Sunday, May 28, 2006
X-Men 3
It wasn't the first X-Men, and it wasn't the second X-Men either, but it was still alright. I wasn't as excited to see the characters brought to life, that happened in the first film. I wasn't as blown away by the action and energy, that was the second film. This film didn't have the power in an underlying message as the first two films did. What this film had going for it were the things I didn't expect. Good-bad, bad-good, life, death, let's just say this is the movie so far this year that you probably should stay in the theater until the credits are comletely finished, if you don't, well you will be sorry. I probably should have learned my lesson by now about sequels. I really shouldn't compare them to the original, merely enjoy them on their own merits. Then again, maybe I should avoid sequels altogether and have that original good impression be the only one I have... I can't wait for Indiana Jones 4 and Die Hard 4, those are going to be sweet!
Sunday, May 21, 2006
The DaVinci Code
I don't read many books anymore, but for some reason, I read Dan Brown's Davinci Code. Ron Howard has filmed that book. He didn't adapt it to film, he filmed it. This is the films strength and its weakness. It is a strength in this, details, dialouge, locations, sensations have all been captured and appear richly on the screen. It is a weakness in that the film, its scope and its actors seem limited by the covers of a book. Tom Hanks captures his character perfectly. Bewilderment, genius, fear, shock and bravery. Those are probably words that were written in the book, but lacking is a real person with deep faith or experience.
The first paragraph of my review only deals with the film as a film, which I would recommend on the merits of being a book-film transition as opposed to a book-film adaptation. I should probably take a moment to comment on the films subject matter and its perspective. I liked what Tom Hank's character had to say about Christians: We have historical, physical evidence that shows that Jesus was a good man, it is on faith that we believe that he is God's son. He is essentially saying that the truth isn't always something that can be physically proven, even if people try to cover it up, that doesn't change it being true. Unfortunately the film ends with a very clear glimpse of what the truth is (within the context of the film). I understand that this is a work of fiction and I was entertained. I just felt uncomfortable with this "historical fiction" that doesn't use truth as a backdrop, rather twists and flat out lies about truth for its plot. Kind of like watching an Oliver Stone film I guess.
The first paragraph of my review only deals with the film as a film, which I would recommend on the merits of being a book-film transition as opposed to a book-film adaptation. I should probably take a moment to comment on the films subject matter and its perspective. I liked what Tom Hank's character had to say about Christians: We have historical, physical evidence that shows that Jesus was a good man, it is on faith that we believe that he is God's son. He is essentially saying that the truth isn't always something that can be physically proven, even if people try to cover it up, that doesn't change it being true. Unfortunately the film ends with a very clear glimpse of what the truth is (within the context of the film). I understand that this is a work of fiction and I was entertained. I just felt uncomfortable with this "historical fiction" that doesn't use truth as a backdrop, rather twists and flat out lies about truth for its plot. Kind of like watching an Oliver Stone film I guess.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Mission Impossible III
This was the Summer blockbuster that I have been looking forward to the most. Sure, I'll see the others, XMen, Superman, DaVinci, Nacho and the like, but Mission Impossible has always been sure to entertain, and always will. Can you "take it up a notch" and "tone it down a little" both at the same time? Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams say yes. This film steps up the action level so as to almost be overwhelming. By the time it was all over I acually had the thought that there had been too much action... Can this even be possible? This action is balanced pretty well with a story that deals with friendships, trust, love and commitment. Obviously Mission Impossible III isn't going to win Best Acting or Best Screenplay, but it is nice to have characters with honorable motivations and genuine emotions.
Hopefullly if you're reading this, you have already seen this film or else the following may spoil some of the fun. My one major complaint is the moment of tension that begins the film, and then becomes the opening of the finale... Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays the villian is threatening Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt and his wife. We probably all saw the trailers and knew that this was coming. What we didn't know is that the film begins this way, and after a 10-count Hunt's wife gets a bullet in the brain. My problem with this scene is this; we are watching Mission Impossible, right? Ethan Hunt should be able to find a way out of this situation. I don't know what his solution would be, that's why I'm Peter Crum and he's Ethan Hunt. My problem is the cheap, anti-climactic, vanilla amnner in which this shocking episode is dealt with. It was almost like the bad guys said "ya, we're bad guys, but not that bad, here, we'll give you another chance". When the child got shot right in front of the father in the film Crash, the audience goes through the trauma of the moment, then as the truth is revealed I had a sigh of relief, one with real joy. The differnce with the MI3 scenerio is that I just felt cheated.
Alright, I've gotten that off my chest. Other than that it was a super sweet film. J.J. Abrams brought his own look and feel to the film, like Alias with Tom Cruise and a huge budget. The special effects were awesome, especially Tom Cruise's transformation into Philip Seymour Hoffman, almost brought a tear to my eye. You must see this film on the big screen though, so hurry up and see it again.
Hopefullly if you're reading this, you have already seen this film or else the following may spoil some of the fun. My one major complaint is the moment of tension that begins the film, and then becomes the opening of the finale... Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays the villian is threatening Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt and his wife. We probably all saw the trailers and knew that this was coming. What we didn't know is that the film begins this way, and after a 10-count Hunt's wife gets a bullet in the brain. My problem with this scene is this; we are watching Mission Impossible, right? Ethan Hunt should be able to find a way out of this situation. I don't know what his solution would be, that's why I'm Peter Crum and he's Ethan Hunt. My problem is the cheap, anti-climactic, vanilla amnner in which this shocking episode is dealt with. It was almost like the bad guys said "ya, we're bad guys, but not that bad, here, we'll give you another chance". When the child got shot right in front of the father in the film Crash, the audience goes through the trauma of the moment, then as the truth is revealed I had a sigh of relief, one with real joy. The differnce with the MI3 scenerio is that I just felt cheated.
Alright, I've gotten that off my chest. Other than that it was a super sweet film. J.J. Abrams brought his own look and feel to the film, like Alias with Tom Cruise and a huge budget. The special effects were awesome, especially Tom Cruise's transformation into Philip Seymour Hoffman, almost brought a tear to my eye. You must see this film on the big screen though, so hurry up and see it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)