Change Your Image
ambrosewriter
Reviews
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Not Bond, Action
Let me be perfectly clear, this was not a Bond film. It was an action film. This film comes off more as the search for Vheissu from the Pynchon novel, V. Daniel Craig was clearly out of his element; he lacked any suaveness, and, more importantly, he actually showed emotion towards women. Bond's defining characteristic was his undying chauvanism, but in this film, he dropped that attitude for one of respect to women. The plot was, at best, barely existent and towards the end, it became one meaningless sequence after another until it finally ends with a scene that should have ended Casino Royale. The lack of the Bond theme was also disturbing. You may think it nitpicky, but the theme was always a central part of the movie and was always melded to be a part of the film. The director tried to add a sense of depth to the film, especially during a sequence which is tied to the opera Tosca. Bond movies has simplistic directing, tending to focus on merely the characters. This pretension of loftiness only left the viewer with a sense that something inane just happened. They are right. Quantum of Solace bypassed the Bond playbook and tried to pass itself of as a second rate action film, which it succeeded in. It traded suaveness for ruggedness; delightful misogyny for a romantic subplot; simple escapist fun for pretensions of higher film-making. This movie was a disappointment for a strong Bond fan. 6/10 Mediocre
Hidalgo (2004)
Second-Rate Action
Sure, it's set in the Mid-East and somehow that makes the film 'edgy'. I don't think so at all. There are commonplace plot elements all over the place and many actors don't even try. Viggo Mortenson dead-panned most of the film, only occasionally stepping out of his stupor to do some quality acting. Omar Sharif is the only consistently good actor in the entire movie. The whole movie reeked of stereotyped characters and there were nearly no original ideas. It came across as one part "Raiders of the Lost Ark," one part "Le Mans," and one part "True Grit." The action sequences contained no real build-up and rely on special effects and brute force to make them remotely interesting, but, in fact, they fail at even that. American film-making often captures the zeitgeist, but only occasionally do they become classics. This film does neither, shunning the zeitgeist, good film-making, and the critics overall opinion of it.
Bullitt (1968)
Modern
When I first saw this film, I was expecting one of those stereotypical, neandertholic action movies. At this current time though, I am wrong! This movie was smart and, more importantly, the dialogue seemed like it was actual words that came out of actual people's mouths. The dialogue did not appear to be stilted at all. The entire movie seems completely realistic, with the very noted exception of the now famous car chase. Steve McQueen is razor sharp, as usual, and just as usual, he has a great cast behind him to back him up. The actors/actresses seemed incredibly on the ball, with the exception of Jacqueline Bisset, who seems as if she is intoxicated whenever she's on screen. On a topic that is less discussed, the directing in this movie is incredibly underrated; there is a point in this movie in which McQueen and Bisset are at a diner and have been seated in such a way as to allow for complete fluidity in the switch from one character to another. The themes and characters seem all to modern for 1968, but that is another good part. Great movie and definitely in the "Classics Canon." I give in 9/10 points.
Thérèse: The Story of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux (2004)
Annoying
This movie had definite potential that really would not have been hard to fulfill, but yet it still fails. The acting was fully reprehensible. All of the actors/actresses looked almost exactly the same for every emotion. In addition to this, the delivery of their lines was off-kilter, almost robotic, although, admittedly, the fact that the dialog was stilted probably didn't help. The religious imagery was so trite and clichéd, such as the Jesus and Mary with the bright auras. This movie lacked subtlety and everything was exactly how it seemed; in other words, one never really had to think at all. This movie seemed like a "St. Terese For Dummies" manual and seemed preoccupied with everything going on around Terese instead of what was going on inside of her. In addition to this, I was not fond of the directing, and the shots to show passage of time were way too tired and over-used; here again, I point out the lack of subtlety. This movie was poor and I thought the original "St. Terese" was a lot better. This was too geared for a younger audience that really didn't like or understand it. 4/10
The Great Escape (1963)
Pure Film
This movie is pure film! Film was supposed to be a way to escape your troubles, and it has evolved beyond it to a form of art. The Great Escape came during the golden age of film, where everything was either pure escapism or beautiful art. Many current film-makers forget both art and escapism and rely on the lowest common denominator to fill their coffers (frankly, I find it remarkable some of the space monkeys can write 10 lines of a pointless review here on IMDb), but The Great Escape is brilliant. It is simple fun, with remarkably good directing and cinematography, especially considering it was filmed in LA. You, the viewer, will get lost and meld with the characters as they are trapped by the Nazis and attempt to escape from the Nazis. All in all, a great film: 10/10. Definitely worth a purchase or rental.
The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
Unforgivably Untrue
I would like to seek out my own vendetta against whoever formulated this script. First of all, it seems jerky and is mainly brought forward by Dante's revenge. This movie makes it seem that Dante completed his revenge, but in the book he abandoned his quest of vengeance! The book was a spear against the basic human instinct to seek revenge; it did not glorify it. This led me to question why the filmmakers turned such a fantastic message into a glorified romantic tragedy. The answer: filmmakers dumb things down. Movies are a place for escapism, but sometimes a movie that makes you think can make you lose yourself in your fantasies just as easily a dumb, silly movie. This movie, which by all means could have been excellent, fell into this ever expanding realm of meaningless summer shockers. A classic story was glossed over so they could glorify opulence (i.e. Dante's hot air balloon). It was a big disappointment. Worth a rental if your girlfriend wants you to.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
It's The End of America
Most everyone in film, taking a film class, or a serious viewer knows the wonderful end sequence of this movie. For those of you who don't, I won't tell you, but suffice it to say it is a symbol of the death of the American and America. This movie is positively, absurdly hilarious, but comedy aficionados know that it doesn't contain any fantastic one-liners or puns, but it's a masterpiece of black humor. This film is one of Kubrick's best outings and it entertains. The more you watch it the better it seems, but like most movies it is best watched in one uninterrupted sitting. Great movie about MAD and a pessimistic social commentary (that makes you laugh). 'Dr. Strangelove' would be a good use of about $15 (depending on which version you purchase) and if you don't want to buy, rent!
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Radical Experimentalism
This was a movie that focused on pushing the envelope of film-making. But that's not all that it was; it developed into it's own world, with nuances and subtleties. Many complain about the pacing, but in reality, it would take about 15 minutes to dock a spaceship; this movie tried to make art model life instead of ADD characters jumping from idea to idea. This movie made fine transitions and was a perfect meld of sight and sound. The true experimentalism begins when Bowman reaches out into the netherworld and loses himself in time. This movie tells you just enough to keep you in the loop, but not enough to give away symbols and the ideals of Kubrick. Any differences between the book and the film a easily forgivable when compared to this fantastic monument to the experimentalism of the '60's. It's not just about experimentalism though, which tends to be the bane of other experimental movies, it is an intricate story, too. When I first watched this movie I knew I had to watch it again. Eventually, I just purchased it and have enjoyed the special features. Anyone who's serious about directing, writing, or having a successful career in any medium of the arts should buy this movie. Anyone else, buy it too; it'll take you to space (and possibly give you a contact high).
The Polar Express (2004)
It's More Annoying Than Anything
Let's not kid ourselves, a children's movie has to have sparkly colors and a relatively short run time. However, this movie contains both, but the writing for an almost wordless children's book tends to be a bit stretched. Moreover, the dialogue is not needed and is detrimental to this movie. This movie should be just a short film that contains no sound, but still beautiful images.
Mentioning images brings me to my second gripe. In the TV show "30 Rock" Tracy Morgan mentions the creepy valley: The creepy valley is that animations that are lifelike to a fault tend to be frightening. The movie's characters tend to fall into the creepy valley, which again could be cured by using simple, austere animating techniques.
Overall it's not a bad movie and it's definitely worth a rental, especially those of you who have children. Be forewarned though, it contains a lot of Christian messages and if you are uncomfortable exposing your children to that, stay away!