If you look at it from a conceptual level, Pattinson was just perfect to the part. Think about it.
I will admit that it was a spectacle to behold, from the saturation to the technology to the huge rat to Paul Giamatti saving everything, but its criticism of modernity was shallow at best. Without anything that kept it consistently interesting, the dialogue, acting, and pace were awkward and uncomfortable to watch. And no, this is not another case of Cronenberg's classic detached acting style, Pattinson just sucks.
I think /normally/ in a Cronenberg, Pattinson has the type of acting style that is very detached and almost robotic. But in this film, he was very back-and-forth, sometimes detached, sometimes more emotionally involved, sometimes just dead on screen. There wasn't enough consistency in the performance for me to think Cronenberg made a conscious decision to have him act like that (though I realize he's made those decisions in the past). And if he did, I think Pattinson ended up being the wrong man for the job.
While I don't necessarily think this film understands intricate elements of action (i.e. anything beyond car chases and guns), it surely understands how blend improv, physical, and observational comedy in a way that had me chuckling throughout. While I think they occasionally crossed the line in an unpleasant way, I was surprised by the lengths Channing Tatum was able to go in the genre; and every cameo was perfect.
The problem with this film isn't that it's predictable, it's that it thinks it isn't. It's far too drawn out with few to no surprises, and when I could write the exact plot from just the commercial, it has no right being 2 hours. The acting was not necessarily spectacular, but everyone likes a racist Maggie Smith. Still, even she, Judi Dench, and Dev Patel aren't worth a story that doesn't need to be told... again.
Something we recognize about nearly all Pixar films is meticulousness: they don't let five seconds go by in one of their films where there isn't a joke, a reference, a visual spectacle, etc, and this is where Brave fails. It feels a lot like filler when in fact, it's just boring. They missed all opportunity to showcase the culture, castle, explain tradition. Worst: very predictable/unsupported character development.
Vehemently detested every minute of this film, and I say that as a RDJ megafan. Something that appears misunderstood is the difference between gimmick and fun. The amount of kitsch in this film cannot be described in the amount of characters available for this post. I didn't find any of the characters, dialogue, or plot to have one ounce of originality, and that CGI was more amateur than Battleship. Complete garbage.
After seeing Children Who Chase Lost Voices from Deep Below, discovering this was a great disappointment. While the film could contest as his best in terms of being an exercise in color, lighting, and aesthetic, the storyline these visuals are meant to emphasize is so empty, shallow, and melodramatic that it almost feels like a waste. Lacks in character, story, and plot, but is still painfully beautiful...
Despite a powerful and expected performance by Fassbender -- and a score/cinematography parallel that compliments this subject matter immensely -- this film suffers from taking advantage of its unique story and allowing itself to fall flat in terms of plot and character development. McQueen realizes that he has a grade-A actor with a grade-A storyline, but doesn't take the film beyond its one-noted exposition of sex.
A beautiful portrait of both a man's relationships with his sons and his work, perfectly balanced and paralleled through the biography of Jiro's struggles and the exposition of some of the most beautifully filmed food I have ever seen. This film is simple in presenting the wonder of its subjects without losing any of the magic of his fame, and does both his food and reputation justice. Beautifully scored and filmed.
This film is able to maintain beauty through it's chaotic narrative and plot, the only compliment I can name it for being such a focal mess; the film doesn't know what it's about. Also, the only way to proclaim any character substance is by declaring him a caricature, which is not a compliment. A great performance by Asa Butterfield and some decent CGI wasn't able to defend the film from being substantially lifeless.
A film that lacks in every dimension: in humor, drama, focus, meaning, realism, and even entertainment. The characters are all unlikable caricatures that are relatively poorly-acted; the story has too many arcs that are either indecisive or plain boring; every moment with emotional potential is botched by weak, unnecessary comedy. This was painful to sit through and even more so to watch win a best screenplay Oscar.
This film was an interesting take on romance, blurring the line between something simply morbid and something of complete sentiment. Really, the film worked as a fantastic metaphor for living one's life without regrets, and while that is an exhausted idea, the film's immensely interesting twist on the subject allows it room to exercise cliches in a new way. It also features a perfect cast with great comedic ability.
I don't feel as though he can't act, but there has been an exhaustion of him. He has been acting for 30 years and the beginning of his career -- Maurice to, say, Notting Hill -- was easily his prime. Unfortunately, his character and quirk are easily detectable, and have become worn.
This film was almost great in that it has an ideal cast and a grand budget from BBC. While there are some mesmerizing scenes/imagery, the film became less about Isherwood's experience and more of Nazis, Jean Ross, and some failed loves. Unfortunately, none of these stories are ever finished, so the film leaves much to be desired. Still, many will be satisfied just to see Smith pull off a character besides the Doctor.
With an impressive trailer and critically acclaimed double-performance by Dominic Cooper, it's hard to focus on the OVERALL decency of the film. Unfortunately, it suffers from a grand amount of Hollywood glam, which would have worked for this film if it weren't for Ludivine Sagnier's gaudy and awkward performance. Also, there is an undeniable issue with tone in the film that no incredible acting job can diminish.
Without comparing it to the original (that makes for such a riveting review! *sigh*), this film is an artistic tour-de-force. Kodi Smit-McPhee gives one of the most heartbreaking performances I have seen in recent memory, and Reeves does an incredible job relaying darkness in all of its forms. I especially adored how the vampire aspect of Chloe Moretz's character wasn't gaudy or overplayed. Overall very impressive.
Though I only watched the film for Charlie Day, I was surprised how well Jimmi Simpson's performance played (though we've seen the character before) as he was revolting. Cy Carter, on the other hand, ruined the film entirely for me. As the script was already self-indulgent and loathsome, the audience depended on strong characters to keep the film successful; and while Mary Elizabeth Ellis was grand, Carter was not.
It's a romantic comedy and Drew Barrymore is in it, so too much cannot be expected. It was almost aware of its own air-headed-ness, which in the end, is rather hilarious. It had its obvious flaws, but the supporting cast (Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Jim Gaffigan, Christina Applegate) really kept the film light and while it was forgettable, it's the first rom-com I've genuinely enjoyed since... well, a long time.
Amazing performances from a film that is just straight-up odd (especially Saeed Jaffrey who hasn't been seen since), it would take multiple watches to really deem its star value. No intense plot lines or surprising directions, but altogether well-paced, well-directed and a one-of-a-kind story. There was some extremely quotable dialogue as well, making the film rather charming. + early Daniel Day-Lewis.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed the performances from the cast (even Leo's entirely uneven accent), the film felt like the same scene over and over. While I understand the idea is to show all points of view of the war, it was poorly paced. Still, I thought the action scenes were well-directed. Could have used more Jennifer Connelly... but what can't?
He's always around a lot of today's great underground comedians and he fits in as the one who could really be a star. He's so interestingly handsome and has a great comedic delivery that never gets old. After seeing him on Party Down and realizing how incredible the chemistry was between his character and Lizzy Caplan's, I give him so much more credit for being able to intertwine dramatic and comedic aspects of a single portrayal naturally. He's a natural.
Awful. And I often like awful movies. Didn't take advantage of anything clever that can come from humor regarding the Medieval era, didn't take advantage of Justin Theroux, didn't take advantage of it's budget. The special effects might have been the worst part of it. This is another Year One, sadly, when the cast is so great.
I don't know if it's a bad movie that happens to be hilarious or literally a masterpiece of comedy. It's so funny, quotable, and aware of its pure ludicrous antics that I have nothing bad to say about it. "I said, 'You look shitty!' Good night, Denise!"
Need "The Great Raid."
I've never seen anything sadder than a homeless eight-year-old boy sniffing paint and being punched for not begging on the streets while he's delusional, high and starving. This isn't a documentary that's just sad enough to make you feel guilty, but take no action; it's a documentary that makes you feel fucking sad enough to do anything at all, because you've taken advantage of your life. Five fucking stars.
The animation is gorgeous to the point that I was distracted attempting to notice every vibrant color and layer of hand drawing. What's wrong with the film is that unless you are Irish/have strong Celtic background (I'm Scottish and speak Highlands Gaelic), none of the cultural parallels will be understood and that's most of the film. Also, he was meant to bring light in end, but that never really came full circle.
Sadly, the film is too glossy and Hollywood in its portrayal of the exhausted theme that is the downwards spiral of a drug addict. There is so much grit and disturbance that is missing from the film that would have made it truly a stand-out, but Robert Downey Jr. is simply epic (but isn't he always?).
Hayden Christensen is a waste of space, but it's an interesting enough plotline and Peter Sarsgaard is spectacular. Bland cinematography when there were a multitude of opportunities at texture, but I almost see the irony in that newspaper is simplistic itself. An overall decent film, especially if you like watching a fantastic actor scream at a shitty actor.
The cinematography isn't bland. As he did in "Breach," Ray shoots these films to capture the sort of really spartan office aesthetics unique to D.C. (Not to mention that most magazine and newspaper offices are really, really basic and un-ostentatious.) And I think it's one of Christensen's best roles. He's really, really good in it.
This film is a modern epic, nearly two-and-a-half hours of gorgeous cinematography, fantastic visuals, and a story that's simple enough for children but intriguing enough for adults. Tilda Swinton is gnarly with her dreadlocks and the child actors are more than decent. Not a dull moment, totally riveting to the illustrious ending.
There's some really fun dialogue here and great banter between the characters, but the story is lacking emotionality. There's a lot of unexplained anger that gets redundant after the first hour. If I didn't love Adam Goldberg like I do, I'm not sure how this movie would have fared at all. All together, it was saved by improvisation and a great cameo by Daniel Brühl as "a fairy."
Apparently this film is terrible, but the only thing I found wrong with it were the stereotyped characters. But it's so charming and hilarious and colorful that I forgot all about that. It's why we all fell in love with Rory Cochrane, so how can you mad can you be at it?