Reviews

A new phenomenon in the decadent American culture. Horses as the guiding lights of courage and nobility!

We're near the end as a civilization when ignorant horses are depicted as quasi-Christ figures here to show mankind how to live righteously and nobly. Decadent western liberalism at its very worst. Filled with every ridiculous sentimentality imaginable.

The horse is supposed to be so "miraculous". What does it do? It plows a field and runs fast. It has the physical strength of a beast. So what? The movie says nothing, is nothing. It's another empty, meaningless movie with nothing to say philosophically and designed to make money. If you have an ounce of intelligence, avoid it.

If you can see past how ridiculously unrealistic this movie is it can be pretty intense and thoughtful. The characters are being picked off one by one by a pack of wolves in a Darwinian model which punishes the weak. As you move along you realize everyone is going to get it at some point. In between each killing there is dialogue which adds some history and philosophy behind the characters. This becomes the true heart of the film and what lends it some merit.

It's just too bad it is so absurdly unrealistic. The characters are starving and in sub-zero Alaskan weather at night after a horrific plane crash, yet they act like they're out on a night camping at the state park. At points they lay casually around ridiculously tiny fires "talking shop" with their jackets leisurely unzipped and not even their hoods on. Mere seconds after losing yet another friend to the wolves, they're not even scared they may re-attack. The wolves just magically back off and give them time to reflect on their lives and bond together.

If you get wrapped up in how unrealistic it is then you are going to hate this film. If you can see it for whats good in it and what it's actually trying to say beyond all the technical stuff, it can be worth something.

The ideas in this movie represent true intellectualism and shows at least a deeper and genuine intellectual understanding by its writer Woody Allen. The film explores the subtle nuances of what Allen calls the "Golden Age fallacy", the fallacy in thinking that living in a past time is somehow better or more romantic than the present one.

The movie is highly detailed and overflowing with sharp commentary and insights into many different ideas. Painting, literature, philosophy, "pseudo-intellectualism", pedantry, and many other areas are some of the ideas covered by this movie.

The movie is set in Paris and the scenes are filled with richness and overflowing with beauty. The actors portraying different historical artists are a real treat to watch and the overall sophistication of the dialogue and acting when the lead character is transported to the past is truly charming.

When the film switches back to the current age, it becomes a tad repulsive, which is probably something Allen intended in order to contrast with the romantic nature of the scenes set in the past. If there is one issue I have with it is that Rachel Mcadams character is a little too extremely obnoxious, to the point where the viewer becomes annoyed with the movie. But this again is probably something Allen intended.

Midnight In Paris is a richly detailed, truly intellectual, and beautiful romantic film that is definitely worth the time to watch.

Usually when watching movies I'm able to suspend disbelief and appreciate the finer points of the movie. But Trespass is so unrealistic and outrageous that at times it becomes absurd and outrageously melodramatic. It tries to sweep away with one grand stroke all of the logical flaws in the script by simply claiming that the burglars are psychotic and insane. On the whole it insults the intelligence of the viewer by expecting the viewer to believe things would happen like they did in Trespass. In other movies of this genre there are always twists and somewhat unrealistic scenes that one can overlook if there is a cleverness or a presiding intelligence behind the story, but Trespass lacks this sharpness and edginess. The outrageousness, lack of realism, and madness of the story is simply too much to ask the viewer to believe and look past.

The movie does have its moments and isn't entirely worth ignoring however. The acting of Nicole Kidman is excellent and to see how she and Nicholas Cage are on-screen together is also very intriguing. The house where it is set has a very interesting modern design that comes off as very stylish and aesthetically appealing. A few of the twists and surprises in the movie are clever and there are a handful of good moments in the movie where I was surprised and satisfied with the cleverness of a certain turn of events.

Overall however, as I sat and watched the movie it turned into not the fascinating, intense, and intelligent thriller I hoped it would be, but a merely average movie that I couldn't possibly believe that got worse and worse as it climaxed to near complete absurdity. If the movie is worth a view at all it is simply to see the chemistry between Cage and Kidman and to appreciate the architectural design of the house where the movie is set. The ideas in the writing aren't wholly absurd, but clearly the writing and ideas aren't the strong point of Trespass.

The movie essentially explores the tragic aspects of being a submissive, beautiful woman that is largely powerless in a modern age where rich men with money dominate and that primarily value a woman only for her body. The lead character is Lucy, a unique beauty that is struggling paying her rent as she tries to survive on the wages of a common office clerk. Lucy is contacted by Clara who pays her $250 per hour to work at a house that is a kind of upscale brothel for older rich men.

I was excited for this movie upon reading the summary and watching the trailer. I was expecting a fascinating exploration of feminine psychology and beauty and to see a beautifully artistic movie influenced by rich, classic expressions of architecture and art. I was expecting something more mysterious and elitist along the lines of some of the scenes in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut.

What I got instead was disappointing. I expected the mansion sets to be finer and more artistic. The mansion itself was more of a utilitarian, cookie cutter upper middle class house than a truly fine mansion with classical architecture. The bedroom set itself, wherein the scenes are the crux of the entire movie, was minimalistic, utilitarian, mechanistic, and looked more like an empty hotel room than a refuge for the rich.

While I am OK with the story itself being essentially gloomy, nihilistic, haunting, and morbid, I needed a better contrast between Lucy's poor life as a struggling office clerk and the "upscale" clientele she services at the mansion. She essentially cycles between her drab utilitarian environment (the office, her house) to the "mansion", which itself is very minimalistic and utilitarian. Thats where the movie loses its appeal. There is little stylistically or artistically redeeming about the movie.

It's really disappointing, because the movie could have been great. The screenplay was an interesting psychological exploration full of very good ideas and the acting was good. If the mansion scenes were finer stylistically and artistically it would have enhanced the contrast between Lucy's regular life and her life at the mansion and gave at least one redeeming quality about the movie.

Instead the viewer is beaten down relentlessly with gloomy scene after gloomy scene. Instead of an uplifting appreciation of femininity, art, and beauty, you get a movie filled with hostility towards men, guilt for the exploitation of Lucy, and a miserable commentary on the injustices of being a woman.

The casting for this movie is so near perfect that you wish other movies could get it as right as this movie does. Many movies have very intelligent writing and ideas, but the casting is wrong and it ends up reducing the intellectual value and authenticity of the movie.

All the major characters in this movie are casted with perfect actors that precisely capture the psychological depth behind the characters and the ideas in the writing. I had only one minor complaint in the casting of the prostitute whose body type was perfect for the part, but was a little too worn out and rugged looking. A younger, milkier, but slightly worn looking full figured woman would have lent the scene greater beauty and power and by contrast would have more realistically conveyed Hauptmann's need and loneliness.

The script is ideologically flawless, the ideas are intelligent and intuitive, it's incredibly sexy, and it is a very intelligently made movie. I don't see movies this precise, accurate, wise, and pointed very often. Recommended highly.

The truly amazing thing about this movie is that it has managed to fool nearly its entire audience into misinterpreting it, even though the clues it leaves behind are so numerous and apparent as to make the solution to the movie absolutely obvious. It makes a fool out of its own audience.

The movie succeeds in tricking the audience into believing the machine is a cloning device, while actually being something else entirely. The true secrets are never revealed to the audience yet it believes it has an adequate solution. That is part of the brilliance of the movie. It tries to make a fool of the audience in general and succeeds.

Im sure there are a few keen minds that truly understand what the machine does and are skeptical that Fallon is really Borden's twin, but the audience in general is duped into accepting faithfully what it's told. The movie never reveals its secret but the audience still feels the plot is resolved.

It manages to paradoxically resolve the plot for the audience while not resolving it at the same time. It successfully sells them an alternate solution that isn't accurate and leaves them completely oblivious to the real solution. But they don't mind, because like the closing line says, the people watching "want to be fooled."