Change Your Image
timbasa77
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
Man of Steel Action Soars, Characters Sink
Man of Steel is an exercise in near-greatness, hamstrung at every turn by a hero's greatest enemy - not a Kryptonian death squad, but a lead-eared script. Zack Snyder's majestic direction, earnest turns from a cast of memorable faces, and a soaring score can't mask a script with a severe identity crisis: is it the tale of a confused and lost loner in search of a home? A man-child who just needs a father figure? A brash reporter looking for an emotional tether to her world? A hero trying to find his courage? It is all and none of these things, which is why Man of Steel remains an exhilarating failure. The biggest weight to carry rests squarely on the broad shoulders of Henry Cavill as Superman. Cavill's stepped from relative obscurity (an earnest turn on The Tudors and a capable performance in Tarsem's blissfully bizarre Immortals notwithstanding) to one of the most iconic characters in fiction. The camera loves Cavill and he fills every shot with a truly resonant stoicism, warmth, and vulnerability. He capably handles both the heroism and the humor of the character, but both are in short supply in the script. When it's time for his character to talk, his performance falls apart. A variety of humanizing themes are toyed with in Cavill's Superman, but none of them ever comes to fruition. His tortured relationship with his human parents is dropped, his search for belonging in the world gets left in the dust, and what we're left with is a very promising performance that only takes flight when Cavill is allowed to eschew the script and inject personality in silent moments: among the best being his poignant catharsis after the film's brutal climax and his unbridled joy at his first flight. Amy Adams exudes a welcome feistiness and ebullience, but her character is only partially developed after a promising introduction. Superman is in love with her because the audience is, but he could only be in love with Amy Adams, as Lois Lane barely exists on the page. The lack of development in their relationship is nowhere more apparent than when Superman thanks her for believing in him 3/4s through the film: at what point did Lois do anything but act as a springboard for the film's endless supply of exposition? Mario Puzo knew enough to give Superman and Lois some genuine banter in the 1978 film. Goyer's script leaves it all to our imagination, for the sake of some glorious, repetitive mayhem. Kevin Costner injects an earthy charm into Jonathan Kent, Superman's adoptive father, but with nothing other than platitudes for him to recite, we never truly believe in his relationship with his son. Its tragic conclusion, while beautifully shot, rings hollow. Diane Lane packs every moment with heartland pluck and tenderness (though the script certainly doesn't), and Russel Crowe once again proves himself one of the screen's most charismatic actors with his majestic turn as Kal El's blood father. But even he is no match for the script's nigh-incomprehensible sci-philo-babble, which he seems embarrassed to spout in the movie's bewildering prologue on Krypton. He is far more comfortable with the moments of genuine tenderness with his wife (well-played by the lovely Ayelet Zurer), his infant son, and the grown son he was forced to give up. The movie's opening scene is a masterpiece of vivid acting and lush staging and film work - but we rush all too quickly into an almost comically flat council chamber sequence full of baffling dialogue we can't be bothered to attempt to understand this early in the film. It is into this ill-wrought fog that Michael Shannon attempts to make his grand entrance as the occasionally menacing Zod. He laudably wrestles through it, but the cheesy space opera lines he's saddled with lead to an at-times borderline comical performance. Shannon finds smaller character moments to imbue his one-note maniac with a very human rage and despair. His botched introduction is remedied by a later scene with Crowe and a very well-played climax, but one can only imagine what kind of monster he could have created with a script worthy of his considerable screen presence. The effects, the art direction, and the magnificently well-staged action sequences almost elevate the movie to the heights of grand entertainment. Zod and Superman's final conflict is easily among the greatest fights ever filmed (or rendered, given the obvious CGI). But in all the sturm and drang, the audience, without an emotional tether to the two dueling behemoths, is left wondering about the poor little pixel people scurrying through the streets as buildings collapse - how noble can Superman be if he lets his rage at Zod blind him to all of the citizens being crushed in his path? Goyer has argued it's the point that Superman is not yet fully aware of his power and the responsibility it comes with, but that simply isn't on the page. Despite Zack Snyder's earnest efforts to elevate the film with his fantastic cinematic eye, it's not on the screen. In the end, the audience fills in much of the gaps in character development and emotional payoff on the strength of the craft work that went into the movie, but we're left wishing that the film's script did more of the work for us. For their flimsiness and crass assembly line quality, the Marvel films have at least generally done some excellent character-building work that Man of Steel could benefit from. The perfect comic book movie would merry the production value of Man of Steel to the spirit of Iron Man 3. Until then, we're left re-watching Christopher Reeves and waiting for Superman to truly take flight.
Anna Karenina (1977)
The Definitive Version of "Anna"
The limitations of a late 70's BBC budget are everywhere apparent in this nonetheless absolutely captivating production. One only wishes a proper film could have been made with this same cast and script, but of course that would have probably drained the production of what makes it so spectacular - its sheer expansiveness. In its nearly 10-hour runtime, it covers practically all of the novel's myriad episodes, and the dizzying complexities of its timeless characters - Anna's at once near schizophrenia and almost magical charm and poise, Vronsky's extreme selfishness and rakish abandon, yet unquestionable honor and devotion, and Karenin's cruel, detached vindictiveness tempered by his capacity for forgiveness and tenderness. The script is so heavily in the spirit of Tolstoy's writings that quotations from the original novel do not stick out like a sore thumb, as they do in Tom Stoppard's shockingly amateurish script for the Keira Knightley adaptation, but are rather an organic fabric of this labyrinthine and captivating piece. Perhaps hindsight drives this perception given Ms. Pagett's unfortunate mental breakdown subsequent to this production, but she is so effortlessly a living, breathing, enchanting creature suffering from truly intractable emotional and existential distress that it makes the knowledge of her end, which rather intentionally pervades the novel even without its cultural resonance, lend an intense poignance to the film. She is also every bit as beautiful as Anna should be. Supporting characters, from Oblonsky to Betsy (in particular the flippant Countess, whose true, though tested, devotion to Anna is richly filled in here) are handled spectacularly well. But the production in many ways belongs to Stuart Wilson's Vronsky, who manages to convey precisely what makes Vronsky uniquely appealing to a woman of depth - he is a melancholic, inspired, fiery, Byronic hero, and not just a preening pretty face with all of his hair (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, I sadly look at you). Those who were impatient with the Levin twin-plot in the novel will be distressed to see it nearly intact in this version, but Levin is refreshingly well-played and spirited, so that his scenes have a life to them typically denied the almost perfunctory inclusion of the character in most adaptations that do him the service of not cutting him. Kitty is also incredibly beautiful, age appropriate, and charming, so her scenes, while never quite living up to Anna's, prove a welcome distraction.
Batman Forever (1995)
Unfairly panned, given the film's intent
It is quite simply wrong to fault this movie for a lack of fidelity to the comics. As painful as it may be for Bat devotees to admit, there was a very long period in which Bill Finger's bat stories were as light, saccharine, and improbable as the most egregious of the live action series' offerings. This film, with its gaudy set-pieces and over-the-top deathtraps, complete with choreography so telegraphed and exaggerated as to eliminate all sense of danger and tension in favor of good old spectacle, pays a perhaps even too respectful homage to these simpler days of bat-lore. If anything, Batman and Robin is the more faithful of the Schumacher films, though far more sloppy in its execution. Even though the overall tone of the film is strictly for the kiddies, for which one cannot fault the piece coming as it did after the sadistically macabre Batman Returns, Schumacher's only worthy effort in the Bat series manages to offer some meat for the adults. Bruce's psychological dilemma is handled more effectively than it ever had been for the screen, thanks in large part to Kilmer's excellent understated performance. The kiddies were no doubt willing to dismiss him in favor of the flashier performances, coming quite delightfully from Jim Carrey and less so from Tommy Lee Jones, who is obviously just trying to maintain the little ones' attention. Carrey warrants praise for the sheer gusto of his performance, even if it never even comes close to making any kind of sense in terms of characterization. Kilmer's dark corner of the movie almost seems tonally out of place in blaring neon light of the popcorn entertainment Warner Brothers intended. Still it remains as the only performance one can truly call an effective portrayal of Bruce Wayne/ Batman this side of Christian Bale. Nicole Kidman is sexy, but little else as the irksomely unprofessional psychiatrist who is Bruce's obligatory love interest. Chris O'Donnell hardly embarrasses himself, despite his dialogue's best intentions (Holy Rusted Metal Batman? More like holy jarringly awful punchline.) Among the supporting cast, only Michael Gough's warm, sardonic butler and Drew Barrymore's sumptuous good looks are worthy of any note. The film's true stars are the stunning production design, which revels in its bloated, blaring, busy style, daring your eye to rest for even a second, the special effects, and the welcome out of place performance from an actor incapable of succumbing to the gleeful idiocy around him. Leave your brain as far from potential contact with the rest of your body as possible, but maintain hope for at least one effective performance.
Batman Begins (2005)
At Last, Batman Soars Again
In the hands of some directors (Brian Singer, I am looking at you) a "realistic" approach to a comic book property means draining it of all fantasy and joy and grounding it in a mundane, gloomy realm of blunt topical references. Thankfully Chris Nolan does not take this approach. There is plenty of fantasy and awe-inspiring spectacle in Batman Begins, but all of it is well-motivated and well-explained. We've got ninjas, flying heroes, super-fast tanks, and Bond-villain-esquire weapons of mass destruction, but all of them feel an organic part of the heightened universe masterfully created in this film. We've seen big vistas before in Batman movies, but they always had a back drop feel to them and the action of the films was relatively confined. Here, a Gotham truly epic in scope is painstakingly created and explored. This city only exists in miniature and on computer but it feels like somewhere we can genuinely go. These are all high points of the storytelling itself. The movie would still fall flat if it weren't support by a near-endless string of knock-out performance. Christian Bale's Bruce is stoic, introverted and tormented, but Bale still manages to keep us engaged and interested even as he's holding it all in. Michael Caine is the perfect Alfred, warm, drily witted and endlessly loyal. Gary Oldman plays against type as a likable and to all appearances fairly normal cop and Morgan Freeman imbues what little time he has with pure charisma and charm. Liam Neeson also plays against type, showing a cruelty one wouldn't expect out of one of the screen's most charming actors. The real surprise is Cilian Murphy who, though cast in a supporting role as a fairly minor villain in the film's considerable rogues gallery, manages to leave a deep impression upon the viewer. He is thoroughly creepy and disturbing, even without a particularly impressive costume. Batman Begins also succeeds in delivering those comic book essentials, action and intrigue, in consistent amounts, rather than falling to that bane of franchise beginning films, the endless setup. True this is an origin story, but Batman's origin is so riveting that we hardly miss the Bat until his appearance halfway through the film. And even then, there are at least three major action sequences and plenty of stunts to go. Though you can't complain about the level of action, some argue that the frenetic, murky style in which the action is presented is rather off-putting. On the contrary, the flash frame editing serves to punch up the impact of the fights and even if the viewer is sometimes lost in the melee, he never loses the sense of brutality that Batman brings to his battles. We are left as bruised and battered as the numerous foes of whom Batman makes short work. All in all, a fantastic effort, both as a franchise beginner and a stand-alone epic.
Iron Man (2008)
Totally defies expectations: Great Characterization, bad action
You'd assume in a movie of this sort that it would be the action or the spectacle that makes the film and the characterization that feels tacked on. But oddly enough, it is quite the reverse. Robert Downey Jr.'s Stark explodes off the screen as a likable, well-rounded scoundrel who isn't merely a slime ball with an eventual (quite literal)change of heart: he is a sympathetic idealist throughout, even when he's at his hard-drinking, womanizing worst. Downey is extremely comfortable both with the drama and the comedy and I found myself believing in his character more than I've believed in any comic hero outside of Christian Bale's more stoic Bruce Wayne. Surprisingly good work comes out of Gwyneth Paltrow, who's Pepper Potts is the perfect combination of empowered and vulnerable. Terrence Howard is likable as the straight and narrow boy scout best friend and Jeff Bridges is fantastic as the sleaziest character in recent film history. Some say he's less believable as Tony's friend, but I found him just as enjoyable as a good guy as he ultimately became as an out and out villain. Outside of these performances, there is an effort to make a fully realized comic book world around Tony which succeeds quite admirably. The many references to Iron Man lore never feel tacked on or excessive. Now for the main gripe: the action sequences. Not only are they too few and far between, but those that we get seem extremely forced. They are all over before they can truly get the pulse pounding and there's a sense that what little appears is merely to keep the kids from stampeding out. Action scenes are in fact an art form and a necessary part of a film like this, so the lack of satisfying escapism can simply not be overlooked. Here's hoping Favreau develops a Spielbergian or Jacksonian action acumen by the time he brings out the big guns with the Mandarin and War Machine in the second film.
The Omen (2006)
Unnecessary, but not abominable
As has been said many times, the original Omen relied on being a complete shock and surprise to the audience. We questioned everything we saw and could never predict the next frame. It constantly kept you on edge. This film never achieves the same level of tension because it is essentially a shot by shot remake of the first Omen. We're ten steps ahead of the actors every step of the way. Every time I saw David Thewlis, all I could think was "You're going to be short a head by the end of this film." The new Thorne's are adequate but greatly suffer by comparison to Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. They're too young and just don't have the gravitas of their predecessors. The new Damien is comically evil, which completely eliminates the shock and ambivalence we felt in the original when Thorn actually took steps towards killing him. There's no interior struggle in the audience whatsoever because this kid is obviously evil and needs to die. Mrs. Baylock is played rather hammily by Mia Farrow and becomes an audience favorite instead of the leering, frightening mad dog she was in the original. Her death in the new film is one of the few things that is actually less gory than the original. Which brings me to what this film does right. Unfortunately, all that justifies this film is two deaths: Father Brennan's death is actually a lot more effective in this one than it was in the original and Jennings beheading, though not quite as iconic as it was in the original due in large part to its being expected, is very well done. The film is also very visually lush: there's definitely a far larger budget at work than that of the original. But it's missing the music (which was half of what made the original frightening) and just the overall spirit of the 1978 version.
Robin Hood (1991)
Definitely Made for TV
Say what you will about Prince of Thieves, it deservedly won the 1991 duel of Robins. It's bigger, better, and more interesting than this Patrick Bergen vehicle. Instead of the inspired, manic, good humored yet sadistic Sheriff via Rickman, we get Jurgen Prochnow struggling with a goofy French accent that makes him sound like Monty Python's taunter knight, spouting pat villain catch phrases like "Now you die!" Instead of Morgan Freeman's sublime and intelligent Azeem, a fresh and interesting element added to the legend, we get some pasty white guy to supply the usual "When will you learn, Rob?" eye-rolling as the stalwart sidekick Will Scarlet. Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman lack chemistry and charisma; Bergin is far too old and frail to be a convincing Robin. The movie does look rather good, albeit a bit too murky for its own good at times. Friar Tuck is amusing, though I think Michael McShane is still the best Tuck in film history. At the end of the day, it adds nothing new to the Robin mythos and doesn't even rehash the story as well as other versions have. It doesn't stay particularly true to the original legends, replacing the Sheriff with an anonymous Baron and Guy of Gisbourne with the aforementioned Bond villain wannabe. You'd be better off with the Costner version (the only valid complaint I've ever heard is that Costner doesn't have an English accent. My response is so what?) and you'd be especially better off with the Flynn version, which is the most accurate representation of both the Robin legends and history (making mention of Richard's regent Longchamps and his capture by Leopold of Austria.)
Campanadas a medianoche (1965)
Excellent and Haunting
It was an absolutely inspired idea of Welles' to cut the various Falstaff and Hal plays together. Their character arcs are completed over the course of multiple plays: you cannot get the full story of Hal or Falstaff from just one of them. And this brilliant idea is wonderfully executed. Welles looks, feels, acts, is perfect as Falstaff. For those who say he lacks the sense of humor and fun of a Falstaff they are very wrong. It is all there, just with a heavy dose of melancholy. Falstaff is continually rotting. Hal is his only hope and when he is abandoned by Hal, all the shreds of joy in his life are gone. And the despairing glint in Welles' eye alone conveys all that. Keith Baxter is an excellent Harry, neither altogether sympathetic nor loathsome. We see the conflict in him throughout the movie and even when he abandons Falstaff, he conveys some ambiguous feelings. The rest of the cast is pitch-perfect, most notably John Gielgud as Henry IV and Alan Webb as Justice Shallow. The art direction for the movie is flawless and the scenes are staged and shot so frenetically that even the long dialogue scenes are thoroughly enjoyable. Then there's the battle. Without a doubt one of the best in film history: certainly better than that of Brannagh's Henry V or any other Shakespeare film for that matter. This movie is without a doubt one of the best Shakespeare films in history. I'd put it in my top three, which is as follows: Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet, Kozintsev's King Lear (Korol Lir), and Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight). Do yourself a favor and see all of these movies.
King Kong (2005)
Great mindless action romp. Bad tear-jerking emotional roller-coaster
Only worthwhile for the Skull Island sequence. The characters are generally dull, cliché, and poorly drawn, none of the humans looks like they fit in whatever environment they're in and Peter Jackson constantly tries to milk emotions out of the audience that he simply hasn't earned. We don't care about anyone in this movie because none of them feels real. Even Kong is at the end of the day just a great special effect. If Peter Jackson is going to keep on writing his own scripts, he has to start talking to real people. Because if this is what he thinks real people sound/act like (even people from the thirties) then he is very wrong. Everyone speaks in axioms and can be summed up in a one sentence cliché. For example: the sage, simple black man. The stowaway misfit coming of age. The sleazy film producer. The Skull Island sequence is unchained awesomeness though.
Great Performances: King Lear (1974)
Viewable because of Jones.
Not an altogether excellent production. Many cast members don't seem 100% suited to their character or particularly invested. The Fool just sort of spouts his lines, which is unfortunate because his character is so integral to the play's message, Raul Julia as Edmund seems bored with his character or striving too hard for deadpan, and the daughters are just bad across the board. But James Earl Jones' Lear is an absolute revelation. It's difficult to believe this is a live performance, because he hits every dramatic note so precisely and throws himself so recklessly into the role that you can scarcely believe it when he's able to do it again in the next scene. He gets totally lost in the character and when watching this performance we forget he is the vigorous, majestic, noble James Earl Jones and totally accept him as the belligerent, feeble, arrogant King Lear.
Romeo and Juliet (1968)
Fantastic
Easily the best Shakespeare film in history, mainly because it stays so true to what Shakespeare wrote and was undoubtedly his vision, yet is undeniably fresh and relevant and affecting, despite its Renaissance setting. It feels more modern and current than the soulless bluster of Baz Luhrmann's effort. Whosoever says Whiting and Hussey are anything short of fantastic as Romeo and Juliet needs to reconsider how they want Shakespeare acted. Do you want dramatic bluster and fist waving (which Hamlet specifically cautions against) or true raw emotion and feeling? These actors, mostly because they were so inexperienced, couldn't be more natural and true to their characters every step of the way. You truly believe that they are in love and it's a legitimate love, no just "crazy teens." And the rest of the cast - Jesus H. Christ! They're all fantastic. The Friar and Nurse were obscenely perfect, becoming among the most endearing characters ever filmed, and of course John McEnery is the best, most pathos-laden Mercutio ever, all stage, screen, TV, etc. renditions included. Michael York is a fabulous Tybalt, menacing, arrogant, headstrong, cruel, but ultimately sympathetic. Tybalt is after all just a petulant child - he's no evil tyrant, just a misguided bully, who certainly doesn't deserve to die. I love that his killing of Mercutio is accidental and that he seems to show remorse for it. Even the Prince is really damn good, with his last lines leaving an absolutely chilling impression on the audience. All are punish-ed! A must see.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Great action romp
More of the same brand of witty dialogue, charismatic acting, and awesome action that made the first one such an exhilarating ride. Harrison Ford, like Sean Connery, is just eternally entertaining no matter what he does (at least in the Jones series.) Some people find Kate Capshaw's character annoying, but I think she's refreshing about-face from Karen Allen in the first film and even if her character is often grating, she's at least a well-drawn character and effectively acted. Short-Round's good fun and Mola Ram (the bad guy) remains one of cinema's most effective villains. Absolutely mesmerizing. The "Welcome" moment when he faces the good guys on the bridge at the end is absolute magic. I feel like this movie suffered from comparison to Raiders, because there really is no reason to dislike it. It's very entertaining and competently acted and scripted. My only complaint is it feels rushed ... nowhere near as fleshed out and complete as the first film. Much remains unexplained or is just briefly touched on, and it could have benefited from Sallah and Marcus. Aside from that, an uncommonly good action movie.
The BBC Television Shakespeare: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1980)
Hail to the King of Hamlets.
Amazing, amazing, amazing. What more can be said? Jacobi is the best Hamlet ever to grace the stage and captures every inch of the character. Every nuance and element of Hamlet is depicted and depicted well. Some people have complained about his age, but you honestly cannot tell when watching the film. If anything, he looks drastically younger than 40. I only wish a more worthy Ophelia could have been found. Her acting is passable but she just doesn't look the part. The only real exceptional performances come from Jacobi and Stewart, who is a great Claudius. The rest of the cast is good, but Jacobi is what truly elevates this teleplay.
Great Performances: Hamlet (1990)
Meh
Kevin Kline does a rather excellent job with Hamlet, keeping the mania, self-righteousness and bitterness of Hamlet intact, all characteristics that make Hamlet less than likable, while still being a very sympathetic and throughly intriguing character. We can empathize with his plight, and even though he's often a lot to take, we feel like he really alone in a corrupt and vile world, and not just an overly critical bastard (like Brannagh's Hamlet.) Unfortunately, Ophelia sucks and practically derails the play. Claudius, Gertrude, and Horatio are impressive, but they can't save the play from Ophelia's dreadful overracting and the utter irritation that issues forth from this teleplay's Polonius. Overall, worth it for Kline, but far from perfect.