Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Lucky Break (2001)
7/10
Slow but Sweet Understated Comedy
22 February 2011
Repeat-offender Jimmy (James Nesbitt) finds himself doing time after a botched bank job. When the prison warden (Christopher Plummer), an aspiring playwright, proposes that the prison put on a production of his musical, Jimmy and his fellow inmates plan to use the performance as a diversion while they make a get away. Things get complicated, however, when Jimmy falls for the prison's psychologist, Annabel (Olivia Williams). This entertaining black comedy carries some good acting and a marvelously understated sense of humor. The warden's musical, based on the swashbuckling life of Viscount Horatio Nelson, is about as lavish as an elementary school production, and wonderfully dreadful to boot. Although a bit slow at times, patient viewers will find themselves rewarded.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Wolfman (2010)
5/10
A Gory, Gruesome (Disappointing) Thrill-Ride
16 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Lawrence Talbot (Benecio Del Toro), an actor performing in London, returns home to face his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) after he receives news that his brother is missing. These claims that are quickly amended when his brother is discovered dead, victim to a hideous, unnatural demise by an unknown creature. Xenophobic villagers first suspect that traveling Gypsies are responsible. The Gypsies, in fact, are the ones who really know what's going on: a ferocious beast, half-man, half-wolf, is on the loose, one who can only be destroyed by silver bullets fired by the one who truly loves him. Lawrence vows to investigate the truth behind the murder, with his brother's beautiful fiancée-in-mourning, Gwen (Emily Post), as an added incentive. After being attacked himself by his brother's killer, he survives and becomes heir to a dark curse of death and bloodshed.

The highlight of the film is—what else?—the CGI werewolves. There are two of them: Lawrence and his werewolf progenitor. The transformations themselves from man to animal are very smooth and impressive. Unfortunately, these killer beasts work best when very little is seen of them (more is left to the imagination that way). There's a werewolf showdown, which unfortunately is more reminiscent of two hairy ape-men fighting than wolves.

The story itself begins with promise but descends into tediousness by the halfway mark: Lawrence becomes a werewolf; Lawrence and the heroine undergo the obligatory romance; Lawrence escapes into London and goes on a rip-and-shred rampage, etc. The cardboard-thin characters have very little depth, but are brought to life by some pretty impressive actors. Hugo Weaving's portrayal of investigating Inspector Abberline is topnotch, eerily reminiscent of his hypnotic performance as Agent Smith in THE MATRIX. Anthony Hopkins does what he does best (being evil and awesome), but unfortunately his two- dimensional wickedness contributes to the film's disappointment. Emily Post's portrayal of a fragile but stoic heroine is fairly solid, but nothing to write home about. The weakest link, sadly, is the lead himself. Benecio Del Toro delivers his lines in a wooden, bored sort of way, leaving the audience to speculate on a better actor for the role.

Had the script perhaps focused on lycanthropy's implications in regards to mankind's dual nature, this could have been a powerful film. As it turns out, the aftermath of Lawrence's transformations is disappointing. Although Lawrence reviles the brutality of violence—or at least, the idea of it—the viewer is left with the impression that he is more inconvenienced by these killings than anything else (really—who likes waking up covered in blood?).

The verdict: THE WOLFMAN is a gory, gruesome thrill-ride that boasts some really cool CGI monsters and characters that resemble cardboard cutouts.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Lovely children's film
4 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The film starts at the beginning of a journey. As dictated by traditional custom, young Kiki is granted independence at the age of thirteen so she may begin the year-long training away from home to cement her status as a bona fide witch. She leaves behind her loving parents and small town and relocates herself to a large city, which (though nonexistent) has distinctly European features. However, she soon learns that the rules of the city (and life) are not quite as she imagined.

Eiko Kadono, author of the book on which the film is based, and Hayao Miyazaki, the screenwriter and director, are both Japanese. Although the film takes place in a made-up world, it can be said that those who craft the film leave their own mark on the story, demonstrating the proper values thought important. Kiki demonstrates the archetypal Japanese trait of showing respect for her elders.

Since she has no special talents (except for flying on a broom, which she does haphazardly at best), her training consists of learning how to support herself, which she accomplishes by establishing an air delivery service (via broomstick). Kiki's growth as a character evolves through her interaction with her customers. At least three of her female customers act as second mothers, aiding her in the gradual transition from the sheltered childhood she knows into the reality of young adulthood. This supportive network of parental-substitutes allows Kiki, and young viewers, as well, to explore her new environment safely. Kiki's work ethic is impressive in a child so young. She earns the respect of adults through her earnest and diligent behavior. She also learns that items she took for granted before (food, cooking implements) cost money and can be somewhat expensive. She cooks and cleans for herself, and finds herself scrimping when money is low. Although she longs to own nice clothes, she notices that even the price on a pair of shoes she admires in a store window is equal to, or more than, the amount she spends on groceries alone.

Even though Kiki serves as a role model towards young children, she also stands as a figure they can empathize with. She has the same doubts and disappointments as everyone else. Her stay in the city, for example, doesn't begin as well as she had hoped. The city is not warm and inviting like her hometown. Her attempts to introduce herself to strangers are at first met with indifference. She is insulted when an incredulous hotel desk clerk doesn't believe her when she asks to rent a room without her parents present. "No one seems to like witches in this town," she observes sadly. Her sense of alienation is present whenever she is around children her age. When her new friend (and love interest) Tombo introduces her to his usual gang of friends, she finds herself unable to relate to them. She feels herself to be "an outsider." Her insecurities and failed self-confidence affects her ability to do magic: she can no longer fly a broomstick, and she can no longer communicate with her black cat, Jiji. She feels lost without the very thing that makes her feel special. Her host family and friends give her the emotional support she needs to regain her self-confidence. It is put to the ultimate test when she is the only one who can save Tombo, who is dangling from a rope attached to a runaway dirigible and faces certain death if he falls.

Kiki's Delivery Service is a sweet, lovely film about what happens when life disrupts our preconceived notions, and the sense of loss and insecurity which takes place after. The pacing is sometimes slow and methodical, that might not work with younger elementary students. With its discussion of teenage independence, it will probably have the most developmental impact for children in their preteens. Recommended for 8- 12 year-olds, this is also a film that parents, too, can appreciate.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Away We Go (2009)
7/10
Good acting, mediocre script
23 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I read the script (published by Vintage; you can find it on Amazon) and thought it was awful, but still decided to give the movie a chance. I'm glad I did - the actors gave 110%, and the movie was certainly better due to certain parts of the original script being cut. However-- it still seems like the characters are never fully developed, with the exception of Verona--facing the ghosts of her past helps her become a more three-dimensional character. But by the end, I still didn't know Burt. The last 30 min of the movie, where he's angry that his sister-in- law has abandoned his brother and their child, seemed to only scratch the surface. I feel somewhat cheated. I saw someone post on the board somewhere that Burt's brother's story, in fact, would have been a better story to explore. Having seen the movie, I agree. Burt asks the question: What kind of mother would leave her child? Now that's an idea worth exploring. The actors who played Burt and Verona had nice chemistry, but the characters didn't seem to move past the whole lovey-dovey mushiness. Which can be fine, sure, but I feel that in order for me to care about this couple, they need to earn my attention--why should I care that they're together? The problem with mushiness is that it doesn't allow for any development on that end.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Movie story-line greatly improves book's (flawed) story-line
14 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is actually pretty good. It is flawed, yes, but manages to say in one hour and a half all that the book sort of managed in 500+ pages. But of course, you might say, it's not fair to compare the book to the movie, and I guess it really isn't. Although I'm beginning to see why some people call Eric Bana's acting abilities into question, he, Rachel McAdams (Clare), and Hailey McCann (Alba) actually managed to pull off a pretty convincing portrait of a loving family. As to those who gripe about the lack of scientific explanations (why exactly DOES he time travel again?) I completely agree with you--I am more a sci-fi fan than a romance/drama, but we have to remember that the film isn't SUPPOSED to be sci-fi. The time-traveling should be seen more as the metaphorical obstacle which tests the couple's love and proves WHY we should give a damn as to whether or not they deserve a happy ending. That's how good storytelling works. As for the movie's ending--I loved it. It was uplifting and bittersweet, but you got the impression that Clare and Alba would manage on their own. Clare has more of a backbone in the movie; she doesn't in the book (yes, yes, I know. I promised I wouldn't compare the book/movie). But by the final scene of the movie, I was convinced that this couple proved that they loved each other. It's a movie. That's all there is. Much better than the book's ending, where she brainlessly waits for him until she's 80 after his death. Ugh. Now THAT was depressing!
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed