I suppose you've all seen this, but just in case:
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Luther Movie Review
How refreshing to see a movie where following the Bible and a love for Christ are shown without irony or humor. Or a “look at these strange creatures” detached feeling. Or a hip “ain’t God cool” vibe. Luther is just a straight story about one of the most significant lives in history.
Joseph Fiennes is Martin Luther. We first see him panicking in a thunderstorm and vowing to become a monk if he lives. He becomes a brilliant but guilt-ridden monk. He is sent to Rome on some business and sees that Rome has become "a circus" as a couple of different characters say. Then other events take place that send Luther toward his rebellion against abuses in the Catholic Church which the Church, needing money, will not admit are abuses. To be fair, there are those in the Church hoping for reform, but many of them consider Luther to be going too far in his criticisms. Things begin to spin out of control as people begin to believe they are oppressed politically as well as spiritually. Luther must live with the consequences of his writings and actions. One wonders, if Luther hadn't been away for a year in the castle, could he have prevented the Peasant Revolt?
The viewer gets a vague sense of the dangers individuals faced making choices, but probably there is no way to adequately show how much risk there was to every word or move for some. One does get a sense of the confusion and difficulty faced by those in power.
The movie moves pretty quickly and it’s hard to get a sense of the time passing. Luther spent almost a year in Wartburg Castle, but that is not understood just by watching the movie. I guess Martin Luther deserves an HBO miniseries like John Adams.
Peter Ustinov is fantastic as Fredrick the Wise. Frankly, I wish the movie had been made 30 years ago with Ustinov as Luther.
For some background on Luther, read Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
by Roland Bainton or just the Wiki article.
Luther (the film) is not as great as A Man For All Seasons, but not many films are. However, it is very well done and certainly worth your time.
Luther, directed by Eric Till, written by Camille Thomasson and Bart Gavigan, starring Joseph Fiennes, Jonathan Firth, Peter Ustinov. 123 minutes. 2003.
Joseph Fiennes is Martin Luther. We first see him panicking in a thunderstorm and vowing to become a monk if he lives. He becomes a brilliant but guilt-ridden monk. He is sent to Rome on some business and sees that Rome has become "a circus" as a couple of different characters say. Then other events take place that send Luther toward his rebellion against abuses in the Catholic Church which the Church, needing money, will not admit are abuses. To be fair, there are those in the Church hoping for reform, but many of them consider Luther to be going too far in his criticisms. Things begin to spin out of control as people begin to believe they are oppressed politically as well as spiritually. Luther must live with the consequences of his writings and actions. One wonders, if Luther hadn't been away for a year in the castle, could he have prevented the Peasant Revolt?
The viewer gets a vague sense of the dangers individuals faced making choices, but probably there is no way to adequately show how much risk there was to every word or move for some. One does get a sense of the confusion and difficulty faced by those in power.
The movie moves pretty quickly and it’s hard to get a sense of the time passing. Luther spent almost a year in Wartburg Castle, but that is not understood just by watching the movie. I guess Martin Luther deserves an HBO miniseries like John Adams.
Peter Ustinov is fantastic as Fredrick the Wise. Frankly, I wish the movie had been made 30 years ago with Ustinov as Luther.
For some background on Luther, read Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
by Roland Bainton or just the Wiki article. Luther (the film) is not as great as A Man For All Seasons, but not many films are. However, it is very well done and certainly worth your time.
Luther, directed by Eric Till, written by Camille Thomasson and Bart Gavigan, starring Joseph Fiennes, Jonathan Firth, Peter Ustinov. 123 minutes. 2003.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Burn After Reading Movie Review
Joel and Ethan Coen have an unusual and dark view of the world that they brilliantly project through a variety of genres. And they use much more swearing than is really necessary. In fact Burn After Reading is rated R for “pervasive language” among other things. I’ll talk a little more about that later.
Osborn Cox (John Malkovich) is an analyst working for the CIA who gets demoted so he quits. He decides to write a memoir. His cheating wife (Tilda Swinson) decides to divorce him and the lawyer tells her to get all his financial information. She copies his files including his memoirs. When the disk is found in the ladies locker room at a gym called Hardbodies, Chad (a hilarious Brad Pitt) thinks he’s found some top secret documents worth some “reward” money. He and Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), who wants several body sculpting surgeries, decide to try for the money. Cox is a jerk however, and instead of just telling them they don’t have anything, he causes them to think they have something really important and valuable. Somehow George Clooney figures into all this, first as the man Mrs. Cox is cheating with, then he is with Linda. It all gets tangled up Coen Brothers style and there is no “happily-ever-after.”
Why do the Coens find excessive swearing so invigorating? John Malkovich basically spends the movie saying “WTF?” Only he doesn’t abbreviate. However, Malkovich does a fantastic job of being a jerk and the swearing seems like something his character actually would say, not something forced into the script for humor or shock like Pappy O’Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou?. Basically everyone in this movie is a moron, but that could be expected as it’s in Washington, D.C. Burn After Reading is slow paced and not the best Coen Brothers movie, but it is funny and a fully enjoyable black comedy if that’s your thing.
There, now I’ve written a review of a Coen Brothers movie without using the word “quirky” other than in this sentence, of course.
Osborn Cox (John Malkovich) is an analyst working for the CIA who gets demoted so he quits. He decides to write a memoir. His cheating wife (Tilda Swinson) decides to divorce him and the lawyer tells her to get all his financial information. She copies his files including his memoirs. When the disk is found in the ladies locker room at a gym called Hardbodies, Chad (a hilarious Brad Pitt) thinks he’s found some top secret documents worth some “reward” money. He and Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), who wants several body sculpting surgeries, decide to try for the money. Cox is a jerk however, and instead of just telling them they don’t have anything, he causes them to think they have something really important and valuable. Somehow George Clooney figures into all this, first as the man Mrs. Cox is cheating with, then he is with Linda. It all gets tangled up Coen Brothers style and there is no “happily-ever-after.”
Why do the Coens find excessive swearing so invigorating? John Malkovich basically spends the movie saying “WTF?” Only he doesn’t abbreviate. However, Malkovich does a fantastic job of being a jerk and the swearing seems like something his character actually would say, not something forced into the script for humor or shock like Pappy O’Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou?. Basically everyone in this movie is a moron, but that could be expected as it’s in Washington, D.C. Burn After Reading is slow paced and not the best Coen Brothers movie, but it is funny and a fully enjoyable black comedy if that’s your thing.
There, now I’ve written a review of a Coen Brothers movie without using the word “quirky” other than in this sentence, of course.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Valkyrie Movie Review
Valkyrie Directed by Bryan Singer, written by Christopher McQuarrie & Nathan Alexander. Starring Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson. 2008. PG-13 120 minutes.
Valkyrie is a good World War II movie and fits well with the many World War II movies made in the 1960s and 1970s. It’s not a “great” Oscar-bait type movie, but Singer tells the story well and the acting is superb.
The story of Valkyrie is about the famous assassination attempt on Hitler by members of his own high command. Previously, I had known that there was a bomb in a briefcase that got placed too far under a table and only slightly wounded Hitler, but I did not know all the story around it and how it went farther than just an assassination attempt, but also a coordinated attempt to take over the government. There are quite a few important men involved in the coup and it is far from a neat single-minded group. However, they consider the cause to be greater than anything, even endangering their own families.
Tom Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg who was seriously injured in North Africa and could have sat out the war in a comfortable position in Berlin. Instead, he becomes a “traitor,” as he willing calls himself, to save the honor of his beloved Germany. Country above party or current leader. They also show von Stauffenberg as the committed Roman Catholic that he was.
Tom Cruise is a Movie Star. And I say that as someone who isn’t really a Tom Cruise fan. He holds the screen anytime he is on, his charisma captivates you. But, he is a good enough actor to sink into the roll and not overwhelm it, as several top actors/actresses of the 1970s have taken to doing. Many of the other actors show the complexity and conflicts of their characters.
Valkyrie is rated PG-13, but except for one word could have been PG. Patton has more swearing and The Guns of Navarone has more violence. My 13-year old son wanted to go, but I don’t trust the ratings system. After seeing it, I should have taken him, in fact, my 10-year old will probably watch Valkarie when it comes out on video.
Valkyrie is a good World War II movie and fits well with the many World War II movies made in the 1960s and 1970s. It’s not a “great” Oscar-bait type movie, but Singer tells the story well and the acting is superb.
The story of Valkyrie is about the famous assassination attempt on Hitler by members of his own high command. Previously, I had known that there was a bomb in a briefcase that got placed too far under a table and only slightly wounded Hitler, but I did not know all the story around it and how it went farther than just an assassination attempt, but also a coordinated attempt to take over the government. There are quite a few important men involved in the coup and it is far from a neat single-minded group. However, they consider the cause to be greater than anything, even endangering their own families.
Tom Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg who was seriously injured in North Africa and could have sat out the war in a comfortable position in Berlin. Instead, he becomes a “traitor,” as he willing calls himself, to save the honor of his beloved Germany. Country above party or current leader. They also show von Stauffenberg as the committed Roman Catholic that he was.
Tom Cruise is a Movie Star. And I say that as someone who isn’t really a Tom Cruise fan. He holds the screen anytime he is on, his charisma captivates you. But, he is a good enough actor to sink into the roll and not overwhelm it, as several top actors/actresses of the 1970s have taken to doing. Many of the other actors show the complexity and conflicts of their characters.
Valkyrie is rated PG-13, but except for one word could have been PG. Patton has more swearing and The Guns of Navarone has more violence. My 13-year old son wanted to go, but I don’t trust the ratings system. After seeing it, I should have taken him, in fact, my 10-year old will probably watch Valkarie when it comes out on video.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Gilda Movie Review
Gilda, directed by Charles Vidor, written by E.A. Ellington (story) Marion Parsonnet (screenplay) Jo Eisinger (adaptation) Ben Hecht uncredited. Starring Rita Hayworth, Glenn Ford, and George Macready. 1946, 110 minutes.
If you want to see some fantastic acting, watch Gilda. Rita Hayworth is simply fantastic. Flirtatious, vindictive, scared, fearless, and flirtatious. Did I mention flirtatious? She has one of the best introduction scenes in this movie of any actress ever. Her face is vivid with emotion. Glenn Ford is as good as ever. I’ve only recently come to realize just how good an actor Ford is and why he was such a big star in the 1940s and 1950s. If you need to catch up on some of his movies, watch 3:10 to Yuma, and The Big Heat (See my review of the Big Heat).
Gilda is about one woman and two men, much like Casablanca, but different. Ballin Mundson (George Macready) runs an illegal gambling house (like Casablanca!) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford) is his right hand man. When Ballin goes out of town once, he comes back with a wife, Gilda (Rita Hayworth). Johnny and Gilda have a history (like Casablanca!) and Ballin is suspicious. Johnny and Gilda love and hate each other tremendously. Johnny does his best to stay loyal to his boss and see that Gilda does also. Three broken people in such a tight grouping makes for explosive emotions. It doesn’t help when illegal activities are also part of the scene.
Rita Hayworth is smoldering, smoking, simmering, and sensuous. In addition, there is some great dialog, which is always appreciated. Gilda: "If I'd been a ranch, they would have named me The Bar None." -- Johnny Farrell: "Doesn't it bother you at all that you're married?" Gilda: "What I want to know is, does it bother you?" -- While Gilda is dancing with an Argentine, he asks where she comes from, she says "America." He replies, "Isn’t this America?" South America is of course part of America. She smiles and says "I mean New York." Yes folks, New York is America, even in the 1940s.
The DVD has been beautifully transferred and looks fabulous. The sound quality is also exceptional for a 1940s Film Noir. The bonus features includes a short history of Rita Hayworth’s film career that ends very abruptly. I highly recommend Gilda.
If you want to see some fantastic acting, watch Gilda. Rita Hayworth is simply fantastic. Flirtatious, vindictive, scared, fearless, and flirtatious. Did I mention flirtatious? She has one of the best introduction scenes in this movie of any actress ever. Her face is vivid with emotion. Glenn Ford is as good as ever. I’ve only recently come to realize just how good an actor Ford is and why he was such a big star in the 1940s and 1950s. If you need to catch up on some of his movies, watch 3:10 to Yuma, and The Big Heat (See my review of the Big Heat).
Gilda is about one woman and two men, much like Casablanca, but different. Ballin Mundson (George Macready) runs an illegal gambling house (like Casablanca!) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford) is his right hand man. When Ballin goes out of town once, he comes back with a wife, Gilda (Rita Hayworth). Johnny and Gilda have a history (like Casablanca!) and Ballin is suspicious. Johnny and Gilda love and hate each other tremendously. Johnny does his best to stay loyal to his boss and see that Gilda does also. Three broken people in such a tight grouping makes for explosive emotions. It doesn’t help when illegal activities are also part of the scene.
Rita Hayworth is smoldering, smoking, simmering, and sensuous. In addition, there is some great dialog, which is always appreciated. Gilda: "If I'd been a ranch, they would have named me The Bar None." -- Johnny Farrell: "Doesn't it bother you at all that you're married?" Gilda: "What I want to know is, does it bother you?" -- While Gilda is dancing with an Argentine, he asks where she comes from, she says "America." He replies, "Isn’t this America?" South America is of course part of America. She smiles and says "I mean New York." Yes folks, New York is America, even in the 1940s.
The DVD has been beautifully transferred and looks fabulous. The sound quality is also exceptional for a 1940s Film Noir. The bonus features includes a short history of Rita Hayworth’s film career that ends very abruptly. I highly recommend Gilda.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Big Heat Movie Review
The Big Heat. Directed by Fritz Lang. Starring Glenn Ford, Gloria Grahame, Lee Marvin. Screenplay by Sydney Boehm from a serial story in the Saturday Evening Post by William P. McGivern. 1953, 89 minutes.
What a great thriller. Boy, they used to know how to make a tight well-told story. If The Big Heat were to be remade today it would be 2 ½ bloated hours, not 89 minutes (less than 1 and-a-half hours!).
Glenn Ford is Dave Bannion, a homicide detective assigned to file the report on a cop who committed suicide. What he figures is a pretty standard open-and-shut case to file gets him into trouble when a barfly calls him up and questions the suicide. Bannion’s not quite sure what to make of this and follows up, looking for the truth. Then the barfly turns up dead. This plunges him into a mess of corruption and misery.
Lee Marvin is so believably sadistic that one wonders how he got any dates after this movie. Gloria Grahame gets all the good lines in The Big Heat. Bannion is no wit, but he is methodical, honest, and pissed. The DVD has some of the old advertising posters and trailers for The Big Heat, The Lady from Shanghai, and Suddenly, Last Summer. The Big Heat is one of the top Film Noir movies, so be sure to buy it or stick it in your Netflix
queue. Today.
What a great thriller. Boy, they used to know how to make a tight well-told story. If The Big Heat were to be remade today it would be 2 ½ bloated hours, not 89 minutes (less than 1 and-a-half hours!).
Glenn Ford is Dave Bannion, a homicide detective assigned to file the report on a cop who committed suicide. What he figures is a pretty standard open-and-shut case to file gets him into trouble when a barfly calls him up and questions the suicide. Bannion’s not quite sure what to make of this and follows up, looking for the truth. Then the barfly turns up dead. This plunges him into a mess of corruption and misery.
Lee Marvin is so believably sadistic that one wonders how he got any dates after this movie. Gloria Grahame gets all the good lines in The Big Heat. Bannion is no wit, but he is methodical, honest, and pissed. The DVD has some of the old advertising posters and trailers for The Big Heat, The Lady from Shanghai, and Suddenly, Last Summer. The Big Heat is one of the top Film Noir movies, so be sure to buy it or stick it in your Netflix
Monday, November 24, 2008
Quantum of Solace Movie Review
Quantum of Solace Directed by Marc Forster. Written by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade. Starring Daniel Craig, Judy Dench. PG-13. 106 minutes.
Was this a Bond movie? I think the writers forgot what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie. There were no gadgets, no “shaken, not stirred,” no “Bond, James Bond.” This was just a normal spy/revenge movie with M and a moody Felix Leiter. It’s like this movie is more character set-up. You don’t use the second movie for more set-up, you get into some action. Well, I guess there was action, but you couldn’t tell what was going on during most of it. Perhaps a worthy opponent would have been good. Or a plot that indicated a large magnitude of danger. I don’t know. I do know that I only go to the theater once or twice a year and I expect better.
Daniel Craig is great and tough and the kind of guy they need for 007, with an exception. James Bond has no class in this movie. No suave demeanor, just gruffness. Once again, any spy can be tough and gruff. I can watch Jack Baur without paying $16.00. Judy Dench as M is really ideal. I wasn’t sure I would ever warm to her when she was introduced, but she fits the roll wonderfully. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter has potential, but all he allowed to do in Quantum of Solace is pout. He was much better in Casino Royale. The car chase that opens the movie is pretty cool and Bond is driving an Aston-Martin. The final big explosion scene is almost over-the-top stuff and was one of only three times I felt like I was watching a Bond movie (the other two being the car chase and a dead girl in bed). That is about as positive as I can get.
What really ticks me off is that the directing and/or editing is so awful. I can forgive a lot in a Bond movie but I think I’m going to quit watching all action movies until they decide that cutting a fight scene in a confusing manner is really a simpleton’s way of avoiding decent camera work. Even during the non-fight scenes, the amount of cuts and the speed of the cuts are ridiculous. At one point in Quantum of Solace I was counting how long between each cut. One-to-three seconds unless one of the main two men were on the screen. Then it was up to seven seconds. That is bad news for a filmmaker. Anytime the audience is so distracted they are taken out of the movie, the director has screwed up. Oh, and Quantum of Solace is a horrible name for a movie. Go watch Dr. No and wait on the DVD.
Was this a Bond movie? I think the writers forgot what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie. There were no gadgets, no “shaken, not stirred,” no “Bond, James Bond.” This was just a normal spy/revenge movie with M and a moody Felix Leiter. It’s like this movie is more character set-up. You don’t use the second movie for more set-up, you get into some action. Well, I guess there was action, but you couldn’t tell what was going on during most of it. Perhaps a worthy opponent would have been good. Or a plot that indicated a large magnitude of danger. I don’t know. I do know that I only go to the theater once or twice a year and I expect better.
Daniel Craig is great and tough and the kind of guy they need for 007, with an exception. James Bond has no class in this movie. No suave demeanor, just gruffness. Once again, any spy can be tough and gruff. I can watch Jack Baur without paying $16.00. Judy Dench as M is really ideal. I wasn’t sure I would ever warm to her when she was introduced, but she fits the roll wonderfully. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter has potential, but all he allowed to do in Quantum of Solace is pout. He was much better in Casino Royale. The car chase that opens the movie is pretty cool and Bond is driving an Aston-Martin. The final big explosion scene is almost over-the-top stuff and was one of only three times I felt like I was watching a Bond movie (the other two being the car chase and a dead girl in bed). That is about as positive as I can get.
What really ticks me off is that the directing and/or editing is so awful. I can forgive a lot in a Bond movie but I think I’m going to quit watching all action movies until they decide that cutting a fight scene in a confusing manner is really a simpleton’s way of avoiding decent camera work. Even during the non-fight scenes, the amount of cuts and the speed of the cuts are ridiculous. At one point in Quantum of Solace I was counting how long between each cut. One-to-three seconds unless one of the main two men were on the screen. Then it was up to seven seconds. That is bad news for a filmmaker. Anytime the audience is so distracted they are taken out of the movie, the director has screwed up. Oh, and Quantum of Solace is a horrible name for a movie. Go watch Dr. No and wait on the DVD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
