Director: John Patrick Shanley
Written by: John Patrick Shanley(screenplay)
John Patrick Shanley (play)
Produced by: Scott Rudin, Mark Roybal
Starring: Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Joseph Foster
“Doubt” is the film that you should have studied senior year of high school, college, or adolescence, right before you tread into the adult world. This is not a feel-good story, nor is it inspiring; rather, it is thought provoking, questioning, and painful if you apply it too personally. Screenplay, writer, and director John Patrick Shanley has created a biosphere of war in which a Nun and Priest battle with weapons familiar to us all.
The opening scene gets right to the jugular with a sincere sermon on doubt by Father Flyyn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as Sister Beauvier (Meryl Streep) glides alongside the pews reprimanding uninterested children. Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn play each other’s foil with Sister Beauvier being portrayed as the cold and uncompassionate conservative and Father Flynn as the warm progressive man of tomorrow. Conflict through doubt arises in the mind of Sister James (Amy Adams) when she notices suspicious behavior in student Donald Miller (Joseph Foster) after returning from Father Flynn’s office. After Sister Beauvier gets wind of what may have transpired, Sister James’ doubts become her drive to convict Father Flynn.
It is Sister James who serves as our link and catalyst to Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn’s struggle to assert their truth. Initially, she is swayed by her own observations, and Sister Beauvier’s conviction, to believe that Father Flynn has lured her student into an improper relationship. But doubts arise again the next time she encounters Father Flynn as he explains that he is only looking out for Donald Miller, the lone, abused black student at the school. At this point Sister James’ begins to panic and lose sleep from being pulled back and forth by Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn’s contrasting certainties. Up to this point Sister James was our vessel, but when her ailing brother calls her from the Parish, the final battle for resolution begins to gain focus.
To arm herself for her final confrontation with Father Flynn, Sister Beauvier brings in Donald’s mother (Viola Davis) to discuss her suspicions. The dialogue that takes place between the two may be the most conflicting, contradictory, and disconcerting that I have witnessed. The pain with which Ms. Miller speaks makes it that much more difficult to decide whether you can bring yourself to disagree or agree with what she says, “I don’t care what is going on between them, he just has to make it to June.” If her son can graduate from their prestigious school then his odds of getting into a good high school, possibly college, and not incurring his abusive father’s anger, will increase greatly. She cannot allow herself to doubt that Father Flynn is telling the truth because her son’s future has so much riding on making it to June. She walks away bathed in tears, but Sister Beauvier’s conviction cannot be shaken.
Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn’s final battle for truth takes place in her office in the midst yet another lighting storm. For about ten minutes we are sloshed like dirty water by the waves of fierce and vehement assertions and possible truths that wash over our minds. “How can you be so sure!?” Father Flynn demands, “Certainty is an emotion- not a fact,’ she responds. But how can you ever be certain of anything if it is based in something so filial as emotion? How can you be certain of your belief in God and the universe if that defines definition?
After balance and resolution is found between Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn we are led to believe these sort of questions never enter the mind of Sister Beauvier. She is the only strong and constant force throughout the film, regardless of what she hears from any person. But in the silent, snow-covered courtyard when Sisters Beauvier and James are reunited, we find the truth of the film: “You have to walk away from God to pursue wrong, but it comes with a price… for I too am full of doubts!” There is no doubt in my mind that this film deserves a solid 9/10 rating.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Critic Watch: The Reader
Jenni Miller seems immune to finding flaws in a film such as The Reader. Her rave rests upon the shoulders (which were barely covered the entire movie) of Kate Winslet delivering an excellent performance. Miller describes how she feels that The Reader successfully separated itself from the overload of World War II films, as she explains that The Reader delves into the psychological aspects of the war that exist long after the final bomb is dropped.
While reviewing The Reader, William Arnold displays his approval of the film for having a terrific plot and excellent scenes. Arnold feels that the director and camera crew worked together to create brilliant scenes every step of the way. Despite giving credit for the individual scenes, Arnold explains a deeper issue into why the film earns a rave review. He acknowledges how the film took on another issue revolving around the Holocaust, the German aspect of it. In previous years as Arnold explains, the only issue that was portrayed in films was the negatives that the Jews experience. In The Reader, the plot explains how there is a side where Germans were also a victim of the Holocaust. William Arnold praises the film for taking that direction.
For Connie Ogle, The Reader swings and misses out on an important aspect of the film. Overall Ogle seems to praise The Reader as being a film with excellent visuals and a decent plot, but she has her issues with one part of the plot that is under developed. Ogle has trouble getting over the fact that the film failed to explore into the betrayal that Michal (in his adulthood) experiences as he finds out about Hanna. This issue leads Ogle to feel that the film fell apart before the end.
Dana Stevens quite frankly, hates The Reader. She believes that it is almost impossible to make a film about Nazis boring, but The Reader manages to change her mind as she describes The Reader as a slow movie with a plot that is hardly believable. One of the major issues that Dana has with the film is how she believes that Michael should be resolved of all his guilt, because he never knew about Hanna’s past. This issue, along with others such as some of the scenes simply not looking good, Dana Stevens does not feel it is a film worth seeing.
Todd McCarthy tackles an issue with the movie that almost all the other critics either overlook or simply don’t agree with. McCarthy feels that the casting was well selected, but an important piece of the characters was left under developed. Hanna’s identity, according to McCarthy, is covered up by a shell and the viewer is never able to see her thoughts and feelings because she the entire film is based on other’s perception of her.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939125.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 – Todd McCarthy
http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Reader - Jenni Miller
http://www.slate.com/id/2206513/ - Dana Stevens
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/824509.html - Connie Ogle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/393397_reader25q.html - William Arnold
While reviewing The Reader, William Arnold displays his approval of the film for having a terrific plot and excellent scenes. Arnold feels that the director and camera crew worked together to create brilliant scenes every step of the way. Despite giving credit for the individual scenes, Arnold explains a deeper issue into why the film earns a rave review. He acknowledges how the film took on another issue revolving around the Holocaust, the German aspect of it. In previous years as Arnold explains, the only issue that was portrayed in films was the negatives that the Jews experience. In The Reader, the plot explains how there is a side where Germans were also a victim of the Holocaust. William Arnold praises the film for taking that direction.
For Connie Ogle, The Reader swings and misses out on an important aspect of the film. Overall Ogle seems to praise The Reader as being a film with excellent visuals and a decent plot, but she has her issues with one part of the plot that is under developed. Ogle has trouble getting over the fact that the film failed to explore into the betrayal that Michal (in his adulthood) experiences as he finds out about Hanna. This issue leads Ogle to feel that the film fell apart before the end.
Dana Stevens quite frankly, hates The Reader. She believes that it is almost impossible to make a film about Nazis boring, but The Reader manages to change her mind as she describes The Reader as a slow movie with a plot that is hardly believable. One of the major issues that Dana has with the film is how she believes that Michael should be resolved of all his guilt, because he never knew about Hanna’s past. This issue, along with others such as some of the scenes simply not looking good, Dana Stevens does not feel it is a film worth seeing.
Todd McCarthy tackles an issue with the movie that almost all the other critics either overlook or simply don’t agree with. McCarthy feels that the casting was well selected, but an important piece of the characters was left under developed. Hanna’s identity, according to McCarthy, is covered up by a shell and the viewer is never able to see her thoughts and feelings because she the entire film is based on other’s perception of her.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939125.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 – Todd McCarthy
http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Reader - Jenni Miller
http://www.slate.com/id/2206513/ - Dana Stevens
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/824509.html - Connie Ogle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/393397_reader25q.html - William Arnold
Thursday, February 26, 2009
[DVD Review] Changeling: Don't Believe What You're Told
Director: Clint Eastwood
Written By: J. Michael Straczynski
Produced By: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Robert Lorenz
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Gattlin Griffith, Jason Butler Harner, Eddie Alderson
It is one of the most fearful incidents that could ever happen to a parent; coming home to find your child missing. Director Clint Eastwood hits close to home by retelling the true story of a women on the brink of an emotional breakdown. Even though we may have read through all the articles pertaining to the Wineville chicken coop murders, which is the name given to this incident, Changeling does not fail to bring tears to the eyes. It becomes so frustrating because we know we can do nothing but watch as the story unfolds.
We are first introduced to Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) as a single mother taking care of her son, Walter Collins (Gattlin Griffith). From the time when Walter goes to school to when school ends, Christine works at a telephone company. It would seem that Christine never lets Walter out of her sight. But on this one fateful day, on a Saturday, Christine is left with no choice but to leave Walter on his own as she leaves for work. The image of Walter in the window is the last we will see of him and the battle with the LAPD will begin.
After checking the house and the entire neighborhood, Christine calls the police when Walter is nowhere to be found. Because of police policy, she is not able to file a missing persons report for another twenty-four hours. Several months pass and there is no word of her son. When it is reported to her that her son has been found, all the tension and frustration held to now is released in the form of weak knees and tears. Impatient, Christine runs to meet up with her son only to be confronted by a complete stranger. However, to give off a good image, the LAPD is determined to convince Christine that Walter has physically changed because of his "traumatic" experience.
Not convinced with the LAPD's explanations, Christine demands they find her real son. However, unwilling to admit the department has made a mistake, the LAPD manipulates Christine's words and actions of those of a delusional women. To keep her quiet, the department enters her in a psychiatric ward. Only when the truth is revealed is she released. Angered with the injustice, Christine is not satisfied. She will not be satisfied until the LAPD is brought down and revealed for their corruption. When everything is finally over we are still left with questions unanswered.
Even though we know the outcome, the acting of Angelina Jolie and her co-stars pull the audience into the story as if this was the first time ever hearing of it. There are several emotions involved that completes the whole experience. We feel anger when the LAPD continually discredits Christine. We feel frustration when no one believes Christine's claims. We feel sadness when Christine breaks down crying. Without the actions to go along with the words, none of these emotions would exist. Because we see just words, we feel detached from the story. But paired with fantastic acting skills and direction, the audience is able to experience an event without having to experience it in their own lives.
Changeling reminds us that in our lives we will go through several hardships. However, they may not be to this extreme. But reality is reality and a true story like this is as close to reality as you can get. The fact that this could become someones reality is more horrifying than any horror movie ever filmed.
Written By: J. Michael Straczynski
Produced By: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Robert Lorenz
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Gattlin Griffith, Jason Butler Harner, Eddie Alderson
It is one of the most fearful incidents that could ever happen to a parent; coming home to find your child missing. Director Clint Eastwood hits close to home by retelling the true story of a women on the brink of an emotional breakdown. Even though we may have read through all the articles pertaining to the Wineville chicken coop murders, which is the name given to this incident, Changeling does not fail to bring tears to the eyes. It becomes so frustrating because we know we can do nothing but watch as the story unfolds.
We are first introduced to Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) as a single mother taking care of her son, Walter Collins (Gattlin Griffith). From the time when Walter goes to school to when school ends, Christine works at a telephone company. It would seem that Christine never lets Walter out of her sight. But on this one fateful day, on a Saturday, Christine is left with no choice but to leave Walter on his own as she leaves for work. The image of Walter in the window is the last we will see of him and the battle with the LAPD will begin.
After checking the house and the entire neighborhood, Christine calls the police when Walter is nowhere to be found. Because of police policy, she is not able to file a missing persons report for another twenty-four hours. Several months pass and there is no word of her son. When it is reported to her that her son has been found, all the tension and frustration held to now is released in the form of weak knees and tears. Impatient, Christine runs to meet up with her son only to be confronted by a complete stranger. However, to give off a good image, the LAPD is determined to convince Christine that Walter has physically changed because of his "traumatic" experience.
Not convinced with the LAPD's explanations, Christine demands they find her real son. However, unwilling to admit the department has made a mistake, the LAPD manipulates Christine's words and actions of those of a delusional women. To keep her quiet, the department enters her in a psychiatric ward. Only when the truth is revealed is she released. Angered with the injustice, Christine is not satisfied. She will not be satisfied until the LAPD is brought down and revealed for their corruption. When everything is finally over we are still left with questions unanswered.
Even though we know the outcome, the acting of Angelina Jolie and her co-stars pull the audience into the story as if this was the first time ever hearing of it. There are several emotions involved that completes the whole experience. We feel anger when the LAPD continually discredits Christine. We feel frustration when no one believes Christine's claims. We feel sadness when Christine breaks down crying. Without the actions to go along with the words, none of these emotions would exist. Because we see just words, we feel detached from the story. But paired with fantastic acting skills and direction, the audience is able to experience an event without having to experience it in their own lives.
Changeling reminds us that in our lives we will go through several hardships. However, they may not be to this extreme. But reality is reality and a true story like this is as close to reality as you can get. The fact that this could become someones reality is more horrifying than any horror movie ever filmed.
Blog Review: W
W.
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, Thandie Newman
Produced by: Moritz Borman, John Kilik, Bill Block, Oliver Stone
Written by: Stanley Weiser
Directed by: Oliver Stone
"Dick, what is the real withdraw plan?" "There isn't one." It was at that point where Dick Cheney is portrayed as an evil oil-thirsting sith lord that I knew I was going to love this movie. Well, not the movie itself, more like the subject matter. W. made waves upon its release by being the first biopic movie made about a president while said president was still in office. Released at the height of President Bush's unpopularity, there seemed to be no way that the movie could fail.
The movie starts out with a lively debate happening within the Oval Office. Just how should the President address Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in his speech? It's 2002 and September 11 has happened just months ago and (believe it or not) the President was enjoying an 80% approval rating. Secretary Powel says to be too strong could incite bad feelings in the area. The Vice President says the President needs to use that popularity to prevent another September 11. I think this scene greatly highlighted the importance of every single decision made in that office, because as it turns out, what was choosen, axis of evil, has become the idiom of the decade.
The film thus begins a raucous jumping back and forth covering various scenarious of George W. Bush's life. We see him at pledge week at Yale, being bailed out of jail by daddy, drinking binges, suprising sibling rivalry, and attempts to please his father. All of these scenes are cut in between meetings and discussions that take place in the White House. It seems very hard and ruff, there are no transitions whatsoever. The camera is often zoomed in on Brolin's face and shot at odd angles, but to me the close up doesn't achieve what it could have. There is also symbolism that is so strong it almost smacks you in the face. Yes, George Bush owned the Texas Rangers. No, I don't need to see Brolin going out to try and catch a pop-up everytime something hard in his life happens. Will he catch it? We never find out.
The acting however is fantastic. Wright and Dreyfus are great as the continuously feuding former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Vice President Dick Cheyney. The audience is given both sides of the Iraqi War quite well, and you feel a sense of dread when the president doesn't listen to his Secretary of State. I do not remember the presidency George H. W. Bush, but I highly appreciated Cromwell's portrayel of the over bearing father who loved his other son more. Brolin, as the title character, while at times taking the "wild cowboy" act to the extreme, showed that perhaps Bush Jr. was in effect trying to prove to someone that he was capable. Like I said, the subject matter is what is highly fascinating. History is always in 20/20 vision and could the president really justify not doing something after September 11 even if "there was a 1% chance of WMDs"? In 2006 The Queen garnished much praise for its portrayal of British royalty, and I believe did a better job in it's depiction, but W. is quite a worthy mention.
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, Thandie Newman
Produced by: Moritz Borman, John Kilik, Bill Block, Oliver Stone
Written by: Stanley Weiser
Directed by: Oliver Stone
"Dick, what is the real withdraw plan?" "There isn't one." It was at that point where Dick Cheney is portrayed as an evil oil-thirsting sith lord that I knew I was going to love this movie. Well, not the movie itself, more like the subject matter. W. made waves upon its release by being the first biopic movie made about a president while said president was still in office. Released at the height of President Bush's unpopularity, there seemed to be no way that the movie could fail.
The movie starts out with a lively debate happening within the Oval Office. Just how should the President address Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in his speech? It's 2002 and September 11 has happened just months ago and (believe it or not) the President was enjoying an 80% approval rating. Secretary Powel says to be too strong could incite bad feelings in the area. The Vice President says the President needs to use that popularity to prevent another September 11. I think this scene greatly highlighted the importance of every single decision made in that office, because as it turns out, what was choosen, axis of evil, has become the idiom of the decade.
The film thus begins a raucous jumping back and forth covering various scenarious of George W. Bush's life. We see him at pledge week at Yale, being bailed out of jail by daddy, drinking binges, suprising sibling rivalry, and attempts to please his father. All of these scenes are cut in between meetings and discussions that take place in the White House. It seems very hard and ruff, there are no transitions whatsoever. The camera is often zoomed in on Brolin's face and shot at odd angles, but to me the close up doesn't achieve what it could have. There is also symbolism that is so strong it almost smacks you in the face. Yes, George Bush owned the Texas Rangers. No, I don't need to see Brolin going out to try and catch a pop-up everytime something hard in his life happens. Will he catch it? We never find out.
The acting however is fantastic. Wright and Dreyfus are great as the continuously feuding former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Vice President Dick Cheyney. The audience is given both sides of the Iraqi War quite well, and you feel a sense of dread when the president doesn't listen to his Secretary of State. I do not remember the presidency George H. W. Bush, but I highly appreciated Cromwell's portrayel of the over bearing father who loved his other son more. Brolin, as the title character, while at times taking the "wild cowboy" act to the extreme, showed that perhaps Bush Jr. was in effect trying to prove to someone that he was capable. Like I said, the subject matter is what is highly fascinating. History is always in 20/20 vision and could the president really justify not doing something after September 11 even if "there was a 1% chance of WMDs"? In 2006 The Queen garnished much praise for its portrayal of British royalty, and I believe did a better job in it's depiction, but W. is quite a worthy mention.
Critic Watch: Coraline
Written by Henry Selick
Directed by Henry Selick
Starring Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders, and Ian McShane
Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman
Critic Watch by Joe Romano
From the mind of director Andy Selick comes a new stop-motion animated movie based on the hit novel Coraline by Neil Gaiman. It has been almost universally recognized, if only for its novelty. It is one of the only movies to be made using stop motion in recent years, requiring nearly endless hours of work to produce. But was the final product worth all the trouble?
Directed by Henry Selick
Starring Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders, and Ian McShane
Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman
Critic Watch by Joe Romano
From the mind of director Andy Selick comes a new stop-motion animated movie based on the hit novel Coraline by Neil Gaiman. It has been almost universally recognized, if only for its novelty. It is one of the only movies to be made using stop motion in recent years, requiring nearly endless hours of work to produce. But was the final product worth all the trouble?
Lawrence Toppman of the Charlotte Observer praises Coraline as "visually imaginative," and commends the visual and aural elemnts of the film. He suggests it might even be a little too sophisticated for its target audience; kids and parents. He says the story does "borrow" some from other films like "The Matrix" and "Spirited Away," but in the end concludes that the film is both aurally and visually delightful.
Desson Thompson of The Washington Post also lauds Coraline for its beauty. He says that the combination of stop-motion combined with stereoscopic 3-D and high definiton computer effects render the movie "supercharged with in-your-face palpability." However, he criticizes the screenplay, saying that it underplayed the dramatic subject matter, leaving the true story too watered-down. He loved Dakota Fanning's voice acting, but says he wished the script was more engaging.
Paula Puig of USA Today was even less enthusiastic about the movie's writing, saying that its only merits come from visual appeal, while the story is unfocused and falters in parts. She also mentions that the macabre tone may be disturbing for younger viewers.
J.R. Jones agrees with Puig, saying that the story spends too much time meandering through introductions and spends too little time actually reaching the movie's home stretch. Jones also admits that the film's visual element is "wonderfully creepy."
On a lighter note, Lou Lumenick of the New York Post praises Coraline's story as "sophisticated" and "involving." He, too, praises the film's eye-popping 3-D visuals.
In general, Corailine received a very warm welcome from the critics. The story elements seem to be met with a mixed opinion, but the critics stand unanimous in their appreciation of the film's visual elements, identifying them as it's best selling point.
Desson Thompson of The Washington Post also lauds Coraline for its beauty. He says that the combination of stop-motion combined with stereoscopic 3-D and high definiton computer effects render the movie "supercharged with in-your-face palpability." However, he criticizes the screenplay, saying that it underplayed the dramatic subject matter, leaving the true story too watered-down. He loved Dakota Fanning's voice acting, but says he wished the script was more engaging.
Paula Puig of USA Today was even less enthusiastic about the movie's writing, saying that its only merits come from visual appeal, while the story is unfocused and falters in parts. She also mentions that the macabre tone may be disturbing for younger viewers.
J.R. Jones agrees with Puig, saying that the story spends too much time meandering through introductions and spends too little time actually reaching the movie's home stretch. Jones also admits that the film's visual element is "wonderfully creepy."
On a lighter note, Lou Lumenick of the New York Post praises Coraline's story as "sophisticated" and "involving." He, too, praises the film's eye-popping 3-D visuals.
In general, Corailine received a very warm welcome from the critics. The story elements seem to be met with a mixed opinion, but the critics stand unanimous in their appreciation of the film's visual elements, identifying them as it's best selling point.
Blog Review: One Man Army in Pierre Morel's Taken
Director: Pierre Morel
Written by: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Produced by: Luc Besson, Didier Hoarau, Franck Lebreton, Michael Mandaville
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen
Combine fast paced action, real world issues, and the excellence that is Liam Neeson and what do you get? Pierre Morel's action thriller, Taken. The film never fails to keep its audience on the edge of their seats, but what it lacks in plot and believability prevents it from being truly great. Considering the film's genre, plot usually isn't really emphasized when it comes to skull smashing action. But in this case, the film's plot will leave even the biggest action junkie wanting more.
The story centers around Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), a former member of the CIA, and his struggle to reconnect with his seventeen year old daughter. His ex-wife tries to stop him every chance she gets, and with her perfect new husband around, his task seems harder as time goes on. After a few father-daughter scenes, Kim (Maggie Grace), asks her dad if she can take a trip to Paris. Bryan, being an ex-CIA operative, initially refuses to let her go on the basis that the world is too dangerous for her. A few tantrums and lies later, Bryan agrees to let her go.
The plot seems promising initially. A war-hardened man trying to bond with his now grown up daughter. It quickly falls into the realm of unbelievability when that same war-hardened man allows two seventeen year old girls to travel to Europe by themselves. They even lie about the specifics of their trip, but after a few harsh words from his ex-wife, he agrees again. If he truly is the paranoid government man he is made out to be, he would never allow such a trip. It also seems implausible that her mother would let her go, no matter how much of a new age parent she tries to be.
The conflict begins shortly after the girls arrive in Paris. While on the phone with her father, Kim and her friend are kidnapped from their apartment. Bryan quickly learns that the girls are going to be sold into a sex slavery ring, and if they are not found within 96 hours, he'll never see his daughter again. This begins his rampage of anger and violence. Taking out everyone in his path, he won't stop until his daughter is safe at home again.
The one thing the movie definitely gets right is the way it handles its central issue. Human trafficking is not just a major problem in the world of fiction, but in the real world as well. The fear of abduction poses a real threat in society. The movie portrays the issue as what it truly is, demeaning, disgusting, and horrible. The movie depicts the destroyed lives of these women, their forced addiction to drugs and prostitution. Neeson's sweet revenge on the men that run the ring provides a subtle gratification to the viewer.
While unrealistic at times, the action provided in the movie is indeed entertaining, if the viewer is able to suspend disbelief. A certain thrill is felt whenever Neeson destroys another bad guy. It also helps that your protagonist just reeks bad ass in his every action. Neeson portrays the character of protective father very well, keeping a good balance of anger and worry throughout. The biggest highlight of the movie is Bryan's unrelenting determination to find his daughter.
Can a middle aged man take out several men less than half his age all at one time? In most action movies, yes, but what the fight scenes lack in believeability is usually made up for in some other aspect of the film. This isn't quite the case when it comes to Taken. While the fight scenes are quite satisfying and enjoyable, the plot of the movie leaves much to be desired. It does have a redeeming quality in its acknowledgement of the all to real issue of human trafficking and the devastating effects it has.
Written by: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Produced by: Luc Besson, Didier Hoarau, Franck Lebreton, Michael Mandaville
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen
Combine fast paced action, real world issues, and the excellence that is Liam Neeson and what do you get? Pierre Morel's action thriller, Taken. The film never fails to keep its audience on the edge of their seats, but what it lacks in plot and believability prevents it from being truly great. Considering the film's genre, plot usually isn't really emphasized when it comes to skull smashing action. But in this case, the film's plot will leave even the biggest action junkie wanting more.
The story centers around Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), a former member of the CIA, and his struggle to reconnect with his seventeen year old daughter. His ex-wife tries to stop him every chance she gets, and with her perfect new husband around, his task seems harder as time goes on. After a few father-daughter scenes, Kim (Maggie Grace), asks her dad if she can take a trip to Paris. Bryan, being an ex-CIA operative, initially refuses to let her go on the basis that the world is too dangerous for her. A few tantrums and lies later, Bryan agrees to let her go.
The plot seems promising initially. A war-hardened man trying to bond with his now grown up daughter. It quickly falls into the realm of unbelievability when that same war-hardened man allows two seventeen year old girls to travel to Europe by themselves. They even lie about the specifics of their trip, but after a few harsh words from his ex-wife, he agrees again. If he truly is the paranoid government man he is made out to be, he would never allow such a trip. It also seems implausible that her mother would let her go, no matter how much of a new age parent she tries to be.
The conflict begins shortly after the girls arrive in Paris. While on the phone with her father, Kim and her friend are kidnapped from their apartment. Bryan quickly learns that the girls are going to be sold into a sex slavery ring, and if they are not found within 96 hours, he'll never see his daughter again. This begins his rampage of anger and violence. Taking out everyone in his path, he won't stop until his daughter is safe at home again.
The one thing the movie definitely gets right is the way it handles its central issue. Human trafficking is not just a major problem in the world of fiction, but in the real world as well. The fear of abduction poses a real threat in society. The movie portrays the issue as what it truly is, demeaning, disgusting, and horrible. The movie depicts the destroyed lives of these women, their forced addiction to drugs and prostitution. Neeson's sweet revenge on the men that run the ring provides a subtle gratification to the viewer.
While unrealistic at times, the action provided in the movie is indeed entertaining, if the viewer is able to suspend disbelief. A certain thrill is felt whenever Neeson destroys another bad guy. It also helps that your protagonist just reeks bad ass in his every action. Neeson portrays the character of protective father very well, keeping a good balance of anger and worry throughout. The biggest highlight of the movie is Bryan's unrelenting determination to find his daughter.
Can a middle aged man take out several men less than half his age all at one time? In most action movies, yes, but what the fight scenes lack in believeability is usually made up for in some other aspect of the film. This isn't quite the case when it comes to Taken. While the fight scenes are quite satisfying and enjoyable, the plot of the movie leaves much to be desired. It does have a redeeming quality in its acknowledgement of the all to real issue of human trafficking and the devastating effects it has.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Critic watch: Push
Critic watch: Push
By Joe Dawson
Director: Paul McGuigan
Written By: David Bourla
Produced by: Icon Productions
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou, Maggie Siff, and Scott Michael Campbell
Push is a sci-fi thriller about people with superhuman powers. The government is trying to build an arm by harnessing certain individuals’ special abilities, like the abilities to read minds and “push” things without touching anything. Dakota Fanning is a 13-year old girl who can see into the future and it isn’t pretty; she helps Chris Evan’s male character realize the magnitude of the situation that is about to face them. The movie is filled with suspense and a lot of supernatural action as they try to prevent the inevitable.
The critics had many different opinions about this movie. Steve Rea, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, gave this movie a fairly good review, rating it a 75 out of 100. He seemed to enjoy the fast pace action of the movie and the way it was filmed, with the use of swooping and jumping camera views. Rea used some creative language in the beginning of his review to draw the reader in, writing “when push comes to shove.” His rating was the highest of all the ratings given to this movie.
Other reviews were far less favorable. One review by Claudia Puig, of USA Today, gave this movie a 50 out a 100. Puig didn’t like the fact that this movie was so farfetched. She said it is a “silly movie” and “plenty convoluted.” Many critics agreed more with Puig; the average rating of this movie was 36 out of 100. Glenn Whipp gave a rating that was the closest to this average with a 38. He slammed the movie, calling it “painful.” He criticizes the whole plot of the story because it did not make much sense to him. Also, he didn’t like Dakota Fanning’s role saying she looked like a “bratz girl,” and that when acting drunk she failed miserably. But this was not the worst of all; the Miami Herald gave this movie a 25 and the Austin chronicle gave it an 11. Overall, the majority of the critics disliked this film because of its lack of logic and absurdly unrealistic plot.
By Joe Dawson
Director: Paul McGuigan
Written By: David Bourla
Produced by: Icon Productions
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou, Maggie Siff, and Scott Michael Campbell
Push is a sci-fi thriller about people with superhuman powers. The government is trying to build an arm by harnessing certain individuals’ special abilities, like the abilities to read minds and “push” things without touching anything. Dakota Fanning is a 13-year old girl who can see into the future and it isn’t pretty; she helps Chris Evan’s male character realize the magnitude of the situation that is about to face them. The movie is filled with suspense and a lot of supernatural action as they try to prevent the inevitable.
The critics had many different opinions about this movie. Steve Rea, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, gave this movie a fairly good review, rating it a 75 out of 100. He seemed to enjoy the fast pace action of the movie and the way it was filmed, with the use of swooping and jumping camera views. Rea used some creative language in the beginning of his review to draw the reader in, writing “when push comes to shove.” His rating was the highest of all the ratings given to this movie.
Other reviews were far less favorable. One review by Claudia Puig, of USA Today, gave this movie a 50 out a 100. Puig didn’t like the fact that this movie was so farfetched. She said it is a “silly movie” and “plenty convoluted.” Many critics agreed more with Puig; the average rating of this movie was 36 out of 100. Glenn Whipp gave a rating that was the closest to this average with a 38. He slammed the movie, calling it “painful.” He criticizes the whole plot of the story because it did not make much sense to him. Also, he didn’t like Dakota Fanning’s role saying she looked like a “bratz girl,” and that when acting drunk she failed miserably. But this was not the worst of all; the Miami Herald gave this movie a 25 and the Austin chronicle gave it an 11. Overall, the majority of the critics disliked this film because of its lack of logic and absurdly unrealistic plot.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Nothing New about New in Town
Though the general consensus is that, with the United States in the situation it’s in, movies like New in Town are simply a distraction from what is going on in reality, another consensus can be made that the movie, directed by Jonas Elmer (a Danish filmmaker who’s debut in American cinema is New in Town) was not impressive by any stretch.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave the movie a fairly solid, if sympathetic, review, stating it was “a gentle, traditional (like, from the last century) romantic comedy” and that she desperately wanted to believe in it like she wants to believe in “American 2.0 being a place where a Suit might help factory workers survive hard times.” But this was the most positive of the reviews.
Ty Burr, of The Boston Globe declares New in Town to be a predictable movie that viewers have undoubtedly seen before in movies like Sweet Home Alabama and others. Burr does, however, give readers a glimmer of hope by saying that Renee Zellewegger, the star of New in Town “gets to uncork a gift for minor slapstick.” Burr does continue on to praise the supporting cast such as a heavily bearded J.K. Simmons, but still comes to the conclusion that New in Town is “groaningly predictable”.
Another commonality among the critiques was the praise of the supporting cast in J.K. Simmons and Siobhan Fallon. Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer notes this as the high point in the film, along with the theme of downsizing being something that Americans today can relate to. Rickey heavily criticizes the editing of New in Town claiming that it was so choppy it “seemed to have been edited with a pickax”. Rickey dislikes director Elmer’s style, but did mention that it was his first American film. Rickey also mentions the predictability of New in Town.
Called an “aggressively heartwarming romantic comedy” by Stephanie Zacharek of Salmon.com, New in Town is again chastised for being too predictable and stereotypical. Not only does Zacharek rebuke the film for predictability but she completely rips apart the first scene, in which Siobhan Fallon’s character is scrapbooking, begging the film industry never to use scrapbooking as a dramatic device again. She also accuses New in Town of “wielding folkiness like a club” implying that the movie will beat viewers with what should be obvious, the city girl can be swayed by a small town.
Perhaps the most brutally blunt of the reviews was by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, who practically laughs at the attempt this movie makes of being the chick flick competition for the Super Bowl. Travers mentions that Harry Connick, Jr. who plays Zellewegger’s eventual love interest, played a similar role in 2006’s The Pajama Game, alluding once again to the predictability of the film and the feeling that perhaps this has been done before.
New in Town may have been a Danish director’s attempt at utilizing the American economic situation to pull heartstrings, but he does not do it in an original manner. Clearly, according to these critics, Americans may be financially hurting but they will not take for granted what a film is supposed to do, and that is to entertain. A film which has a plot that has already been performed so many times in so many different settings will not will over critics, regardless of the parallelism between the economic situation in the movie and the country.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave the movie a fairly solid, if sympathetic, review, stating it was “a gentle, traditional (like, from the last century) romantic comedy” and that she desperately wanted to believe in it like she wants to believe in “American 2.0 being a place where a Suit might help factory workers survive hard times.” But this was the most positive of the reviews.
Ty Burr, of The Boston Globe declares New in Town to be a predictable movie that viewers have undoubtedly seen before in movies like Sweet Home Alabama and others. Burr does, however, give readers a glimmer of hope by saying that Renee Zellewegger, the star of New in Town “gets to uncork a gift for minor slapstick.” Burr does continue on to praise the supporting cast such as a heavily bearded J.K. Simmons, but still comes to the conclusion that New in Town is “groaningly predictable”.
Another commonality among the critiques was the praise of the supporting cast in J.K. Simmons and Siobhan Fallon. Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer notes this as the high point in the film, along with the theme of downsizing being something that Americans today can relate to. Rickey heavily criticizes the editing of New in Town claiming that it was so choppy it “seemed to have been edited with a pickax”. Rickey dislikes director Elmer’s style, but did mention that it was his first American film. Rickey also mentions the predictability of New in Town.
Called an “aggressively heartwarming romantic comedy” by Stephanie Zacharek of Salmon.com, New in Town is again chastised for being too predictable and stereotypical. Not only does Zacharek rebuke the film for predictability but she completely rips apart the first scene, in which Siobhan Fallon’s character is scrapbooking, begging the film industry never to use scrapbooking as a dramatic device again. She also accuses New in Town of “wielding folkiness like a club” implying that the movie will beat viewers with what should be obvious, the city girl can be swayed by a small town.
Perhaps the most brutally blunt of the reviews was by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, who practically laughs at the attempt this movie makes of being the chick flick competition for the Super Bowl. Travers mentions that Harry Connick, Jr. who plays Zellewegger’s eventual love interest, played a similar role in 2006’s The Pajama Game, alluding once again to the predictability of the film and the feeling that perhaps this has been done before.
New in Town may have been a Danish director’s attempt at utilizing the American economic situation to pull heartstrings, but he does not do it in an original manner. Clearly, according to these critics, Americans may be financially hurting but they will not take for granted what a film is supposed to do, and that is to entertain. A film which has a plot that has already been performed so many times in so many different settings will not will over critics, regardless of the parallelism between the economic situation in the movie and the country.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Critic Watch: The Uninvited
The Uninvited is a remake of a Korean horror film named A Tale of Two Sisters. This movie was directed by Charles and Thomas Guard and stars Emily Browning, Elizabeth Banks, and David Strathaim. Anna, played by Emily Browning, has been in a psychiatric hospital since her mother was killed and her doctor believes she is ready to go home. When she arrives home she finds the nurse who used to take care of her terminally-ill mother is dating her father. Anna and her sister Alex believe the nurse had killed her mother. This film received an overall rating of 43, so it was not heavily favored by critics. The movie did have some very good ratings, but these were outweighed by negative reviews.
Glenn Whipp of the Los Angeles Times gave the movie a 30 out of a 100. He says the movie has a weak story development and really is just filled with the normal cliches of horror films. The twist at the end of the movie seems more like a gimmick than anything else because the filmmakers did not make enough build up. Whipp believes that the Guard brothers' major flaw was not having more focus on the sisters' relationship, which was central to the theme in A Tale of Two Sisters.
Elizabeth Weitzmann of the New York Daily News was also not especially impressed with this film, giving it a 40 out of 100. This is just like every other horror flick; filled with cliches and has the elements of so many other easily-forgotten horror films. This is a "classic been-there, done-that scenario: evil stepmother, clueless father, imperiled teen." The Guard brothers' only follow the basic story-line from the original film and then just throws in some cheap scares and lots of cliches. The only positive thing said about this movie was a complement on Browning's good performance. Ultimately the filmmakers should have stuck more to the original story-line and plot.
The writer for the New York Times, A. O. Scott did not give it a much better rating than the previous two critics. He gave the film a 50 and had a few positive things to say about the movie. Again this critic felt it had too many cheap scares and horror-film cliches. It did have good camera work combined with sound FX that added a scary element to the fright scenes, but camera angles and sound FX don't make a movie. The movie was not really very frightening and the twist at the end was not very effective. It did not have much in common with the movie it was apparently a remake of.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer felt the movie deserved a 63, which is not too bad for this film. The positives of the film include the great FX and camera work as well as the acting of Emily Browning. Beyond that the movie was extremely dull and did not do much to keep the attention of the critic.
Roger Ebert, a very well-known movie critic, writes for the Chicago Sun-Times and had a much different opinion of this movie than most critics. The cinematography was found to have the classy horror-movie look and did an excellent job of keeping the audience on the edge of their seat. The plot was very good and had an unexpected twist at the end. The casting for the movie was excellent and pretty much seals the deal for this horror film.
This film received good and bad ratings just like any other film, but almost every critic felt that it was an easily-forgotten horror flick and did not really have anything special to add to the screen. More than anything, when being compared to the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters, it really had a great deal to live up to and it honestly just showed that Hollywood needs to stop trying to remake Korean horror films. They create great scary movies and Hollywood steals their ideas and just totally butchers them. This film seems like it has a decent story line and has a good cast, but it isn't something that would really capture an audience's attention.
Critic Review of Frost/Nixon (Jorge)
Well known critic Roger Ebert, introduces his review of Frost/Nixon with an amusing comparison of the turmoil, and drama caused by Nixon to the, “the occupant of the office from 2001 to 2009,” stating about Nixon, “how much more intelligent, thoughtful and well presidential he now seems.” Lauding Frost/Nixon with four stars out of four and handing them a congratulatory 100 rating on Metacritic, Ebert critically praises the Broadway play turned film as an intense film which delves deep into the mind of a man’s vulnerabilities, shortcomings and desires. From his review, it is also clear that Ebert enjoyed the storyline because he raves about the simplicity describing just enough cleverly enough to give you a good sense of the type of movie and style in which it is filmed.
The second film critic, Rene Rodriguez from the Miami Herald, clearly disliked the film. Handing Frost/Nixon two stars and a 50 on Metacritic, he unhappily writes that, while he understands, although he does not elaborate this to the reader, why the original Broadway play was so successful and highly lauded it was unnecessary to create a movie adaptation of the film. The tone of this review starkly contrasts, that of Roger Ebert who gives us lots of insight into his opinions about the storyline, actors and direction, whereas this reviewer somewhat brushes through his opinions stating that although he clearly did not like the movie because it fails to point out anything different or provide illumination into the mind of a disgraced president and his presidency. From this reviewers perspective showing the human side to this character of national disgrace seems absolutely atrocious and despicable.
Michael Phillips from the Chicago Tribune gave Frost/Nixon three stars or a 75 on Metacritic. It is interesting to note that from the very beginning Phillips starts off by pointing out that, the movie shows a very humanistic side to a man who was once thrown out of the White House for doing what he pleased, and that it is unlikely a director will ever give a man like Nixon that kind of sympathetic treatment. Phillips differs from the Ebert and Rodriguez because he really tries to review the movie based on the skill of the actor and directors in the who star in the movie. Although he does touch on the storyline, his analysis of plot is not nearly as insightful as Ebert. Overall, it seems that Phillips enjoyed the film and seems to find small faults most of which are grounded in his opinion of the cinematic style and theatrical acting.
It is always interesting to see, how different one reviewer, can be from the next. Manohla Dargis from the New York Times gave the movie Frost/Nixon a 70 on Metacritic, stating that the movie adaptation by Ron Howard was more fictional than reality. In fact, although he praises the films close-up shots, actors who convincingly imitated the sneaky linguistic maneuvering practiced by Nixon and the “amusing experience” which is gained by seeing a film in which a fallen president is redeemed by the confessions he admits. Nevertheless, Dargis shares his unhappiness with the sympathetic light in which Nixon was filmed. Additionally, although he believed the acting was satisfactory for a movie which simply involved two, “talking heads.” The reality of it was that a different director or more skilled actors could have brought out sharper portrayals of these real life characters.
Critic Watch: No Superpower Superhero
The critic, Richard Corliss, in the Time Entrainment rates the film 100. She says that the film is a fast-food movie. The film gives better class of criminal, such as the white knight, she said “the white knight determined to steal malefactors through the law with the same gusto that batman applies using his gadgets and charisma.” The Mob is just a few criminal that the police can handle, but they deal with the Joker. The joker is simply one of the most twisted and mesmerizing creeps in the movie history.
New York Daily critic, Joe Neumaier, gives the film 100 too. He gives the film of its how reality the movie is. The place where the film is made has a “grinding, spare score, and minimum of computer effects ground,” which make the movie more reality. He said the Dark Knight is different than other superhero film such as: iron man, Spider-Man2, X2: X-man. Dark Knight will be the “unforgiven” superhero movie among all those movies. He commented the “Batman Begin” has lacked action scenes which is “too tightly and edited choppily”, but the Dark Knight is epic.
Newsweek, David Ansen, didn’t give the film a perfect 100 but 70 because of his view of the film isn’t fun enough. The film has lack of sense of humor. The second half of the movie has unvarying intensity and sometime confusing action sequences.
The New Yorker critic, David Denby, gives it a half of the perfect. For his view of “The Dark Knight”, it doesn’t has a satisfying climax, that it is always in a frenzy and goes on forever. Characters in the film just show, and then disappear without a reason. And some episodes are expensively meaningless. More worst is the combat scenes are view too close up that he sees a lot of flailing movement and bodies hitting the floor.
The Christian Science Monitor Critic’s, Peter Rainer, review of the “The Dark Knight” mostly on the character within the film. His idea of the movie is a good superhero movie of giving it a 91 is because both the superhero and his enemy have no super power, unlike the other superhero movie with all the fantasy superpower within the characters. The reason he is not giving the movie 100 is because his idea that the batman’s goodness is not fully interest him.
The Overall of the reviews of “The Dark Knight” is a good one. Those critics give them less score is just because of some little problems such as not humor enough, but batman is should be involved in too much humor because of it’s more of an action types of movie. Most of the good reviews are considering the reality of the movie like without the superpower.
New York Daily critic, Joe Neumaier, gives the film 100 too. He gives the film of its how reality the movie is. The place where the film is made has a “grinding, spare score, and minimum of computer effects ground,” which make the movie more reality. He said the Dark Knight is different than other superhero film such as: iron man, Spider-Man2, X2: X-man. Dark Knight will be the “unforgiven” superhero movie among all those movies. He commented the “Batman Begin” has lacked action scenes which is “too tightly and edited choppily”, but the Dark Knight is epic.
Newsweek, David Ansen, didn’t give the film a perfect 100 but 70 because of his view of the film isn’t fun enough. The film has lack of sense of humor. The second half of the movie has unvarying intensity and sometime confusing action sequences.
The New Yorker critic, David Denby, gives it a half of the perfect. For his view of “The Dark Knight”, it doesn’t has a satisfying climax, that it is always in a frenzy and goes on forever. Characters in the film just show, and then disappear without a reason. And some episodes are expensively meaningless. More worst is the combat scenes are view too close up that he sees a lot of flailing movement and bodies hitting the floor.
The Christian Science Monitor Critic’s, Peter Rainer, review of the “The Dark Knight” mostly on the character within the film. His idea of the movie is a good superhero movie of giving it a 91 is because both the superhero and his enemy have no super power, unlike the other superhero movie with all the fantasy superpower within the characters. The reason he is not giving the movie 100 is because his idea that the batman’s goodness is not fully interest him.
The Overall of the reviews of “The Dark Knight” is a good one. Those critics give them less score is just because of some little problems such as not humor enough, but batman is should be involved in too much humor because of it’s more of an action types of movie. Most of the good reviews are considering the reality of the movie like without the superpower.
Critic Watch: Taken
Taken is a 2008 action film directed by Pierre Morel featuring Liam Neeson, Famke Janssen, and Maggie Grace. It received an overall rating of fifty percent out of one hundred, having many mixed reviews. Josh Rosenblatt from the Austin Chronicle gave it a seventy eight percent, its second highest rating on Metacritc. He discusses why the movie is a hit, saying that it has been a while since Americans have seen a movie where the mass amount of violence is justified. Bryan (Neeson) is on a mission to save his daughter from sex traffickers after she goes on a trip to Europe to see U2. The sex traffickers capture her and Bryan runs around killing people to save her. Rosenblatt argues that although the movie is sometimes unnecessarily violent, it is widely entertaining.
Travis Nichols of the seattlepi thinks that “Taken has gone overboard with the tough dad routine” giving the film a sixty seven percent rating. Nichols says that Bryan, trying to save his daughter ends up being over intense as a hero. Bryan will kill, torture, and get revenge any way he can to save his daughter from the Albanian drug traffickers. He follows her path, finding clues that can solve the mystery of where she is. Although there are some great fighting scenes, it is a bit disturbing the extent Bryan will go through to save his daughter.
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-times gives Taken a sixty three percent rating. He claims the movie to be “preposterous” yet “very well made.” Neeson brings a lot to his fatherly character, truly loving his daughter and having a strong drive to find her and save her from the Albanian sex traffickers. It is unrealistic and Bryan is extremely intelligent as an ex CIA agent who uses his connections to find his daughter. The movie is entertaining yet unrealistic to a point where one isn’t sure why certain things are shown in the movie. Ebert makes a good point when he wonders if rich white men who smoke cigars and meet at underground clubs paying for illegally stolen women truly does exist. All in all, the movie is a thriller with a “preposterous” storyline.
Anthony Lane, a reviewer for the New Yorker, gave the movie a forty percent rating and wondered whether Neeson redeemed the film with his presence or did he “degrade himself when he took a role in trash?” Lane claims the movie to be pretty forgettable with Neeson as the starring hunk, attracting viewers by his presence. Other than Neeson, Lane finds the movie to be trash and nothing special.
The worst review Taken received comes from Kyle Smith of the New York Post at twelve percent. He starts out by saying the film is a “thriller so lacking in ambition they should have called it "Paycheck."” Bryan is so devoted to his daughter that he leaves in the middle of missions to go to her birthday parties, trying to be a part of her life because she lives with his ex wife. Smith says that the movie was a ball of confusion between mystery and scenes of violence. They were not done well because no plot with mystery was fully developed while some scenes with gunfights and explosions were “choppy” and ended abruptly to go back and find the mystery plot. Smith thinks Neeson’s accent is as confusing as his acting, taking away even more from the movie. According to Smith, Taken seems to be a waste of time.
Travis Nichols of the seattlepi thinks that “Taken has gone overboard with the tough dad routine” giving the film a sixty seven percent rating. Nichols says that Bryan, trying to save his daughter ends up being over intense as a hero. Bryan will kill, torture, and get revenge any way he can to save his daughter from the Albanian drug traffickers. He follows her path, finding clues that can solve the mystery of where she is. Although there are some great fighting scenes, it is a bit disturbing the extent Bryan will go through to save his daughter.
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-times gives Taken a sixty three percent rating. He claims the movie to be “preposterous” yet “very well made.” Neeson brings a lot to his fatherly character, truly loving his daughter and having a strong drive to find her and save her from the Albanian sex traffickers. It is unrealistic and Bryan is extremely intelligent as an ex CIA agent who uses his connections to find his daughter. The movie is entertaining yet unrealistic to a point where one isn’t sure why certain things are shown in the movie. Ebert makes a good point when he wonders if rich white men who smoke cigars and meet at underground clubs paying for illegally stolen women truly does exist. All in all, the movie is a thriller with a “preposterous” storyline.
Anthony Lane, a reviewer for the New Yorker, gave the movie a forty percent rating and wondered whether Neeson redeemed the film with his presence or did he “degrade himself when he took a role in trash?” Lane claims the movie to be pretty forgettable with Neeson as the starring hunk, attracting viewers by his presence. Other than Neeson, Lane finds the movie to be trash and nothing special.
The worst review Taken received comes from Kyle Smith of the New York Post at twelve percent. He starts out by saying the film is a “thriller so lacking in ambition they should have called it "Paycheck."” Bryan is so devoted to his daughter that he leaves in the middle of missions to go to her birthday parties, trying to be a part of her life because she lives with his ex wife. Smith says that the movie was a ball of confusion between mystery and scenes of violence. They were not done well because no plot with mystery was fully developed while some scenes with gunfights and explosions were “choppy” and ended abruptly to go back and find the mystery plot. Smith thinks Neeson’s accent is as confusing as his acting, taking away even more from the movie. According to Smith, Taken seems to be a waste of time.
Critic Watch: Taken
Rene Rodriguez of the Miami Herald gave this film 75 out of 100. Rene says if you are planning on going on a vacation in Europe, keep your parents far away from this film for it is their worst nightmare. This film is all formula says Rene but, it will keeps your interested from start to finish. He talks about how Neeson’s acting in this movie is really good due to the fact that he is as good of a “dramatic actor as he is a kick-butt action hero.”
In another positive review, Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film 75 out of 100. He found Liam Neeson’s acting to be surprisingly good and also liked the plot of the story. Steven says that Taken is a good because of the “Gaelic gravitas of its star” and because of the slam-bang chase scenes. He also says that there is a “xenophobic element” to Taken’s basis. This is that travel is not safe for Americans and foreigners are sinister by nature.
Derek Elley of Variety gave this film a run of the mill 60 out of 100. Derek talks about how easy it is for Neeson to turn into a “one man mean machine” without taking his shirt off. He says that Taken is much like the style of other “non-redemptive Euro shoot-’em-up films. Derek goes on saying that Taken, a pedal to the metal action film, will be liked by target audiences.
Tim Grierson of the LA Weekly gave this film 50 out of 100. He finds the movie Taken to be a “dumped-in-January film” that’s better than it actually needed to be. Grierson gives a brief overview of the movie, talking about how Bryan (Liam Neeson) is a retired operative that has to tracking down human traffickers to save his daughter. He says that through all of the chasing and fighting, Taken is still just a standard “not-my-child!” revenge story. Grierson points out that the main character brings a certain dignity to all of the “grubby nastiness” and says that Taken doesn’t need it. It needs more of “tongue-in-cheek machismo” that mocks the story’s “inanities.” On a final note, he says, “what, was Jason Statham busy?”
Manohla Dargis of The New York Times wrote one of the worst reviews for Taken, 30 out of 100. Dargis starts of by saying that the plot is dubious and that Taken starts out slow and nearly “stalls out.” He says that Mr. Besson, writer of Taken, is very predictable when it comes to movies that carry his brand. These movies tend to be untold action flicks and that is what category Taken is in.
In another positive review, Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film 75 out of 100. He found Liam Neeson’s acting to be surprisingly good and also liked the plot of the story. Steven says that Taken is a good because of the “Gaelic gravitas of its star” and because of the slam-bang chase scenes. He also says that there is a “xenophobic element” to Taken’s basis. This is that travel is not safe for Americans and foreigners are sinister by nature.
Derek Elley of Variety gave this film a run of the mill 60 out of 100. Derek talks about how easy it is for Neeson to turn into a “one man mean machine” without taking his shirt off. He says that Taken is much like the style of other “non-redemptive Euro shoot-’em-up films. Derek goes on saying that Taken, a pedal to the metal action film, will be liked by target audiences.
Tim Grierson of the LA Weekly gave this film 50 out of 100. He finds the movie Taken to be a “dumped-in-January film” that’s better than it actually needed to be. Grierson gives a brief overview of the movie, talking about how Bryan (Liam Neeson) is a retired operative that has to tracking down human traffickers to save his daughter. He says that through all of the chasing and fighting, Taken is still just a standard “not-my-child!” revenge story. Grierson points out that the main character brings a certain dignity to all of the “grubby nastiness” and says that Taken doesn’t need it. It needs more of “tongue-in-cheek machismo” that mocks the story’s “inanities.” On a final note, he says, “what, was Jason Statham busy?”
Manohla Dargis of The New York Times wrote one of the worst reviews for Taken, 30 out of 100. Dargis starts of by saying that the plot is dubious and that Taken starts out slow and nearly “stalls out.” He says that Mr. Besson, writer of Taken, is very predictable when it comes to movies that carry his brand. These movies tend to be untold action flicks and that is what category Taken is in.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Meta Critic Watch: "Must Read After My Death"
“Must Read After My Death” is the home video and cassette-tape documentary of the marriage bathed in battery acid and hell fire. Writer, Director, and grandson of the deceased couple, Morgan Dews creates a documentary that not only paints, but allows the viewer to watch dry the family portrait of despondency, anger, and frustration. Overall, the film garnered an average rating of 73 out of 100, with ratings fluxing from 60 to 88.
The film received its highest rating of 88 from Roger Ebert of the Sun Times. Ebert found the film to be morbidly compelling in its brutal, naked honesty of “a marriage from hell.” His extending questions and comments are interspersed throughout the plot summary. He does not offer any suggestions on what he thought could have been done better, or what was done exceptionally well, but does say that he found it horrifying and fascinating enough to earn an 88. A well done image of what to expect from the film is presented, but as he says “There are some things you will see here that will lead you to some conclusions. I will leave you to them.”
Elizabeth Weitzman of Daily News found the film worthy of a solid four star, or 80 rating. Her only description of the film as a whole is that it is “intensely compelling” dealing with its themes of sexism, neuroticism, and conformism. There really is not any lavish praised for the film, nor any burning criticisms of what it fails to do. It would seem that she found the film to be effective in its methods, but found nothing superb to write home about.
Finally- a full review! The A.V.Club’s Noel Murray opens by discussing America’s clean-cut and happy-go-lucky perception of the post-WWII culture, and how this movie shatters all of those perceptions with angst and emotional nudity that make “Revolutionary Road” into a child‘s story. She admits that the “relentless negativity can become overwhelming at times, but it’s undeniably mesmerizing.” Her focus on the eerie music over the haunting home video and lack of voice-overs helps evoke the tone and purpose behind film: to honor his grandmother’s last wish and tell the story of his family’s disgruntled past of two generations ago. Apparently the vibe was a bit too dark for Murray as she deemed it worthy a mediocre 75.
Although The Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morgenstern tagged the film at 70, his review gave the impression that his interest in the film what much higher. He described it as “a frightening-- and eerily edifying-- documentary” where “horror and social values contend for equal honors.” While he also admits that the film has the potential to be overly dark, dreary, and unwatchable, he finds that Dews’ “historian skills and artist’s eye” avoid such a film with glimpses of potential relative to what the family aspired to be.
Ella Taylor of The Village Voice gave the film its lowest rating of all critics with a rating of 60. The reasons why are not because she particularly disliked the film; as she put it, “this devastating documentary portrait of domestic misery in early-1960s suburban America” reveals the ills of the human psyches that resided in their home. She praises Dews for being able to tacitly shift the balance of domestic power to his underappreciated, disrespected, and emotionally raw grandmother to shed light on the life lived but unacknowledged in America.
Overall, critics enjoyed the effectiveness of Dews’ editing and choice of music and lack of voice-overs, but still found the film just too depressing. There was no final sense of justice or resolution for how poorly his grandfather treated his grandmother and family, which I think left neither a dry nor wet, but rather pasty taste in critics and viewers’ mouths.
The film received its highest rating of 88 from Roger Ebert of the Sun Times. Ebert found the film to be morbidly compelling in its brutal, naked honesty of “a marriage from hell.” His extending questions and comments are interspersed throughout the plot summary. He does not offer any suggestions on what he thought could have been done better, or what was done exceptionally well, but does say that he found it horrifying and fascinating enough to earn an 88. A well done image of what to expect from the film is presented, but as he says “There are some things you will see here that will lead you to some conclusions. I will leave you to them.”
Elizabeth Weitzman of Daily News found the film worthy of a solid four star, or 80 rating. Her only description of the film as a whole is that it is “intensely compelling” dealing with its themes of sexism, neuroticism, and conformism. There really is not any lavish praised for the film, nor any burning criticisms of what it fails to do. It would seem that she found the film to be effective in its methods, but found nothing superb to write home about.
Finally- a full review! The A.V.Club’s Noel Murray opens by discussing America’s clean-cut and happy-go-lucky perception of the post-WWII culture, and how this movie shatters all of those perceptions with angst and emotional nudity that make “Revolutionary Road” into a child‘s story. She admits that the “relentless negativity can become overwhelming at times, but it’s undeniably mesmerizing.” Her focus on the eerie music over the haunting home video and lack of voice-overs helps evoke the tone and purpose behind film: to honor his grandmother’s last wish and tell the story of his family’s disgruntled past of two generations ago. Apparently the vibe was a bit too dark for Murray as she deemed it worthy a mediocre 75.
Although The Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morgenstern tagged the film at 70, his review gave the impression that his interest in the film what much higher. He described it as “a frightening-- and eerily edifying-- documentary” where “horror and social values contend for equal honors.” While he also admits that the film has the potential to be overly dark, dreary, and unwatchable, he finds that Dews’ “historian skills and artist’s eye” avoid such a film with glimpses of potential relative to what the family aspired to be.
Ella Taylor of The Village Voice gave the film its lowest rating of all critics with a rating of 60. The reasons why are not because she particularly disliked the film; as she put it, “this devastating documentary portrait of domestic misery in early-1960s suburban America” reveals the ills of the human psyches that resided in their home. She praises Dews for being able to tacitly shift the balance of domestic power to his underappreciated, disrespected, and emotionally raw grandmother to shed light on the life lived but unacknowledged in America.
Overall, critics enjoyed the effectiveness of Dews’ editing and choice of music and lack of voice-overs, but still found the film just too depressing. There was no final sense of justice or resolution for how poorly his grandfather treated his grandmother and family, which I think left neither a dry nor wet, but rather pasty taste in critics and viewers’ mouths.
MegaCritic Watch: The International
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times gave the film its highest rating on Megacritic.com of 75 out of 100, or 3 out of 4 stars. He highlights how this film touches on most people’s frustration or even anger over the banks and Wall Street during this financial downturn. This bank, out of Luxemburg, uses its funds to back African rebels, nuclear armament, and both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus comes the Interpol agent played by Clive Owen to fight this evil bank. While Owen has the necessary macho beard, as Ebert says, he plays this hero as an almost human, which is refreshing. Watts plays a lawyer, and the blonde, yet Ebert says that she "plays up her character’s legal smarts and plays down the inevitable possibility that the two of them will fall in love". Ebert says it’s a smart story with some really great shots that in which "Hitchcock would have envied".
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly also mentions how this film may connect to the public during this financially trying time. She gave the film 67 out of 100. She says that Owen’s acting is just a replaying of the "Children of Men school of despair". She calls Watts’ acting "low-energy", however those playing the bad guys, including Mueller-Stahl, dependably good. In the end, New York’s Guggenheim Museum and Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar may end up being the real stars, because of the action shots filmed there.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave the film 63 out of 100. He also mentions how this film should resonate with audiences because of its subject matter, but falls short due to its start and stop action. He makes a reference to Tykwer’s previous film, Run Lola Run, and how suspenseful it was and how it really marked Tykwers’ entry into the cinema world. Yet, this film fell short due to so many shots of characters sending a text message, checking a voicemail, or watching a banker transfer millions of dollars on his computer. He mentions the exciting shot-outs in museums, and the extremely modern-looking architecture, but that they can’t carry the movie.
A.O. Scott of the New York Times gave the film 40 out of 100. Scott spent most of his review listing off other directors that would have done a better job at various scenes in the film. The main draw backs to this film were the director’s style and the "howlingly bad dialogue". The film had so much promise, such a chance to make a statement about modern financial problems, but it had been squandered by just watching Owen and Watts jet-setting around Europe and New York. He finishes with "the International is rated R…it has some swearing and a narrative that may undermine the faith of children in the global financial system".
Joe Morganstern of the Wall Street Journal gave the film 20 out of 100. Morganstern said the film went "through the motions of a spy film". There were plenty of motion shots, but the plot was "unfathomable". He says the characters are unpleasant and the assassinations leave the audience cold. Owen was angry the entire time and Watts plays the attorney role "doggedly". The cinematography was a highlight, yet Morganstern says that Tykwer’s previous films was the only reason he going about this "hollow new charade".
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly also mentions how this film may connect to the public during this financially trying time. She gave the film 67 out of 100. She says that Owen’s acting is just a replaying of the "Children of Men school of despair". She calls Watts’ acting "low-energy", however those playing the bad guys, including Mueller-Stahl, dependably good. In the end, New York’s Guggenheim Museum and Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar may end up being the real stars, because of the action shots filmed there.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave the film 63 out of 100. He also mentions how this film should resonate with audiences because of its subject matter, but falls short due to its start and stop action. He makes a reference to Tykwer’s previous film, Run Lola Run, and how suspenseful it was and how it really marked Tykwers’ entry into the cinema world. Yet, this film fell short due to so many shots of characters sending a text message, checking a voicemail, or watching a banker transfer millions of dollars on his computer. He mentions the exciting shot-outs in museums, and the extremely modern-looking architecture, but that they can’t carry the movie.
A.O. Scott of the New York Times gave the film 40 out of 100. Scott spent most of his review listing off other directors that would have done a better job at various scenes in the film. The main draw backs to this film were the director’s style and the "howlingly bad dialogue". The film had so much promise, such a chance to make a statement about modern financial problems, but it had been squandered by just watching Owen and Watts jet-setting around Europe and New York. He finishes with "the International is rated R…it has some swearing and a narrative that may undermine the faith of children in the global financial system".
Joe Morganstern of the Wall Street Journal gave the film 20 out of 100. Morganstern said the film went "through the motions of a spy film". There were plenty of motion shots, but the plot was "unfathomable". He says the characters are unpleasant and the assassinations leave the audience cold. Owen was angry the entire time and Watts plays the attorney role "doggedly". The cinematography was a highlight, yet Morganstern says that Tykwer’s previous films was the only reason he going about this "hollow new charade".
MetaCritic Watch: Quarantine
The Globe and Mail
Liam Lacey's critique of Quarantine differs from Ridley's. It is longer and focuses more on the plot of the story and specific instances of genius cinematography. Although the movie is predictable, (it feels as if watching a conveyor belt, as we wait for a character to bite or be bitten), Lacey compliments the lack of computer generated monsters and the movie's ability to be very scary. It uses unique camera angles, the idea of confinement and isolation, and consistent logic, rather than a supernatural explanation to terrify the audience. Lacey rates the movie 63/100.
LA Times
LA Times collumnist, Michael Ordona, states in the title of his article that "you'll want out". He starts with a small synopsis of the plot. The culprit disease for turning everyone into zombies "when initially identified, might elicit laughter". The movie's hand-held style of cinemetography does not create as nauseating of a feeling as Blair Witch or Cloverfield, but it hardly compares in "their clausterphobic, paranoid tunnel vision". The movie takes on a videogame-like feel with its gore and suspense. Ordona bashes the marketing department for the movie for giving away the end of the movie in the ads. It ruins Quarantine's chance of creating any suprises.
Austin Chronicle
Marc Savlov gives the film 40/100. He compares it to 28 Days Later and Night of the Living Dead. The plot seems to be a mirroring of the latter just "cheerlessly less fun". He states how the movie makes up with gore what it lacks in creativity.
Empire
Simon Cook opens his article joking about the overflux of Hollywood remakes. Quarantine is shot-for-shot identical to its predecessor film. He goes through analyzing the parallels and makes aware the lack of ingenuity in the film. The scariness of the film only exists because of the "jump out at you" factor. He gives the film a 50/100 and says that if you've seen the original Spanish version of the film, don't bother with Quarantine because it will leave you very dissapointed.
Liam Lacey's critique of Quarantine differs from Ridley's. It is longer and focuses more on the plot of the story and specific instances of genius cinematography. Although the movie is predictable, (it feels as if watching a conveyor belt, as we wait for a character to bite or be bitten), Lacey compliments the lack of computer generated monsters and the movie's ability to be very scary. It uses unique camera angles, the idea of confinement and isolation, and consistent logic, rather than a supernatural explanation to terrify the audience. Lacey rates the movie 63/100.
LA Times
LA Times collumnist, Michael Ordona, states in the title of his article that "you'll want out". He starts with a small synopsis of the plot. The culprit disease for turning everyone into zombies "when initially identified, might elicit laughter". The movie's hand-held style of cinemetography does not create as nauseating of a feeling as Blair Witch or Cloverfield, but it hardly compares in "their clausterphobic, paranoid tunnel vision". The movie takes on a videogame-like feel with its gore and suspense. Ordona bashes the marketing department for the movie for giving away the end of the movie in the ads. It ruins Quarantine's chance of creating any suprises.
Austin Chronicle
Marc Savlov gives the film 40/100. He compares it to 28 Days Later and Night of the Living Dead. The plot seems to be a mirroring of the latter just "cheerlessly less fun". He states how the movie makes up with gore what it lacks in creativity.
Empire
Simon Cook opens his article joking about the overflux of Hollywood remakes. Quarantine is shot-for-shot identical to its predecessor film. He goes through analyzing the parallels and makes aware the lack of ingenuity in the film. The scariness of the film only exists because of the "jump out at you" factor. He gives the film a 50/100 and says that if you've seen the original Spanish version of the film, don't bother with Quarantine because it will leave you very dissapointed.
MetaCritic Watch: Quarantine
La Weekly
Jim Ridley opens up his review of Quarantine with a statement about how oversaturated the American film industry is with remakes of overseas horror films. Ridley goes on to say how, "their existence is even more galling when they keep the originals from getting domestic distribution". I felt as though the article was about to absolutely bash Quarantine since it is a shot-for-shot remake of an "excellent Spanish shocker". He goes on to say how it is a shame that the English version will eclipse the Spanish version, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the English version of the movie is "scary as hell". He compares the style of the cinematography to movies like Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead, which he doesn't think to fondly of. "The lack of music, gut wrenching sound design, suggestive lighting, and the unobtrusive editing" create suspense and constant uneasiness. Overall Ridley gives the film a 70/100.
Jim Ridley opens up his review of Quarantine with a statement about how oversaturated the American film industry is with remakes of overseas horror films. Ridley goes on to say how, "their existence is even more galling when they keep the originals from getting domestic distribution". I felt as though the article was about to absolutely bash Quarantine since it is a shot-for-shot remake of an "excellent Spanish shocker". He goes on to say how it is a shame that the English version will eclipse the Spanish version, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the English version of the movie is "scary as hell". He compares the style of the cinematography to movies like Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead, which he doesn't think to fondly of. "The lack of music, gut wrenching sound design, suggestive lighting, and the unobtrusive editing" create suspense and constant uneasiness. Overall Ridley gives the film a 70/100.
Critic Watch: Two Lovers
Released just last week, James Gray's film, Two Lovers, has been welcomed with a large amount of praise. Not every critic, however, holds the film in such high regard. Leonard Kraditor, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is in a severely depressed state after a recent bad turn in his life. While trying to recover, he meets two women, both who seem infatuated by him. With this comes Leonard's, and the movie's, main conflict. Does he choose Michelle, a woman he knows nearly nothing about, or Sandra, the woman his parent's are pushing upon him.
In a review by Owen Gleiberman, who writes for Entertainment Weekly, the movie is greatly praised for its unconventional handling of an all too personal topic. Giving it a high score of 91 out of 100, Gleiberman's main point is that Two Lovers is a movie deserving of its classification as a "70's movie". By a 70's movie he means that the characters are unguarded and freely display their raw emotions. This, he feels is one of the movie's greates qualities.
The most negative review, giving the movie a 38 out of 100, was a review in the New York Post, written by Kyle Smith. Smith thinks the exact opposite about the movie's emotional plot. he finds it sappy, boring, and unimaginitve. He describes the movie as "limping" along, not generating any interest in character or plot.
Elizabeth Weitzman, from the New York Daily News gives a mixed score of 60 out of 100. The main point in her review is the aacting of Joaquin Pheonix. She believes his character is a reflection of real life, saying that he is, "Nothing, in other words, like most characters in movies, and everything like the ones we meet in real life." This realistic portrayal might not be for everyone, she states, but it is definitely the reason behind the film's appeal.
In another positive score of 75 out of 100, Claudia Puig of USA Today raves mainly about the superb cast. While nothing really happens plotwise, the characters andtheir struggles are interesting enough to carry the story. The movie is very sombre overall, but the story is very character driven, which works well thanks to the cast.
Giving the movie an 80 out 100, Ray Bennett from The Hollywood Reporter feels the movie works overall, due to a variety of factors. He says that there are no surprises or big shocks in the movie. Usually the viewer would associate no suprises to a bad movie, but for Two Lovers, it works, and surprisingly well.
In most reviews, critics greatly praise the nearly completely character driven story as touching, real life drama. Despite some negative feedback, the cast and the deeply emotional story is enough to keep viewers' attention.
In a review by Owen Gleiberman, who writes for Entertainment Weekly, the movie is greatly praised for its unconventional handling of an all too personal topic. Giving it a high score of 91 out of 100, Gleiberman's main point is that Two Lovers is a movie deserving of its classification as a "70's movie". By a 70's movie he means that the characters are unguarded and freely display their raw emotions. This, he feels is one of the movie's greates qualities.
The most negative review, giving the movie a 38 out of 100, was a review in the New York Post, written by Kyle Smith. Smith thinks the exact opposite about the movie's emotional plot. he finds it sappy, boring, and unimaginitve. He describes the movie as "limping" along, not generating any interest in character or plot.
Elizabeth Weitzman, from the New York Daily News gives a mixed score of 60 out of 100. The main point in her review is the aacting of Joaquin Pheonix. She believes his character is a reflection of real life, saying that he is, "Nothing, in other words, like most characters in movies, and everything like the ones we meet in real life." This realistic portrayal might not be for everyone, she states, but it is definitely the reason behind the film's appeal.
In another positive score of 75 out of 100, Claudia Puig of USA Today raves mainly about the superb cast. While nothing really happens plotwise, the characters andtheir struggles are interesting enough to carry the story. The movie is very sombre overall, but the story is very character driven, which works well thanks to the cast.
Giving the movie an 80 out 100, Ray Bennett from The Hollywood Reporter feels the movie works overall, due to a variety of factors. He says that there are no surprises or big shocks in the movie. Usually the viewer would associate no suprises to a bad movie, but for Two Lovers, it works, and surprisingly well.
In most reviews, critics greatly praise the nearly completely character driven story as touching, real life drama. Despite some negative feedback, the cast and the deeply emotional story is enough to keep viewers' attention.
Critic Watch: Gran Torino
One of the most well known names in Hollywood, Clint Eastwood stars in his own movie Gran Torino. Eastwood plays the role of a retired Korean War vet who never backs down from any threat. After getting involved in a fight between his new neighbors and a gang, Eastwood is unwillingly pulled towards them. Critics, like Entertainment Weekly and The New York Times, gave the film good reviews. But others, like the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Reader were not as impressed.
Lisa Schwarzbaum, the author of the article in Entertainment Weekly, alludes heavily, in her review, to Clint Eastwood’s previous films. Although it sounds as if this is another typical Clint Eastwood directed film, Schwarzbaum says, “Don’t let the star’s overly familiar squint fool you.” This film contains subject matters that normally are not talked about casually. Schwarzbaum gives the film a 91 out of 100.
Manohla Dargis, a writer for The New York Times, focuses more on the heavier themes. The film is more realistic than most because it deals with the lives of Americans that have to deal with issues “from economic worries to race.” Dargin feels that Eastwood has a firm grasp on what life is like for us many Americans. Feeling that the audience could relate to the characters, Dargis gives it a 90 out of 100.
Elizabeth Weitzman of the New York Daily News writes that despite the poor acting of the supporting characters, Gran Torino is a success because of Clint Eastwood’s experienced acting career. Weitzman calls the performance of the supporting characters “awkward” but because Eastwood puts on his “tough guy” image, it works out in the end. Weitzman isn't too convinced this is one of the greater works of Clint Eastwood. This film is given a 60 out of 100.
However, J.R. Jones, from the Chicago Reader, believes that Clint Eastwood in not the man he once was. Eastwood’s “classic hardass persona” does little to make the film as realistic as possible because of his age. But no matter what type of performance Eastwood could have given, it could not change the fact that the script contains some awkward situations. If the script and acting was better than it woulnd't have gotten a 50 out of 100.
Michael Sragow of the Baltimore Sun is not impressed with the work of Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino. There are some discrepancies in the story line that Sragow pointed out. He says, “to fill the gaps, Eastwood relies on an audience’s attachment to him as an icon - and an audience's fascination in seeing his character turn from aggressive violence to self-sacrifice.” The film is not made for the general public; only for those loyal fans of Eastwood. Sragow gave the film a 38 out of 100. The only way to improve the film would require a change in actors and script.
Most, if not all, of the critics referred to Clint Eastwood’s earlier works in film and focused solely on him. Some believe that Gran Torino is up to par while others believe it is a big disappointment. What it really boils down to is whether or not you like Clint Eastwood.
Lisa Schwarzbaum, the author of the article in Entertainment Weekly, alludes heavily, in her review, to Clint Eastwood’s previous films. Although it sounds as if this is another typical Clint Eastwood directed film, Schwarzbaum says, “Don’t let the star’s overly familiar squint fool you.” This film contains subject matters that normally are not talked about casually. Schwarzbaum gives the film a 91 out of 100.
Manohla Dargis, a writer for The New York Times, focuses more on the heavier themes. The film is more realistic than most because it deals with the lives of Americans that have to deal with issues “from economic worries to race.” Dargin feels that Eastwood has a firm grasp on what life is like for us many Americans. Feeling that the audience could relate to the characters, Dargis gives it a 90 out of 100.
Elizabeth Weitzman of the New York Daily News writes that despite the poor acting of the supporting characters, Gran Torino is a success because of Clint Eastwood’s experienced acting career. Weitzman calls the performance of the supporting characters “awkward” but because Eastwood puts on his “tough guy” image, it works out in the end. Weitzman isn't too convinced this is one of the greater works of Clint Eastwood. This film is given a 60 out of 100.
However, J.R. Jones, from the Chicago Reader, believes that Clint Eastwood in not the man he once was. Eastwood’s “classic hardass persona” does little to make the film as realistic as possible because of his age. But no matter what type of performance Eastwood could have given, it could not change the fact that the script contains some awkward situations. If the script and acting was better than it woulnd't have gotten a 50 out of 100.
Michael Sragow of the Baltimore Sun is not impressed with the work of Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino. There are some discrepancies in the story line that Sragow pointed out. He says, “to fill the gaps, Eastwood relies on an audience’s attachment to him as an icon - and an audience's fascination in seeing his character turn from aggressive violence to self-sacrifice.” The film is not made for the general public; only for those loyal fans of Eastwood. Sragow gave the film a 38 out of 100. The only way to improve the film would require a change in actors and script.
Most, if not all, of the critics referred to Clint Eastwood’s earlier works in film and focused solely on him. Some believe that Gran Torino is up to par while others believe it is a big disappointment. What it really boils down to is whether or not you like Clint Eastwood.
Critic Watch: Defiance
---Recently the actor Daniel Craig has gained some momentum in Hollywood, starting with his stellar job in “Casino Royale.” His most recent film to hit the big screen is “Defiance.” It is about a family of Jewish brothers who create a settlement in the woods to resist German occupation and crimes in Belarus. From the trailer it had all the signs of a masterpiece. In a flurry of reviews, this potential Oscar winning film received an astounding…mediocre rating. Averaging 58 out of 100, here is what some of the critics said.
---Right on point with this rating, the “New York Times”, “LA Times”, and “Baltimore Sun” all gave the movie 50 out of 100. The “New York Times” alludes a lot to director Zwick’s pen and camera. A. O Scott, the author of the article, comments on how the camera work lacks subtlety but rather is heavy handed with blatant scene punctuations and obvious messages. Scott also mentions that the acting is quite moderate and wouldn’t be out of place if in a Eastern melodrama.
---Right on point with this rating, the “New York Times”, “LA Times”, and “Baltimore Sun” all gave the movie 50 out of 100. The “New York Times” alludes a lot to director Zwick’s pen and camera. A. O Scott, the author of the article, comments on how the camera work lacks subtlety but rather is heavy handed with blatant scene punctuations and obvious messages. Scott also mentions that the acting is quite moderate and wouldn’t be out of place if in a Eastern melodrama.
---Kenneth Turan from the “LA Times’” film column hits on the fact that the dialogue is often on-the-nose with generic sentiments such as the typical wisecracking in difficult times. The film is too often generic for Turan. However the author says that the film has strengths in the fact that it is a unique story with crisp battle sequences and strong acting.
---The “Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow has some problems with the film’s directing as well. He says that Zwick could have made the film much deeper, missing opportunities in the plot to play on the audience’s superego with the specific brother’s internal conflicts. Sragow also says that the characters were turned into stick figures by indirectly announcing their intentions right from their individual introductions. With this movie, Zwick, according to Sragow, ‘remains an in-between kind of filmmaker, neither brilliant nor instinctive. At best, his ambition unearths extraordinary new material for the screen.’
---William Arnold of “Seattle P-I” gave the film an A-, translated to a 91 out of 100 by metacritic. From the start he hails Edward Zwick, saying that he has few contemporary equals in making intelligent war epics such as “Blood Diamond” and “The Last Samurai;” and this movie is of the same quality. After romping through the plot, Arnold says that ‘"Defiance" also rises above this specific intention to be an absorbing family saga, a thrilling combat movie and a backwoods epic that conveys the feel of a frontier-community-under-duress with the vividness of a John Ford classic.’ He then concludes that the movie is packed with great action sequences and sincere acting, especially Craig that anchors the movie.
---A review that rates the film in the middle of 50 (the lowest) and 92 (the highest) is by Ann Hornaday of the “Washington Post”, rating the film 70 out of 100. In this short review, Hornaday says that Zwick does great work tying in action, violence, and history. She comments that the acting is terrific but the film suffers in its movie moments dealing with ‘too-perfect lighting, too-eloquent speeches, and too-tidy fight scenes.’
---Most of the reviewers agree that the battle scenes directed by Edward Zwick are quite exceptional but are split on the point of the dialogue. Some feel it was balanced with humor and emotion, while others think it was too typical of the film genre. Overall the movie seems average but could also be considered fantastic, depending on your view.
---The “Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow has some problems with the film’s directing as well. He says that Zwick could have made the film much deeper, missing opportunities in the plot to play on the audience’s superego with the specific brother’s internal conflicts. Sragow also says that the characters were turned into stick figures by indirectly announcing their intentions right from their individual introductions. With this movie, Zwick, according to Sragow, ‘remains an in-between kind of filmmaker, neither brilliant nor instinctive. At best, his ambition unearths extraordinary new material for the screen.’
---William Arnold of “Seattle P-I” gave the film an A-, translated to a 91 out of 100 by metacritic. From the start he hails Edward Zwick, saying that he has few contemporary equals in making intelligent war epics such as “Blood Diamond” and “The Last Samurai;” and this movie is of the same quality. After romping through the plot, Arnold says that ‘"Defiance" also rises above this specific intention to be an absorbing family saga, a thrilling combat movie and a backwoods epic that conveys the feel of a frontier-community-under-duress with the vividness of a John Ford classic.’ He then concludes that the movie is packed with great action sequences and sincere acting, especially Craig that anchors the movie.
---A review that rates the film in the middle of 50 (the lowest) and 92 (the highest) is by Ann Hornaday of the “Washington Post”, rating the film 70 out of 100. In this short review, Hornaday says that Zwick does great work tying in action, violence, and history. She comments that the acting is terrific but the film suffers in its movie moments dealing with ‘too-perfect lighting, too-eloquent speeches, and too-tidy fight scenes.’
---Most of the reviewers agree that the battle scenes directed by Edward Zwick are quite exceptional but are split on the point of the dialogue. Some feel it was balanced with humor and emotion, while others think it was too typical of the film genre. Overall the movie seems average but could also be considered fantastic, depending on your view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)