The look is great, the documentary technique interesting, raw and promising, Rourke, in full king-new-clothes mode remains the bad actor he always was playing a character almost as shallow as he makes him look. The story is so predictable that before reaching half time anyone would be able to guess, in all detail, what is to come next. Marisa Tomei is wonderful in a low key, beautifully portrayed (but ultimately not credible) role, but the general dullness and predictability is not compensated by any character studies, narrative style, in-depth felt drama or even passably good fight scenes. An empty shell of a movie if ever there was one.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Troy
(2004)
Watchable, but unsatisfying epic
18 October 2004
This is a film that could have been better than it was. The sets and special effects are spectacular, as are the battle scenes and the burning of Troy. Against that magnificent canvass, the film fails to offer a convincing story mainly thanks to a weak script (are all good scriptwriters working for T.V. or what?), ill-advised changes to the Iliad story, weak characterisation and the most irritating music score ever. Apparently, today you can't make a Hollywood epic without some gritty ululating woman in the background.
Eric Bana was convincing as Hector, as was Brad Pitt as Aquilles (if one liked his rogue take on the character). Otherwise, the film ignores the importance of secondary characters in building such an epic story. Peter O'Toole plays a king Priam who seems permanently on drugs and gets away with it because he's Peter O'Toole. You could forget Diane Kruger's face a few hours after having watched a movie, hardly believable that her beauty and presence caused a whole war. Rose Byrne's depicting of Briseis shows none of her motives. Orlando Bloom is at his best when throwing arrows (now, that's something he knows how to do). Perhaps the worst is Garrett Hedlund as Patroclus, although he can hardly be blamed considering the complete lack of definition of his character.
Now, a film like this cannot and shouldn't be expected to be a literal rendition of Homer's Iliad. However, it should be careful with changes that have the potential of affecting the core of the story. The makers of the movie were obviously not brave enough to depict the love story of Aquilles and Patroclus. Instead, Patroclus becomes Aquilles little cousin, and the later has some unpersuasive romance with Hector's cousin. The change is effected without conviction or substance. As a result, the viewer never fully understands Aquilles' rage towards Hector.
Watchable, but unsatisfying epic.
Eric Bana was convincing as Hector, as was Brad Pitt as Aquilles (if one liked his rogue take on the character). Otherwise, the film ignores the importance of secondary characters in building such an epic story. Peter O'Toole plays a king Priam who seems permanently on drugs and gets away with it because he's Peter O'Toole. You could forget Diane Kruger's face a few hours after having watched a movie, hardly believable that her beauty and presence caused a whole war. Rose Byrne's depicting of Briseis shows none of her motives. Orlando Bloom is at his best when throwing arrows (now, that's something he knows how to do). Perhaps the worst is Garrett Hedlund as Patroclus, although he can hardly be blamed considering the complete lack of definition of his character.
Now, a film like this cannot and shouldn't be expected to be a literal rendition of Homer's Iliad. However, it should be careful with changes that have the potential of affecting the core of the story. The makers of the movie were obviously not brave enough to depict the love story of Aquilles and Patroclus. Instead, Patroclus becomes Aquilles little cousin, and the later has some unpersuasive romance with Hector's cousin. The change is effected without conviction or substance. As a result, the viewer never fully understands Aquilles' rage towards Hector.
Watchable, but unsatisfying epic.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
(2003)
Good Potential. Disappointing Results
30 September 2004
A good starting idea for a romantic comedy. Lots of potential for laughs. Beautiful sets and props. Good secondary characters. And something difficult to find, great chemistry between the two leads, including an enchanting Kate Hudson.
Yet somehow, the ingredients don't add to a whole. The film is missing charm, humour and credibility and is ultimately disappointing and dull.
Only a couple of weeks after watching this movie I saw again "Roman Holiday", which could only emphasize the shortcomings of "How to loose a Guy..." and its poor writing. Roman Holiday is also a story of two people who fall in love while pretending to be somebody else, but it manages to be both funnier and more moving than this modern failed attempt at the fairy tale.
Yet somehow, the ingredients don't add to a whole. The film is missing charm, humour and credibility and is ultimately disappointing and dull.
Only a couple of weeks after watching this movie I saw again "Roman Holiday", which could only emphasize the shortcomings of "How to loose a Guy..." and its poor writing. Roman Holiday is also a story of two people who fall in love while pretending to be somebody else, but it manages to be both funnier and more moving than this modern failed attempt at the fairy tale.
French Kiss
(1995)
Dull. Klein's French thug just about saves the day
30 September 2004
I watched this movie yesterday and I have to say it is one of the worst romantic comedies I have ever seen.
The story is dull and far more predictable than even the genre would allow, the characters are unbelievable and that of Meg Ryan so irritating there is no way to identify with her or with Klein's belated liking for her. Aside from a few funny scenes at the beginning, the humour is tired as are the dialogues. Klein's talent (his portrait of a Frenchman is convincing) is wasted, and so is that of Reno in a meaningless role.
Sometimes you may forgive a comedy for being dumb, or just not too funny, if it is light and reasonably entertaining. But with this, I was bored to death and couldn't wait for it to finish. I was left with the impression that I had to sit through a very very long film, but I suspect it may be a standard duration feature...
The story is dull and far more predictable than even the genre would allow, the characters are unbelievable and that of Meg Ryan so irritating there is no way to identify with her or with Klein's belated liking for her. Aside from a few funny scenes at the beginning, the humour is tired as are the dialogues. Klein's talent (his portrait of a Frenchman is convincing) is wasted, and so is that of Reno in a meaningless role.
Sometimes you may forgive a comedy for being dumb, or just not too funny, if it is light and reasonably entertaining. But with this, I was bored to death and couldn't wait for it to finish. I was left with the impression that I had to sit through a very very long film, but I suspect it may be a standard duration feature...
A below-average action comedy
27 September 2004
Having fond childhood memories of old pirate movies and stories, I was really looking forward to watch this one. I certainly didn't expect some brain challenging epic, but good entertainment. I was disappointed.
Many things may be said of old, classic movies, but one thing is certain, they generally had good scripts. What has happened to good Hollywood scriptwriters? Don't they exist anymore or are they all working for TV at HBO? This film has a potentially good story and a completely pathetic script that results in a plot that most of the time makes no sense whatsoever, with bad dialogue lines, and awkward twists trying to disguise as "complex turns". Simple bad writing.
At least they got someone witty to write Captain Jack Sparrow's lines. Without doubt, the one outstanding thing about this movie is Johny Deep's character and his rendition of it. It is very funny and thoroughly enjoyable. Depending how you look at it, Deep's performance is either wasted in this movie, or saves it.
Many things may be said of old, classic movies, but one thing is certain, they generally had good scripts. What has happened to good Hollywood scriptwriters? Don't they exist anymore or are they all working for TV at HBO? This film has a potentially good story and a completely pathetic script that results in a plot that most of the time makes no sense whatsoever, with bad dialogue lines, and awkward twists trying to disguise as "complex turns". Simple bad writing.
At least they got someone witty to write Captain Jack Sparrow's lines. Without doubt, the one outstanding thing about this movie is Johny Deep's character and his rendition of it. It is very funny and thoroughly enjoyable. Depending how you look at it, Deep's performance is either wasted in this movie, or saves it.
Paris When It Sizzles
(1964)
Not worth it
24 September 2004
I think William Holden is one the greatest actors ever. I am an Audrey Hepburn fan. And I am pretty easy to please if offered some light harmless entertainment even if without a masterpiece tag attached. So I was ready to like this when I first watched it. But "Paris when it sizzles" is, in my opinion, one of the worst films ever. It has no redeeming features, and not even watching two of your favourite actors seems to make it any better. They could not have done much to enliven those flat empty characters they play. The film tries to be referential and funny and it is repetitive and boring. The songs and choreographers are a nag, the story ridiculous, the insider jokes simply not funny. The only thing to add some interest are some of the cool crisp suits Audrey gets to model. Otherwise, this senseless story drags and drags into absolute boredom.
The Searchers
(1956)
One of the most beautiful movies ever made
24 September 2004
I am amazed that some people are amazed to see a "western" in a top films list. I am in fact amazed that this film is not higher up in that list. It has always been regarded as one of the greatest movies ever made and I wouldn't think anything major has happened in films in the last decade to justify having 130+ movies being considered better!
Which says a lot about how the enjoyment to be had from old films from a golden movie-making era is getting rapidly and perhaps irremediably lost. And this is not even a black and white movie! It is (perhaps) the best film of (perhaps) the best American director ever. Certainly one of the most influential. But I guess it is an easy looser. For those who are into action movies, action meaning something, preferably outrageous or fantastic, rapidly happening in the screen every second of viewing, The Searchers may appear slow and "a bore", for others, it is a western, i.e., not worth considering. Paradoxical, for a film that so strongly and definitely shaped the future of both action movies (Spielberg, Lukas ) and art-house cinema (Truffaut, Kurosawa )
And yet, there is so much beauty, character and entertainment condensed in this film! A grand example of movie making where dialogue lines are left to a minimum and images hold the task of telling the story and everything behind the story. It has stunning scenery and some of the most beautiful camera shots ever filmed. It has a simple yet mesmerising story of epic proportions. It has great characters, raw passions and subtle emotions. It is hard to imagine that anyone who loves cinema would fail to be engaged by The Searchers.
The film has some memorable cinematic scenes. Consider Ethan Edwards, his dark big long body leaning against a wooden post supporting the porch of the quintessential west settlement house. The sun is falling on the hard wide landscape around him. From the door behind him come the light and the sounds of music and family chatter. One can almost feel the smell of warm food. There are no words, no dialogue, no explanation. The scene tell us everything we need to know: Ethan as an outsider, a man tied to his roots who will however never be able to fit in society but will forever remain longing around its gateways. A man whose only destination is to wander.
Which says a lot about how the enjoyment to be had from old films from a golden movie-making era is getting rapidly and perhaps irremediably lost. And this is not even a black and white movie! It is (perhaps) the best film of (perhaps) the best American director ever. Certainly one of the most influential. But I guess it is an easy looser. For those who are into action movies, action meaning something, preferably outrageous or fantastic, rapidly happening in the screen every second of viewing, The Searchers may appear slow and "a bore", for others, it is a western, i.e., not worth considering. Paradoxical, for a film that so strongly and definitely shaped the future of both action movies (Spielberg, Lukas ) and art-house cinema (Truffaut, Kurosawa )
And yet, there is so much beauty, character and entertainment condensed in this film! A grand example of movie making where dialogue lines are left to a minimum and images hold the task of telling the story and everything behind the story. It has stunning scenery and some of the most beautiful camera shots ever filmed. It has a simple yet mesmerising story of epic proportions. It has great characters, raw passions and subtle emotions. It is hard to imagine that anyone who loves cinema would fail to be engaged by The Searchers.
The film has some memorable cinematic scenes. Consider Ethan Edwards, his dark big long body leaning against a wooden post supporting the porch of the quintessential west settlement house. The sun is falling on the hard wide landscape around him. From the door behind him come the light and the sounds of music and family chatter. One can almost feel the smell of warm food. There are no words, no dialogue, no explanation. The scene tell us everything we need to know: Ethan as an outsider, a man tied to his roots who will however never be able to fit in society but will forever remain longing around its gateways. A man whose only destination is to wander.
Tell Your Friends