movie.
The acting is fine. Drew, Cameron and Lucy all doing what they do best in their roles. Demi Moore is fine as the evil villain, but really, a decent enough actress could have pulled this off just as easily. The action sequences I saw was similar to the Matrix in a way, although not pulled as nearly as convincingly to the trilogy's work. e.g. There is one scene where the angels seem to be riding in mid-air for 10 seconds on a motorbike. Quite unrealistic. But, it's probably meant to look like that anyway.
Overall, this is actually a very easy movie to watch. The laughs will come not only from the comedic parts but also from the dorky action. If your looking for a hip, comedy flick come see Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.
The Crow: City of Angels (1996)
I imagine not nearly as good as the original!
I haven't seen the original The Crow so I, unlike most people cannot comment on the comparisons between that and the Crow: City of Angels. I can however say that I have read numerous reviews, outlining the original as a 'hauntingly good film'. From my standpoint, without having seen the first movie, I can say that overall I found the film somewhat enjoyable. The atmosphere is dark and brooding, perfectly suiting the character of the crow and the vengeful plot line of the story. Vincent Perez does a decent enough job in his role as a distraught father, craving for revenge after his son is tragically shot down for witnessing a crime. Sometimes I felt his performance was overdone - what was with his accent? But overall he did his best with a script that unfortunately lacked any real depth. Mia Kirshner was adequate in her role as Sarah, though the script didn't call for her to do much bar look gorgeous (Notice whenever she's in a scene, the director chooses to emphasize her eyes and facial features in numerous close-up shots). Richard Brooks as the sadistic leader of a drug dealing gang of thugs isn't entirely effective and the only thing I can say about Iggy Pop is that he makes an amusing sidekick. Take that as a good thing if you want, but in a movie like The Crow: The City of Angels, amusement isn't what I imagine an audience expects nor craves. Overall the film certainly wasn't terrible, but if your looking for a great film or even just a plain good one, The Crow: The City of Angels may unfortunately fall slightly short of your expectations.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Fantastic! Even better than the first.
Luckily for me, I first saw this movie at the cinemas where basically everything you see there is a better experience than at home on the sofa. The picture is clearer, sound perfect, and lighting is great. It was particularly so in this picture because of the great action sequences made with the special effects. The scenes that mostly gave me tingles were the ones where Spidey and Doc Oc fought one on one, especially the train ride scene.
Moving on to the story, I thought the plot was excellent, sticking to the very well known comic book created by Stan Lee. The acting was well done by lead Richard Maguire, who to me was the perfect choice for Spidey. Kirsten Dunst is fine as Mary Jane Watson, Alfred Molina as well with his performance as Doc Oc. Franco's performance is quite good too as the tortured Harry, as J.K. Simmons is always funny as J. Jonah Jameson.
All in all, the story is great, acting excellent and special effects wonderful. This is sure one of the best movie's I've seen all year.