Change Your Image
joe16vind
Reviews
Replicas (2018)
Not as Terrible as Being Posited
Full disclosure I have an undergrad degree in existentialist philosophy and a double Master's in Biology and Public Health-so any film that posits science as a fundamental truth and deigns to raise philosophical concerns piques my interest. And I often think critics and people alike exhibit a herd mentality-fawn over certain films and actors (The upteenth remake of A Star is Born;only the manner of Cooper's demise differs from previous versions ) and reject others because hey no one wants to be seen/perceived as not being relevant.
Against this backdrop, I attended a screening of Replicas and found it not to be as horrible as has been suggested. Science has mapped the human cortex, cloned animals have been created, robotic arms are used in surgery, businesses use robotics to reduce the human worker and cinema has long held a fascination with conscious upload/the innate desire to prolong life/to conquer death, virtual reality, altered states of consciousness, pods, tabula rosa, genetic editing, what constitutes or defines us as human. And would we really want to live forever?
Hamel's writing of Replicas was inconsistent and like Siberia could not decide what theme/idea and the implementation of that idea it wanted to pursue and focus its energy on. It might have been a meditation on grief and how grief shapes the decisions we make, the nature of returning a loved one from death and the affect it would have on those who have been resurrected. Would they want to return? There is a singular scene in which this issue is raised then discarded.
Replicas might have been more effective if Reeves' scientist had simply transplanted the brain (s) into the robot/pods rather than imprinting them. Strictly speaking, he doesn't create clones. The film veers late into Obadiah Stane territory. Shoddy direction doesn't help. Reeves was at his best when having to decide who could be saved and then having to erase the memory/existence of one of his children.
Somewhere therein was a decent film struggling to get out
Destination Wedding (2018)
Not much
What's to say about a film that plays like a sadistic/sarcastic mediation on Love? Yes there are people who are miserable who wallow in their miserableness and can't understand why everyone around them isn't as miserable as they are.
The harder Destination Wedding tries to be different, the more similar it becomes. Substitute Frank and Lindsay's constant over analysis of minutiae for constantly breaking up and Wedding becomes Breaking Up part 2. (Breaking Up starred Hayak and Crowe at the height of their most charming selves)
The long diatribe between Reeves' Frank and Ryder's Lindsay about giving
oneself into the possibility of loving someone could have been summed up by simply saying "The heart's just a muscle, right?"
The film would have been better if it had been a staged reading in the vein of the play 'Love Letters". Wedding falls far short of the singular character film , Hardy's Locke. There Hardy socially interacts with people on his cell and their voices are heard.
The interaction between the two wears thin since conversation is simply the vehicle for these two unhappy people to advance their philosophies/decidedly dismal outlook on life and the people who populate therein.
Reeves handles the dialogue extremely well whereas Ryder is the one who gives into her feelings far earlier than he does.
What little comedy there is, is negligible at best.
When the two engage in sex which both view as a perfunctory act to assuage the boredom of their existence, it elicited a few chuckles from the 4 of us who attended the first screening. And when Reeves uttered "Let's get this over with", it perfectly described our reactions to Destination Wedding
Siberia (2018)
A failed attempt at metaphor
Wasteland. Sparsely populated. Knowing so few people and of those few, not many will be willing to help him. Arctic cold. Where one would be sent for the slightest of transgressions. A way station to somewhere. Into this world an American diamond merchant Lucas Hill is thrown-as Heinlein wrote a stranger in a strange land. Where he should have been aware of the old maxim "Business is business" and realizing too late he has been taken advantage of. Nihilism his only friend.
Ah if only... Siberia is none of those things. If only Siberia knew what it wanted to be. Neo noir? A straightforward drama masquerading as a crime thriller? A heist in the manner of Thief? It fails in the most fundamental way. It strives to be an existential drama without the underlying existentialism. Either Hamel/Scott and Ross didn't know how to convey this or were too lazy to give anything more than a slipshod effort.
If critics and users (here's looking at you Saban Films) were expecting John Wick Chapter 21, that's on you not Reeves who as Lucas Hill acquits himself rather nicely here.
Siberia could have been Body Heat meets Blood Diamond set against the shadow of current Russian political climate with a bit of Thief thrown in for good measure.
Much has been made of sex scenes. I believe the intent was to initially show lustful convenience (what there are no other females around? She is the only woman at the bar/café he frequents). If there had of been, then his attraction to her would have been more palpable. From the first tryst at her urging to a gradual deepening of Lucas' love for her. The tone never changes from the first time he meets her to the last time he sees her. The latter should have evoked feelings of poignant tenderness in say the same way as Elba's/Winslet's did in The Mountain between Us. But fails to do so.
Although I knew the outcome 5 minutes into the film, (the film is constructed in such a way as to lend itself to what should be an unexpected ending) it should have resonated more than it did.
To appropriate Jim Morrison, Siberia is pretty good but it could have been far better than it is.
Kill the Messenger (2014)
A Man Vilified for what he believed and proved to be right too late- May contain a spoiler
Much criticism has been leveled against KTM; while true are not entirely accurate.
the script does have inconsistencies- holes as it were and the dialogue is typically screen writing 101 and if you didn't know Sue Webb left him, the film certainly would have her do so to drive plot points. The direction ineffective at best. Much is oversimplified with multiple character actors appearing in cameos to represent various viewpoints or to push the plot forward. It's as if the subject matter was too much for Cuesta to handle. While he's reverential toward Webb, he does the man a disservice by creating instances that never occurred. Scenes with his family life seemed contrived and uncomfortable for all involved. Loud groans were heard amongst the audience I saw it with- It appears the film will find its footing on Showtime/HBO/Cinemax.
At the beginning "this is based on true events" was the flag that said we made up stuff. However, the film does hit/cover all the salient points of Webb's life.
A few scenes echoed The Insider/Shattered Glass failing to resonate. I kept thinking how different this would have been in the hands of another director. Better dialogue would have sharpened intent/effect.
What Kill the Messenger strives to be is this millenia's The Insider and falls short. Renner in a few scenes shows us a man defeated by the very thing that made him so good at what he does. When he realizes he is alone without even those he loved to love him through it, Renner was heartbreaking. It is a commendable first effort by Renner's production company.
For myself, the film in the end is average with Renner's performance elevating Kill the Messenger to watchablity.
The Immigrant (2013)
It is what it is
try as I might , I just thought this was okay. The first time I saw Bruno, I knew what his trajectory was going to be and he didn't disappoint. The film belongs to Cotilliard's Ewa and I surmised she would survive regardless of what obstacles (which really weren't) came her way.
I really should stop reading interviews when directors discuss their characters and stay off wiki for upcoming films particularly those that have been released internationally before coming stateside. Therefore going into the film, I knew Emil/Orlando's outcome.
the film didn't breathe e.g. stand on its own and although I have seen a couple of Gray's other films, the melodrama didn't ring true. At times Gray's direction was overbearing, almost sledgehammerish in approach.
and what of Renner?
the scene after he gave her the rose, he was tender. It's asked so rarely of him that when he is its a moment to hold onto forever. I was so hoping wiki was wrong. His kindness was nearly heartbreaking and yet his outcome was to assist in Bruno's redemption.
my dad used to say its not how much screen time you have but its what you do with it, that matters. And when Renner is there, he holds you and when he's gone, you just watch plot points unfold.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
This was Best Picture?
Can I get my eyesight back?
I don't care about fancy cinematography or being tricksey as Gollum would say
This was tortuous viewing- if Renner had watched it with me, I'd still feel the same way
Cue the ominous music- what the audience doesn't know disarming bombs is dangerous work? Cue the scene of male camaraderie- forced as it was (only Renner took his shirt off- what the other guys couldn't?)
Cue the obligatory scene of the guys rationalizing why they are doing this
The 3 principals were typical screenplay 101- the arrogant prick, the guy who fellows rules regardless, the milquetoast fellow who broods over death. Guess which one Renner was?
The film was loud, unnecessarily so. If a bomb disposal expert(removing his protective gear) is going to Jesus as Sgt. James states, shouldn't he have sustained at minimum first degree burns on his uncovered hands?
Like Crowe in A Good Year, Renner doesn't play cute and cuddly well.
For all the laudatory praise heaped on this film, it was still a film about war , no more or less. There was nothing new added to the canon of war films or war themed cinema. For myself give me Das Boot, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Stop Loss- with these, the fellows who fought weren't anybody special. They were caught up doing this, whether they wanted to or not. And sometimes there is no answer for the why of war- it just is.
It was hard to be sympathetic since these bomb disposal guys volunteered.
Yet there was a moment near the end upon his return home, when Renner's Sargent James is at the supermarket- lost in the cereal aisle. And he says nothing and in that stilled nothingness, he was on his way to where he was. It is so very hard to do this and he does this so very well. Just as in Avengers, Legacy and MI4, it's him. For in that briefest of seconds, he elevated Locker and gave an understanding as to why.
American Hustle (2013)
A Flippant Stepchild to Wolf of Wall Street
There are those who say AH is a cinematic masterpiece ; others contend its preposterous crap
I fall into the latter category. These are not people but garish caricatures. I thought I would never hear myself say Where's Leonardo DiCaprio when you need him which is what I said at the opening scene of the con being set.
Sting sang Why Should I cry for you? He could have said Why should I care?
And for these , I cared nothing. AH is treated as if this idea of scamming scammers is something unique. It isn't. These individuals care only for themselves, saving their own butts at the expense of their object of desire:Carmine Polito.
Much has been made of hair/makeup/clothes- Oscar here we come. For a more accurate portrayal of 70's attire, take a look at Ron Howard's excellent Rush. In Rush, the clothes complimented the story. Here in AH- they are the story.
Bale, who I generally like, is clearly acting here save for a scene where he expresses regret, trying to make it right for Carmine. Adams- anyone could have portrayed her role, Lawrence is way over the top and too young to convincingly play a matronly sort of woman. Her sashaying in the bar scene was laughable at best, cringe-worthy at worse. But she is clearly a camera favorite and Russell's muse, so much so she distorts the picture.
Cooper, another Russell favorite, is the worst offender of all. And what of the rookie in this mess:Jeremy Renner?
Renner has said everyday they swung for the fences and this approach of Russell's might be his preferred way of directing. But the film clearly comes across that way too. Renner has said it was a challenge for him to portray a character who wears his heart on his sleeve. And Mr. Renner, please do this more often, if you are given the chance for how wonderful you are!
In the hands of a Branagh, his performance might have been elevated to near Shakespearean tragic heights, recalling to mind, the line from Merchant of Venice- "To do a great right,do a little wrong".
Like Tom Hardy, Renner conveyed much with simple gestures. So much so I wanted to scream 'get out of the car', you are being taken for a ride!"
Of course if he does, the cynic in me says, there is no film! I don't think Russell really knew how to handle Renner's quietly affecting performance. And he is heartbreakingly terrific!
I am surprised no charges of misogyny/objectification of women has been levied against Russell as it has been against Scorsese in Wolf of Wall Street. I wonder why that is? The women in AH are busy flaunting their assets as if to make up for their lack of acting talent.
AH might be considered the flippant stepchild of Wolf. Wolf is concerned with one thing and one thing only:EXCESS. And because Leo and Marty have corroborated many times in the past, their bond/ trust is palpable here. Leo is/was comfortable in doing certain scenes here for Martin that he otherwise would not have done. To put it simply, white collar crime as depicted in Wolf is rendered OK in the sense this is how one man chose to lead his life and his cohorts who merrily went along with it. But Scorsese does show the downside; perhaps not as much as he should have.
With the single scene of one individual going to jail, , Russell altered two character's outcome. At least Belfort served time in federal prison as did his primary cohort.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Better than American Hustle
Wolf is concerned with one thing and one thing only:excess and at 3 hours it could have been a tighter film if it had clocked in at 2 1/2 hours. At 3, there's a lot of repetitiveness as if Marty thought the audience needed Thor's Hammer to drive the point home. If Hill pushes Rush's exceptional Bruhl or Hustle's heartbreakingly terrific Renner out of a nom, I will be so mad.
This isn't Leo's best performance for me but he was dependably solid. That he wanted to bring Belfort's story to the screen is commendable indeed. He doesn't sugarcoat the man's excesses and for the audience is more of "Hey people really live these kinds of lives!" Belfort as Leo portrays him was alternatively defiant, occasionally sympathetic but always boisterous. Wolf can be seen as a complementary piece to American Hustle;just the methods to achieve such differs.
Because Leo and Marty have corroborated many times in the past, their bond/ trust is palpable here. Leo is/was comfortable in doing certain scenes here for Martin that he otherwise would not have done. To put it simply, white collar crime as depicted in Wolf is rendered OK in the sense this is how one man chose to lead his life and his cohorts who merrily went along with it. But Scoreses does show the downside; perhaps not as much as he should have.
For myself, Wolf is highly entertaining and noms are mostly likely for Best Picture/Best Actor/Cinematography/ and perhaps Best Director.
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)
Not an altogether failure:just a Misstep
Much has been made of this oft delayed film for the silly reason of determining whether or not Renner's profile would be raised sufficiently enough to give the releasing studio comfort in having him headline their film, then drive that film to profitability. This latest entry on his resume will do little to assuage that perception.
While this is not a genre Baz Luhrmann would work in, his sensibility and understanding is sorely missed.
Mashups which this purports to be are difficult to do. Anachronistic in approach, tone all over the place, direction labored, style, execution and delivery flat. Derivative describes this best: Its 300, LOTR, Snow White and The Huntsman, Van Helsing and yes even Bourne Legacy. A situation arose and I wanted to shout "Get that man his chems!" At 87 minutes Hansel/Gretel does not know what it wants to be. Is it action adventure? Is it a supernatural comedy? Is it a romance with horrific undertones? A few chuckles could be heard but nothing that would merit enjoyment. Lines that should have been delivered with a light touch - would have made the film a guilty pleasure and one would walk about saying them! The cast was nondescript. And what of Renner? His line delivery was tight and he appeared most uncomfortable almost unsure of himself. The romance failed to resonate.
Renner seems to be the kind of actor who if comfortable with the director can deliver entertaining performances- where you can see the joy in his face and gratefulness.
Perhaps he took the role to try doing something different- he doesn't fail altogether; its simply a misstep.
Perhaps his next role will be something to remember.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
An Legacy easily forgotten?
Having seen this film opening weekend, I have read numerous comments/assessments/justifications for why this film exists.
I have never liked the Bourne films- Damon was always this indestructible being who sought to find who he was-anyone with half a brain could have guessed the reasons for his very convenient amnesia. Which brings me to Legacy. I had always known who Jeremy Renner was but this was my first time watching him as the lead.
Didn't Universal trust the actor they hired to be Aaron Cross to carry the film? At every turn, some mention , some picture, some writing, some conversation was about Jason Bourne. Why? Sure I could understand a passing reference to Bourne but geez he usurps the picture.
Weisz seemed ill prepared to converse on virology, genetic engineering, and the concomitant moral ramifications of such. Yes this does exist and certainly would be misused. Where's Marian Cotillard and Kate Winslet when you need them? Once all the implausibilities are stripped away, covert military shenanigans exposed, you are left with a film that could have fared better than its performing. It takes way too long to establish Cross and once he is, one wouldn't really be interested. Yet Renner invokes a quiet intensity, understandable desperation and vulnerability into a man whose been manipulated into becoming something other than who he is. For myself, his work yielded a few scenes when I cared about Aaron Cross and what might become of him. It is because of Renner's efforts that Legacy becomes bearable to watch.
Hollywoodland (2006)
A poignant performance ,indeed by Ben Affleck
Hollywoodland tries and to a great degree succeeds at recreating events of that day in 1959 when a whole generation of children and their parents lost what they felt to be an icon. Many could not dissociate Reeves the actor from Reeves the person. Lane offers a solid performance -her best scene comes near the end when her husband (a very tender Bob Hoskins), asks her to turn around. Enough said.
While I understand what the director was trying to do ( la Reversal of Fortune where you have postulated three scenes of how Sunny Von Bulow became comatose), his intrusion with Simo failed to be as remarkable as Jeremy Irons' cool detached portrayal.
But it is Affleck who delivers the best performance. Quiet, subtle and by turns expressing a quiet anger yet always hopeful his career would lead him to where he wanted to go. Affleck's final scene captures everything about the way Mr. Reeves might have felt and there was so much sadness expressed by Affleck in that single wistful moment.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
This is not a Masterpiece but a hack job (THIS MIGHT BE A SPOILER INCLUDED IN THIS)
My mom and I saw this and both found it rather irritating.
The incongruity of the hair styles (The phantom's short, Raoul's long, Christine's ever full and curly, her choir girl best friend's flat and plain), the overly long stroll to her father's graveyard (how could so young a child have so much money to have a burial crypt for her father? if Christine was poor as it was suggested, then how could she afford such an ostentatious burial place in sea of gaudiness? Even if she rose to sing lead, she had become that wealthy which I find hard to believe.), the stiffness of Butler's phantom and his talk singing which exhibited no range whatsoever, the high school quarterbackness of Raoul and a voice hardly tolerable and then the so-so renditions of songs that haunt the imagination long after they have been heard and sung.
My nephew and his friends who range in that all important studio target demographic of 16 to 25 years had no desire to see this film at all. Others I know had seen the stage play and stayed away from this latest film incarnation of The Phantom Of the Opera.
The youthful dynamic obliterates the relationship. (THIS MIGHT CONSIDERED A SPOILER) Case in point if Miranda Richardson's character as a very young girl(no more than 12) discovers the phantom as a very young boy, then why does only she age? Even after he is unmasked, he still remains young!!!!
Nope, this is not a masterpiece but an inept adaptation. If the studio did not want to cast Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman from the original stage play and whose voices exhibit tremendous range, that's their choice. But to foister this cast upon the paying public was pretty idiotic. Surely a better performing group of actors were available along with a stronger director who might have been able to pull this off. Baz Luhmann understood the dynamics and Moulin Rouge, while not a masterpiece either, was a far more enjoyable experience.
The Machinist (2004)
A bit of a disappointment, this
An interesting concept that plays out rather ordinarily. The explanation is simple and easily deduced, if one is paying attention. For all its moodiness, atmosphere and seemingly falsely created tension, the tale is straightforward while trying to be Kafkaesque and in achieving a Rod Sterling/Twilight Zone type appeal. The film fails miserably in both of its attempts and at 102 minutes, the denouement feels prolonged as if the director did not trust to have a tighter round tale. How far more effective it might have been had it been shortened and the recurring man in the red car (so sophomorish)had made only one or two appearances throughout. A sure give away sign that things are not what they seem.
Bale has proven himself adept at roles such as this and it is his very gauntness that lingers after the film has ended.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
A Beautifully Rendered Film
Because none of us were there at the Crucifixion (and that includes scholars, writers, historians and others) and because the 4 Gospels are so often open to dispute, I found Gibson to have done right by himself.
He choose to tell this story of the Man some believe to be the Son of God while others are either dismissive of His significance or chose not to believe in Him at all in the manner he saw best fit his vision and version of these Events. For me, this was a beautifully rendered depiction of the tale I have grown up with my entire life. That He died for me has always been such a remarkable thing and has meant so very much to me. But I am aware that means nothing to others and that is their right.
Mr. Gibson took pains to show that there were those in the crowd who clamored for Jesus'death while there were those who did not want it. There were those who enjoyed His scourging as well as those who wanted it stopped. The devil is personified as lingering among those who demanded his Crucifixion as well as those who inflicted brutal beatings upon Him. He showed Pilate as someone conflicted who is thought to have approved of His execution in the final analysis as a way to prevent an uprising as well as the means to finally return himself to Rome.
This may not be a film for everyone and one should make the decision for oneself. You will do yourself a tremendous disservice if you rely on what others have said . If you bring baggage, this will prejudice your view as to what IS ON THE SCREEN.
To say that this film is the De Sade of horror films or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre of religious splatter films is ludicrous at best and offensive/insensitive/derisive at worst.
With some of the criticism is justifiable and with so much of this based on what is presumed to be on the screen as far as who is responsible (I have heard such harshness and hate from a select few mouthpieces, I find that more despicable than anything Gibson could have affixed an image to), if there is no room for differing viewpoints, then are we a country that sanctions censorship?