timoth93 Reviews

Tenet (2020)

A Shallow Ego-Trip From A Once-Great Director

[1/10 · 23 August 2020]

Christopher Nolan is one of the most interesting filmmakers working today. Unlike so many directors who began their careers outside of Hollywood and then moved to Hollywood for mainstream success, Nolan has maintained creative control over his work. Moreover, his interests in the concept of time and the medium of non-linear storytelling have persisted from the smaller movies he cut his teeth on at the start of his career to the big studio flicks he is known for now. It is one thing to make cutting edge movies on a small budget, it is another to transition into making big budget movies that are accessible to the mainstream and it is yet another thing to be able to continue to push your trademark themes and aesthetic sensibilities throughout your diverse body of work. For that Nolan deserves to be commended.

Unfortunately, Tenet is a heartless and charmless affair. This may very well be an example of an auteur getting swallowed by their own ego and losing sight of what made their movies great in the first place. Christopher Nolan has made some great movies over the course of his career and a lot of his movies are founded upon unique story-telling components. But the thing about Memento, with its reverse-order narrative, or Inception, with its dream-within-a-dream plot points, is that these story-telling components were just that - devices to tell a story and expand on the characters. For all Inception's plot twists and major action set pieces, the movie was held together by the pathos surrounding Leonardo DiCaprio's character who was grieving for his dead wife and the movie had a resounding message about letting go of the past and living in reality.

With Tenet, the story-telling components are gimmicky and, although they come together to tell a complex story, I lost interest around the 90-minute mark. What good is a sophisticated plot if you care nothing for the characters? This movie, like a lot of Nolan movies, is built on one big, speculative concept which requires you to go with it to a large extent. But there is little effort to really make you invested in the characters or the world before that concept is introduced.

Early reviews are praising John David Washington's charisma, but I can't say I saw that myself. Washington isn't bad, he does the best with what he's given, but his character (who is known simply as 'The Protagonist') is under-developed. There is also praise coming for Robert Pattinson and I will admit that Pattinson's performance may be the highlight of the movie, but that isn't saying much. Like 'The Protagonist', Pattinson's 'Neil' is a mysterious character without any clear back-story or motivation. A movie could work if one of the two leads were like that - but not both. Perhaps if they made Washington's Protagonist more grounded and relatable, then Neil would work with his wry, Christopher Hitchens-esque, mystique. Alternatively, if they gave Neil a fleshed-out backstory and motivation then he could have served as a focal point for the audience to see the more sublime Protagonist. Instead, both characters are effectively superheroes with ultra-competence but poorly fleshed out development and motivations.

Reviewers will undoubtedly note the action sequences and the special effects of this movie - which are impressive - though I feel that Nolan could have heeded the 'less is more' principle a bit more. By the end of the movie I was so worn out with the action and trying to keep up with it, that I was no longer impressed by the visuals. Instead of staging these complex action scenes, greater emotion could have gone into them to get us to feel the stakes. Then again, what are stakes when you care nothing for the characters?

Amazing Grace (2006)

Why Simplify A Compelling Story?

[17 August 2020]

My thesis is in Eighteenth Century British history although I confess to not knowing that much about William Wilberforce. However the portrayal of the supporting characters, the key Eighteenth Century statesmen - William Pitt the Younger and Charles Fox - was enough to disappoint me.

Michael Gambon is an accomplished, but he is miscast as Charles James Fox. When I heard that Gambon was in the film, I thought he would be playing Lord North and even thought this until about halfway through the movie when Wilberforce and Pitt enthusiastically exclaim that they have Fox in their corner. Fox was a fascinating character, but he is mischaracterised here. He was righteous and principled, but he was also hopelessly undisciplined, an alcoholic, playboy and a bon vivant. Crucially though, Fox was not past his prime at the time that William Pitt, the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783. Fox, born in 1749, was only 34 (ten years younger than William Pitt who was born in 1759). Yet, in this movie, we have Michael Gambon as Fox and Benedict Cumberbatch as Pitt - aged 66 and 30 respectively at the time of this movie). Cumberbatch is within the ballpark to play Pitt from the ages 23 to 46 as he does in this movie but Gambon, at 66, is actually nine years older than Fox was when he died aged 57. This disparity in the ages also leads to the portrayal of Pitt's ascendancy as a changing of the guard with the older Fox being cast out, instead of as part of an enduring rivalry between two contemporaries.

Early on, Pitt confides to Wilberforce that he is intent on becoming Prime Minister. This is presumably in late 1781 or early 1782 as Lord North is Prime Minister. Pitt exclaims that Fox and North will be forced out and Rockingham will take over however, with Rockingham's declining health, it will soon be Pitt's time to pounce. There are a number of problems with this. For one thing, conflating Fox and North together is anachronistic. They were bitter rivals and Fox was North's chief critic during the American War of Independence. The two later came together in 1783 for the short-lived, Fox-North Coalition which was borne out of opportunism more than any shared allegiance (however that was after the death of the Marquess of Rockingham who is clearly still alive in the scene in this movie).

The second problem with Pitt's plot is it sounds far too much like Pitt is gifted with the hindsight that the 21st Century screenwriter had when writing this script. I don't doubt Pitt's ambition but the events that led to him becoming Prime Minister at just 24 were so unexpected that I think even Pitt would have been surprised by how quickly he came to power. Pitt had only entered parliament in 1781 at which time Lord North's Ministry was declining due to the American War of Independence. Lord North eventually resigned in March 1784 and the Marquess of Rockingham, who had long been in Opposition, became Prime Minister. Rockingham was 52. It is possible that knowledge of his health was widespread, but I doubt he would have been chosen to head the coalition if it was known that he would drop dead three months later. That's when Pitt's star began to shine, but first he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the new Prime Minister, the Earl Lord Shelbourne. Shelbourne was distrusted and viewed as a puppet of King George which lead to Ministers who had served in the Rockingham Ministry, among them Fox, to resign and Shelbourne's premiership was undermined. This led to the unholy union between Fox and North who ousted Shelbourne and formed a Ministry under the leadership of a third party in the Duke of Portland. When the Fox-North Coalition was defeated in the House in December 1793, King George offered the Prime Ministership to William Pitt and he accepted. Suffice to say, there is no way this complicated and, in many ways fortuitous events could have been foreseen by Pitt more than a year beforehand. Now here's the kicker. When Pitt became Prime Minister, Fox served as Opposition Leader in the House (Portland in the Lords) and many believed that, if not the for the King's intervention, Fox controlled the House.

Why is all this important in a film that's ostensibly about William Wilberforce and his struggles to abolish slavery? Because if the viewer has any prior knowledge about this period seriously, how are we to take the plight of Wilberforce seriously when he is shown to have the support of both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader in abolishing the slave trade? We get an idea that the slave trade is a powerful political lobby, but this isn't really explored and Banastre Tarelton (played by Ciaran Hinds) seems to be a pretty weak adversary compared to the two foremost statesmen in the land.

Why not explore the difficulties William Pitt had in holding government? Pitt mentions the French Revolution as a reason why they have to stay united but who were the major influence backroom dealers in the Pitt Ministry that stopped him achieving what we are led to believe he supported? Perhaps Pitt was not as committed to the abolition of slavery as this movie portrays. Perhaps also the rivalry between Pitt and Fox was more toxic while this movie portrays them as being largely cooperative.

Obviously movies have to condense massive periods of time into two hours but this just feels like we are getting a less interesting take than the real story.

Chasing Amy (1997)

Kevin Smith's best film and the career highlight for almost everyone involved in the film. It has also become a personal favourite of my own.

[10/10 · 23 September 2009]

This movie is so unbelievably good. Everything about it is brilliant. This should be seen by all. Though I'm not sure I'd recommend it to my parents. Kevin Smith is the kinda guy you either love or hate. In his career he has developed some of the most quotable cult classics. However some people feel that his characters are all the same. That is not entirely incorrect, to many people his characters all seem to be course and over oppinionated. However Kevin Smith provides such balance in most of his films between comedy and drama, between a crude man and a not as crude man that his films actually feel more realistic and close to home than any other comedy. I'm sure everyone can feel somewhat connected to the characters, everyone knows people like these (though maybe not as extreme). It is quite relateable really, the friendship between Holden and Banky, Holden being the intellectual and mostly staying silent or apologizing for his less socially acceptable friend. Admitedly these films are not for everyone, and personally I feel that this film has cruder dialogue than most other Kevin Smith films. Some may feel that the crudeness is unnecessary, however that is Kevin Smith. That I guess is his real talent. To be able to hide a love story behind a crude mess of comical characters that you may not wish to know in real life but sure as hell are entertaining to watch on screen.

This was the first Kevin Smith movie I saw, I first saw it in 2006 on late night TV when I was only 13. I didn't know what to expect, and due to how late it was and my lack of understanding of some of the situations I didn't get as much out of it as I have now. However this was not all negative as it introduced me to Kevin Smith. Of course I wasn't aware of exactly who Kevin Smith was back then, but I became more intrigued as my older brother mentioned films such as Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back that I started to realize my familiarity with these characters. About a year later I saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, again this was on late night TV. This was a much easier movie to get into and from there I got to know the askew universe far more. From there I felt inspired to rent out Clerks 2, having seen adds for it on TV, I knew it had something to do with the others. I enjoyed it thoroughly and from there I considered myself a minor Kevin Smith fan. Researching him on the internet and discovering all the links to one another each of his films display. Still I was wary as I knew it wasn't all for me having seen how much of Chasing Amy had gone over my head. But by the time I saw the original Clerks I became a true Kevin Smith fan.

Admitedly though I picked up Clerks 2 in a bargain bin and figured that no Kevin Smith film could ever top it. It wasn't until earlier today (technically yesterday as it is past midnight when I'm writing this comment) after having picked up 'Clerks.' at quite a good price that I decided that to really bring more to my current Kevin Smith Collection (Clerks., Clerks 2, Mallrats) I should treat myself and buy Chasing Amy (despite it not exactly being at a bargain price at where I was shopping). I knew that I'd be pleasantly surprised. However I could not anticipate just how much I would love this movie.

All the jokes completely clicked with me. The writing was some of the best I'd ever seen. I really thought the character of Holden was relateable to me (or at least how I wish I was). His dry wit. His sharp jokes. His wide vocabulary. Holden is really a clever guy with a desire to find someone he can connect with. Sure Ben Affleck has made a few bad career choices, but this is by far his finest performance. Jason Lee too delivers a career best. He plays a great contrasting character to Holden. He is a bitter, cynical man who we see is really quite unfulfilled in his life. Having nothing really except his friendship with Holden. And appearing to not even having a career without him. Banky is, a brilliant and surprising character (no spoilers). Like many people have already said, Joey Lauren Adam's steals the show. I myself always found her to be annoying in her other roles (especially her voice). And while her voice is no different, I hate to say it but she inhabits her role so convincingly that it would be a crime for me to not applaud it. In fact right now off the top of my head I cannot remember ever being as wowed as I was by any female actor. If you want proof look at the scene that takes place outside the hockey rink.

This is not just a love story, it is also a story of friendship. It is a relationship triangle (however not in a conventional sense). Each actor contributes heavily to their own respective roles. The film's conclusion is so unforgettable that you must just see if for yourself.

TML O'Hare.

Last Ride (2009)

A well made film, carried well by Hugo Weaving's incredible acting

[20 June 2009]

I saw this movie a few nights ago on the 18th of June at the Palace, in Brisbane. There was a question and answer session afterwards with Hugo Weaving and the director.

The movie is quite good, i have not read the book. It starts off slow but a lot is accomplished, considering it's relatively short runtime. Hugo Weaving definitely gets into the role of Kev and Tom Russell definitely has potential.

The movie is realistic and is not at all Hollywoodized. If you like dramas then i suggest you go see it. However there are some disturbing thematic material so be warned.

I myself wish that we got more of a variety of movies made here in Australia. this movie is not too different to other that have already been done but at least hopefully it'll be a success and the government will learn to fund then Australian film industry.

Arrested Development (2003–2019)

One episode is all you need to be hooked

[9/10 · 28 February 2009]

I am not really a huge T.V fan and often struggle to find something above mediocre. I read a lot of stuff on the internet and find out about a few shows getting huge critical acclaim and would like to see them, but usually don't get around to it (a few of the emmy award winning US shows seem to not come to Australia too often or if they do they're not always on primetime). however a friend recommended it to me and lent me the 1st season.

I watched the first episode last night and i was immediately hooked. it was hilarious and brilliant characters. i have since watched 3 other episodes each of them very near the same quality as the first.

This show is very well written and very interesting in the various plot lines for each characters. ron howard also serves well as a great narrator.

i'd recommend this to all fans of comedy and those who love witty dialog and if your a sitcom addict then i really see no reason why you wouldn't love this.

Wanted (2008)

A formulaic Comic books based movie with a few refreshing Twists

[9/10 · 7 January 2009]

This movie continues the cliché'd comic book story that has been done many times before. about an ordinary man finding out he has powers. it is very entertaining as he learns his powers.

This movie however is original in that instead of using his powers for good (ie spiderman 'with great power comes great responsibility') he uses his power for his own personal benefit. it also deals with the evil nature of the group of extraordinary people (known as the fraternity) rather than most groups of people with powers use their power for good (ie justice league). another thing that is refreshing is how this has an r rating, instead of the usual pg-13 rating.

this movie bothers a lot of elements from other movies. mainly fight club and the matrix. fight club in that a man in a white collar job is haunted by his life being nothing and later getting involved in violence and extreme activities. and the matrix mainly just cuz of the action sequences and similarities between fox (angelina joele) and trinity and some of the training is similar (fox taking wesley to run across a train.

but regardless of the lack of originality, this is entertaining as hell, and i think is more homage to classic stories than a complete rip off.

The Departed (2006)

Great

[9/10 · 7 January 2009]

This movie has just about all that you need for a great crime drama. It has a great cast, and an intriguing story. In my opinion this is Scorsese's best.

This movie doesn't have a lot of action, but it proves that that is not necessary for a good story, it keeps you thinking throughout and has great character development. It is also great how it spans the genres as it starts out as a drama, then takes a lot more focus on the crime and in the last 30-45 minutes it becomes a thriller.

What is also great about this movie is that it stays real, while other movies stick to predictable Hollywood clichés. Jack Nicholson is fantastic as Frank Costello a mob boss, the character is very necessary to the movement of the story as most of the drama takes place in trying to get to him. He does not have the screen time of Di Caprio or Damon but he is a very great presence and you will enjoy every moment he is on screen. He also has a fantastic monologue at the start. Di Caprio is great as the main protagonist Billy Costagin who is told to infiltrate the mob. He is not your average hero as he suffers from anxiety problems caused by the pressure of the job. Damon is good as Colin Sullivan a smooth, high achieving cop with connections to the mob. I was not blown away by his performance, but it is the best role i have seen him in.

This movie portrays the environment of Boston very well and makes you feel that everyone knows each other in the neighborhood as a few characters might mention someone minor in one scene and then in the next a different character mentions the same minor character.

This movie is definitely deserving of it's awards and as far as I'm concerned is my favourite of the best picture winners as. i do not usually care for other ones as the critics often make a mistake, but there was certainly no mistake here.

Intermission (2003)

Possibly the weirdest movie i have ever seen

[7/10 · 28 December 2008]

this movie is pretty weird, think love actually but Irish and a lot less safe with absurd characters. don't be turned off by that comment because you don't like love actually, i myself very much disliked it but found this movie really good. I'm just comparing the two due to the formula of having several interconnecting stories and how each character has a sort of conclusion to them. each character in this movie faces their own problems and seeks something, yet whether or not they find it is a different story.

i'm a fan of colin farrell and will admit that it was disappointing to see that he didn't have much screen time. however he does steal the show for most of his scenes. cillian murphy is the lead and he is a pretty good character though he is completely normal compared to colin farrell. but still fitting to the movie as most audiences require a fairly relateable character. what i liked about the colin farrell character was that he was completely un like able. no spoilers here but the opening scene in the movie was just gold. colm meaney was great as always, playing a violent policeman who has it in for colin farrell's character. and i was quite impressed by the character of Oscar, i'm unsure of the actor (i assume he is fairly unknown) who is an unconfident young man who wants a relationship.

this movie does have a few moments that i didn't particularly like, such as sally who would be a reasonably attractive girl, but seeing her 'ronnie' is disturbing. but of course things come through in the end so all previous critisisms aside.

this movie would be a 7 but due to the end credits song 'i fought the law and the law won' (performed by Colin Farrell) it's worthy of an 8. see this movie if you are looking for something different.

Vantage Point (2008)

Wow! A Perfect movie. A fun, refressing, original twist on the thriller genre.

[10/10 · 11 December 2008]

This is a fantastic movie and i really don't understand how anyone can not like it. most likely its due to the movie being targeted at a crowd of teens that like crap, unoriginal movies. when they saw this movie they just couldn't appreciate it for what it is.

the perspective thing really made it original with the characters having intriguing intertwining stories and twists to the story. most people hated it, thats probably because the were to hyperactive to sit through several reacurring scenes. but thats artistic and different and its needed to set the time.

go see it if your not boring and don't want to see the same thing over and over.

In Bruges (2008)

great crime comedy to rival guy Ritchie, instant classic.

[10/10 · 5 October 2008]

i went in to this movie avoiding much info on this movie. the result was great.

its hard to some the movie up, but the main thing about it is its character driven. the characters are realistic and down to earth, especially for hit men. Brendan Gleason is old and wise, as well as more mature than his partner. he is calm through most of the movie and not bothered by their situation. Colin Farrell on the other hand is messed up, and seeks to get out of bruges. many could relate to him being the annoying traveller of the group.

the story starts out slow, but by the end you will not feel ripped off. Colin Farrell is a young hit-man, who has just been on his first hit. not too spoil things, but things don't go too well. so he is sent away to bruges with another hit-man to look after him (Brendan Gleason). however things seem to escalate, getting even worse. the two of them try to keep a low profile, but end up giving up. Colin Farrell gets involved with a girl, meets a midget who's making a movie, etc. Brendan Gleason however gets another assignment from his boss (Ralph Fiens) and is torn between loyalties.

this movie is fantastic and for the first half of the movie will keep you laughing. however it gets much darker towards the end. this movie has a few scenes of violence, most of which are quite disturbing. but despite the dark themes, you can always expect great dialogue between Colin and Brendan.

Ralph Fiens is great as a mean guy with a cockney accent. he and the other two main cast members also overcome each of their individual problems in a surprising way.

this movie is very funny and very intriguing with three great actors. i would recommend it to fans of guy Ritchie or Quentin Tarantino. but in my opinion i found this movie deeper than most of their movies.