agoodfella Reviews

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

The Not So Amazing Spider-Man

[5/10 · 23 July 2014]

TASM2 has had a number of things going against it, namely:

1) The bar has been set very high indeed for Super Hero films -- esp. the Dark Knight Trilogy, Avengers, Cap, Iron Man and X-Men DoFP have all been on average fantastic. It's great for comic book lovers like most of are. Not so great for film directors and producers that don't really bring their A game.

2) The plot is extremely unoriginal and very derivative -- for a refresher on a fantastic re-boot, re-watch Batman Begins. Or 007 re-boot Casino Royale with Craig James. When I saw that for the first time, I was like "what the heck... is this James Bond? This is absolutely fantastic!" It hits you right between the eyes. Does anyone get that sense from watching the TASM / TASM2 films? Not I.

3) The villains (i.e Electro and GG) not only looked ridiculous, the dialog was uninspired and the costumes looked liked they were made from someone who had never read a comic book. Rhino was embarrassingly bad. Really.

4) But, the main thing the TASM series has going against it is, frankly, Andrew Garfield. I don't think he's a bad actor. He was miscast, that's not his fault I guess. But he isn't a convincing Peter Parker. He's too old, he's too lanky and too depressing. Spidey / Parker, if nothing else, is bursting with personality with an amazing sense of humor, and he's gutsy -- I'd argue that only Captain America rivals Spidey's level of bravery / courage. As Parker, he has everything going against him -- loner nerd, has to hustle part-time job -- but I think deep down that's why comic book fans love and identify with Peter -- because WE could be Parker, hence, WE could be Spidey. That's why we root for Spidey. At least that's why I do.

And I didn't feel an ounce of that from TASM2, and I have no interest in seeing TASM3 knowing we will get more of the same.

Before Sunset (2004)

A Beautiful Sunset

[22 December 2004]

The first question I had before seeing Sunset (in fact ever since I heard that Sunset was coming) was: "Why?"... Why mess with Sunrise given that it was such a great stand alone film... Would they live up to answering the "what ifs?" would the chemistry still be there? etc. etc. ... needless to say, I think the answer is a resounding "yes".

The film picks up nine years after Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine's (Julie Delpy) magical chance encounter in Vienna. This time around we find them in Paris where Jesse is wrapping up a European roadshow to promote his newly published bestseller about (what else?) that one special night. We find them now older (and Ethan looks a bit more worse for wear than Julie), more experienced, more cynical with hearts that have hardened a bit over time in spite of -- or perhaps due to -- the whimsical possibilities of that fateful night nine years prior.

From the outset of the film, the director does a sublime job of drawing the viewer in with long easy takes as Jesse and Celine embark on a stroll from the bookstore to the café - almost seems as if the first exchange is captured by one long uninterrupted take with no cuts (though there are a couple). They ease into their exchange very comfortably. The questions and dialogue have the same, familiar natural feel and tone, and Hawke and Delpy both do an incredible job slipping into their earlier roles - the chemistry has not been lost. The playful sarcasm, the sexual tension, the flirting, the wit, the insecurities. All there.

You can sense the longing that Jesse has (has always had) for Celine from the get-go. In fact, my take even from Sunrise was that Jesse's attraction to Celine was always more stronger - almost as if he "needed" her. His vulnerability and ability to "put it all out there" - things that guys, in general, have such a hard time doing.

The film moves on to the boat which echoes the scene from Sunrise where Jesse convinces her to take a ride with him. The journey symbolizes a trip to the past where Celine realizes that Jesse's life isn't the picture perfect life that she imagined (i.e. the successful author, the wife and the kid). She almost seems to want to know – needs to have - the affirmation that Jesse still carries a torch for her, even though she (and the viewer) already should KNOW this - because WE know Jesse and his book about "that one night" is a tangible testament to that (this is the one plot element which I found a bit annoying).

The car scene is symbolic as well as they are in an enclosed space and need to deal with the things that are bottled up inside - claustrophobic yet no escaping it. They both reveal what they have both always wanted to hear from one another (albeit in different ways and different circumstances), that they have both been truly alone since they last left each other that fateful night in Vienna. The raw emotion, the honesty - incredible moments.

The culmination is the walk up the staircase to Celine's apartment, in relative silence, some things are better left unsaid – the choices, the reasoning, left unsaid. And then Celine's song which symbolizes a lot of things and demonstrates how much Jesse has meant to her even though she has a difficult time saying it in words.

Nine years later, they have of course grown into full adults with all the superficial trappings that come with that – a career, relationships, etc. But, still, they are both drawn to "that one fateful night", and the redemption for both people is that it was just as meaningful to each person as it was for the other, for different reasons and for similar ones. The bittersweet anguish of having those memories and carrying that emotional baggage over that time echoes even deeper in the respective voids in their lives; as Celine puts it: "memories are a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past" – almost sums up that anguish. When people are young they worry about not becoming "someone" - but as they get older - everyone worries about not being WITH "someone".

In Sunset, they are both vindicated in realizing that they did not "waste" the last nine years living as damaged emotionless zombies - that their chance encounter was a truly magical moment changing both of their lives, that they were both "incomplete" without each other (ok, cue the corny music), that they really do "complete each other".

The true beauty of Sunset is that it allows them to indulge in the luxury of what many people do not get: the opportunity for a second chance, at best, and, at worst, an opportunity for some measure of closure.

And so it fittingly ends with the viewer pondering yet again "what happens now?" which, in retrospect, is a much more hopeful and infinitely more enviable question to answer than: "what if?"

In sum, a wonderful film - bravo.

***1/2 out of ****

Blow (2001)

Unapologetic Film About an Unapologetic Life

[22 March 2004]

*** 1/2 out of ****

This is a remarkable film about a remarkable story based on a remarkable life. I am surprised by the number of critics. Does this film try and glorify the drug dealer? No. Is George Jung a hero? No. Is the film's purpose to make him one? No. This is why I have problems with a majority of the critics of this excellent film. Why the criticism? The subject matter? The fact that it was based on a true story?

At any rate, back to the film, which is wonderfully shot backed up by great performances from Johnny Depp, Ray Liotta and Jordi Molla. The film is told from a narrative perspective by George Jung (Johnny Depp) tracing the spectacular rise and fall of the pioneering US cocaine distributor of the 70 / 80s.

The film moves seamlessly from George's adolescence to adulthood through a number of locations and vividly captures the essence of that decadent era. The sets, costumes and music all work perfectly.

The audience takes an incredible journey, pulled into a world of drug smuggling / distributing, the illusion of 'easy money', ensuing greed and finally betrayal. While many are quick to point out the fact that this person was a "drug dealer" and ponder, "why feel sorry for him?", this misses the point IMO. His story doesn't search for sympathy from the audience, although it is a sad one. It is an unapologetic look at an unapologetic life.

The greatest takeaway from his experience was that he realized too late what was truly important in his life. Simple things, not the money, not the cars, but "real" things as foreshadowed by his father's speech to him as a child. A point that is continually being underscored by his father's unconditional love (wonderfully played by Ray Liotta, a refreshing character change for him) and culminates in his own unconditional love for his daughter - although he is too late to recieve it.

*** minor spoilers ahead ***

Notable scenes in the movie include:

The beginning of the "US cocaine explosion" after meeting Pablo - the stylish kaleidoscopic montage of single shot images brilliantly captures the essence of that era, underscored by the song "Blinded by the Light" in the background

Jolla's solid performance as the two-faced 'Judas' Diego is highlighted in the powerful coke-induced scene where admits his betrayal to George.

Johnny Depp is tremendous as usual. His understated performances are growing on me with every picture. This contrasts harshly with Penelope Cruz's performances which I have found to be increasingly annoying with each performance.

Lastly, the sad irony of this film is that it is also now a self-tribute to a rising film maker who could not himself escape the dangers of cocaine.

Ted Demme RIP.

The Siege (1998)

Why?

[8 November 2003]

This film is very unnerving, very relevant, and uncannily prescient.

Consider for a moment:

1) Terrorist bombing by Muslim extremists of a major building in downtown NY, 2) Multiple terrorist cells operating in NY, 3) Disorganization within (and) in-fighting between federal agencies, namely FBI and CIA and NSA, 4) Military presence in American cities post-bombing, 5) Detainment of US citizens without due process (think Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

Now, consider for a moment that when the lights go up and the credits roll, the Hollywood version has come to a happy ending... but this situation is still alive and well in the US

I don't want to start getting into politics here, this film was excellent not only on a stand alone basis, but also because this could have easily been written post-9/11. The fact that it was made pre-9/11 makes one think that WE DID NOT DO ENOUGH to stop 9/11...This film should have put a fire under the asses of the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS, etc. but it didn't.

If there were enough warning signs to create a fictional 9/11 (particularly post-the first WTC bombing in '93), then there should have been enough warning signs to catch those responsible for 9/11. Why?

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Matrix Overloaded

[7/10 · 8 June 2003]

Let me begin by saying that the Matrix was a revolutionary film that viewers will continue to look back and marvel at years from now, much in the same way the impact Star Wars had on its contemporaries in 1977, -- and could easily (and in hindsight should probably have been) a one-time stand alone film. Of course with all of the hype and money surrounding the original's runaway success, you knew that the Hollywood money machine would not let this goldmine pass quietly.

To the actual review: on balance, not a terrible film -- but that is quite an underwhelming endorsement when compared to the original, and that frankly that IS the dilemma of the sequel -- how do you re-invent the "Matrix experience"? Neo fighting 100 Agent Smiths is cool eye candy, but that shouldn't be the answer - more techno, CGI tricks to marvel at is NOT the answer. Should we then expect Neo to fight 1,000 or 1,000,000 Agent Smiths in the final film to "up the ante"? Which brings me back to the point about the Matrix experience: something novel to the uninitiated, an entire new world with nearly endless possibilities -- but underlying this hope, a sense of impending doom. It's hard to bring the audience to that same level of "newness" once you've been introduced.

*** MINOR SPOILER ALERT ***

That is not to say that Reloaded was doomed from the beginning - this is not an acceptable excuse, it is a mandate that the original producers should have taken to heart -- particularly within the context that the audience now expects to be "wowed" the way they did the first time. By this measure, the film was a disappointment -- again, techno-tricks ain't the solution in and of itself. The story needed much more development, the plot needed to be much deeper. The whole Zion scene was a huge let-down, most of the leaders of the resistance were very one dimensional particularly when measured against Morpheus - note: developing strong characters can actually complement the existing ones if done properly, but no thought or effort was made to do so. The whole "Wizard of Oz" and the two door scene was a major cop-out in my opinion and frankly didn't make much sense.

In the end, the bitter irony of the film is simply this: the message of the film, "humanity fighting against technology run amok" underscores the weakness of the sequel: "a story fighting against technology run amok"

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Style over Substance

[15 July 2002]

I'll admit that the title of my commentary may be a bit harsh.

But after the Phantom Menace fiasco, I was really expecting a much deeper, more complex film. The makings of a great drama are clearly there: the beginning of the end of Anakin / roots of Vader, the love story, the rise of the "Empire", the fall of the Republic, etc., etc.

I was expecting too much it seems. Let's start with the good points: the visual effects, as always, are simply stunning. The sound also makes for an amazing cinematic experience, it is really this "sensory ride" that everyone expects from the Star Wars franchise, and Attack does not fail to deliver on this point. At the same time, however, this visual / audio extravaganza almost takes away from getting more deeply involved in the film, the plot, the characters...(more on that later).

The screen presence of Ewan's Obi-Wan is truly superb and is matched only by Portman's strong performance. Hayden does a decent job, but ends up being too whiney - (I guess that runs in the adolescent Skywalker genes - a.k.a. Luke in the original Star Wars) - and actually despite the audiences expectation that he will fall to the dark side, his ability to portray a convincing conflict between the force and the dark side was disappointing. I think it would have been far more powerful if he was truly a rising Jedi with superior talent, a greatness that somehow falls to the dark side.

Instead, he is portrayed as a spoiled brat with an inflated sense of entitlement, yet there is no SUBSTANCE there (a recurring theme, hence my title). Wouldn't it have been far more powerful if he was a truly engaging, likeable leader who is ultimately destined to fall? As it is now, I almost want him to become the bad guy - its too easy - not complex enough - the viewer can handle this.

Furthermore, Senator Palpatine is clearly Darth Sidious - why make it so obvious - another case of giving substance to the wrong areas - why not make Anakin's character more complex, darker, yet great?

This comes back to Obi-Wan, the other Jedis and the Force in general. The force was such a central and critical theme to all of the "middle" trilogy Star Wars - why stray from this path? In fact, given the historical context in which the 1st trilogy plays out, shouldn't the Force not be an even greater "force" in these films? It seems to have become some kind of a "punch-line" like when Obi-Wan tell Anikan "may the force be with you" before his assignment. Disappointing.

Finally, the love story. I thought that for a few scenes, the film was going to cut to a digital version of the Sound of Music and a bunch of aliens would come busting out of the hills singing "Doe a Deer" - NO!! If you want a simple lesson on how to portray a tense love story develop within the context of a SciFi - you don't have to go far - watch Empire Strikes Back and the scenes between Han Solo and Leia put the ones from Clones to utter shame.

*** minor spoiler alert ***

On the lighter side, it was great to see Yoda in action, but I have another slight complaint here: Master Yoda is clearly revered as the most powerful Jedi, now when he comes up against Count Dooku (who is not even the "Master" equivalant) he actually puts up a "draw" against Yoda - to make the math stack up, Yoda should actually wipe the floor with Dooku...

Finally, it was great seeing R2 and 3PO back in action, so all is not lost!

In all, a decent film, that somehow got lost in all of the minor subplots and digitalization: this trilogy should get back to its roots: the Force, the Dark Side, the conflict between good and evil, the relationships between Master and apprentice, friends and enemies, the Yin and Yang philosophy that has made the first trilogy classics.

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Less Than the Sum of Its Parts

[10 June 2002]

Ben Affleck should stick to appearing as the dopey romantic who gets the girl in light-hearted comedies - and even then I wouldn't be all that compelled to see him. And for those who were of the opinion that Pearl Harbor was a terrible wasted opportunity -- a Hollywood extravaganza that somehow missed the the chance to showcase Affleck's talents (a movie that Josh Hartnett practically stole), well, you'll want to skip Sum of All Fears.

Affleck plays the role of an irreverent young Jack Ryan just beginning to learn the ropes in the CIA. Following in the noticeably larger footsteps of Alec Baldwin (Hunt for Red October) and Harrison Ford (Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger) in bringing Tom Clancy's character Jack Ryan to the silver screen, Affleck just didn't hit the right balance as a sharp but humble, bold yet intellectual Ryan. Those who are fans of Tom Clancy's novels know that Ryan is quite a tricky character to cast, almost in a away that is much harder than casting for a James Bond: Ryan is really the anti-007, he's a family man, not the suave international playboy, but make no mistake, he is a tough and courageous hero when the going gets tough. Even Willem Dafoe's John Clark was a greater casting choice than Liev Schreiber.

Back to the film itself. The storyline is quite an ambitious one, and after the events of 9/11, one that doesn't stretch the imagination to wild proportions. The basic fear that drives this film - an unaccounted nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists - truly does make for high drama. The cinematography was excellent, taking the viewer through white-washed Siberia-like Russian outposts to the arid deserts of the Middle East. The action sequences were shot extremely well, such as the explosion in Baltimore to the military scenes. These are all of the film's strong suits.

Morgan Freeman turned in a good, but not spectacular job, but I'd blame the weak screenwriting as the primary factor which limited his ability to turn in a more engaging performance. The President's role and his cabinet members could have easily been replaced by all of the jurors from the movie 12 Angry Men minus the all-important Fonda: where was a rational, charismatic leader when you really need him? Another gripe of mine was the premise that the President and all of the top advisors would be flying in Air Force One and not in a secure underground location... (how credible is that).

Other than Ben Affleck's unconvincing role as a humble, yet incisive and bold CIA analyst, the film in general was a decent thriller, but could have been far greater.

Malena (2000)

A Feast for the Senses

[20 November 2001]

I am amazed at the negative commentary regarding this fine film. Further, I have particular issues with the grounds for much of this negativity. Let's try and bear in mind that while there is indeed a huge fan base for "Cinema Paradiso" (I among them), this film is not a sequel. To expect that and to measure this movie by that basis is not only unfair, it is quite frankly, irrelevant. While the coming of age and the telling of the adolescent story through the eyes of the child is reminiscent of "Cinema", that is where the artificial similarities of these two films diverge - the messages of this story, and indeed the story in and of itself, are wholly different.

As an American, I must admit that I need to be "in the mood" to watch and enjoy foreign films. In fact, this DVD sat in my collection for weeks until I had a chance to have a restful and leisurely night to watch this film. To me, these films are an experience not unlike dining at a fine restaurant: the cinematography, the score, the subtlety, the absence of "action" - in general the "in-your-face, multiple car crash-city-blocks-on-fire-nuclear bomb about to blow Hollywood extravaganza" (although I admit, I enjoy that too =). Again, I need to be in the mood.

The star of this film at first glance appears to be Monica Bellucci (Malena), whose beauty is truly breathtaking and who gives a tremendous performance IMHO. But the performance that steals this movie is given by Giuseppe Sulfaro (Renato). The score of this movie captures both Renato's longing and Malena's growing desperation.

***SPOILER ALERT***

There are a few issues I had with this film. One: Malena's father, who changes the locks when he is disgraced by rumors about Malena. While I understand that this may have been done to "set-up" Malena towards inescapable acts of desperation, I actually think this could have been much more powerful had the father acted as a strong protector for Malena despite these innuendos. Then, when he is killed, her sense of loss (already stinging from her husband's death) would be that much greater and credible.

Also, the husband coming back from the war, (with the an amputated arm), generally meek in character also could seems like a "stacked deck" situation. By making the husband stronger, does not necessarily need to come at the expense of the main characters (Renato and Malena). It does require more thought, but can actually accentuate, compliment and create stronger overall performances.

Overall, however, the merits of the film far outweigh the faults: Giuseppe's performance, the gorgeous cinematography, the creative use of light in the film, the exquisite score are all feast for the senses (not to mention Monica Bellucci who is an impossibly gorgeous creature).

A final note to ponder, this film is leaps and bounds better than 95% of the commercial garbage that gets churned out from Hollywood (comparing Oranges and Apples criticisms aside), so on that basis, this gets a definite "thumbs up" from me.