Spider-Man: Far From Home
Toy Story 4
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
Undeniably important, but frustratingly boring. The film seems to attempt to make Humphrey a sympathetic character, but he's too unlikable to support. Kennedy, on the other hand, is presented as the rock-star and super-power. Even though the race was close in Wisconsin in 1960, we know how it worked out, so that's yet another reason it's difficult to appreciate.
As an added critique, the print I watched had a strikingly pretentious RD logo imposed in the bottom corner throughout the film. Get over yourself, Drew.
Nice use of depth of field. Not much to say about this. Pixar usually delivers.
This film is fascinating as a transition point between Hollywood eras. While the film is mostly Douglas', one can detect a tension in Kubrick's directing between the formalities of the old studio system and the developing new cinema.
You can tell that there was a story here that Bergman could do something with. Perhaps it is too easy to blame Hollywood convention, but the acting is rushed, the cuts are fast, and the characterizations shallow compared with Bergman's independent works.
I can't fairly consider this in the same way as other "films" per se. It's more like a play that was filmed -- because that's exactly what it is. So normal film criticism is out, but I can say that the play is engaging, mystical, and a joy to watch.
This has to be one of Miike's more artistically successful films, especially from an storytelling standpoint. The mystical (but very real!) setting, contrasted with the ultra-realistic characters, with the addition of the beautifully surreal legend of bird people makes this well-paced, thoughtful film unforgettable.
Bergman is consistent with his ability to create rich characters and Saraband is no exception, but the tame cinematography, and awkward experimentation with the fourth wall make this film a better example of what great acting can do for a mediocre movie.
The story arc is deep, but a little rushed. Park seems eager to depict the carnality of the protagonist's predicament, but at the cost of paced development lending significance to the fall. The cinematography is excellent, as should be expected from a Park film. Also, this absolutely is not fair to the movie, but I'm knocking it half a star for being a vampire movie. I know it's got a legitimate source inspiration, but I'm disappointed one of my film heroes thinks vampires are cool enough to do a film about.
I meant to watch the original, but inadvertently chose this option on the DVD. Incidentally, I was so impressed with this edition, that watching the original might actually fail to live up to my new standard set by Redux. I can't comment on the differences, but Redux presents the most enthralling psychological and (not misused) surreal depiction of war possibly ever put to film.
Despite being a clearly demarcated "art" film, Dogville manages to be heavy handed. The set design is a novel concept, but its purpose is apparent from the start, which makes the next three hours something of a let down when the concept reveals nothing more stimulating. The acting is all across the board, but Kidman does her part to present the lead well. Trier's philosophy might make good party conversation, but setting it up in this stark of a thought experiment does more to reveal its flaws than anything.
The film is pretty clear about its message that wars and the people who fight them can seem just as crazy as the mentally ill. Using that much Bryan Adams in a film is also pretty wacky, incidentally. The motif is largely conveyed through parallelism in the characters, particularly when it comes down to the details of the acting. The cinematography mostly serves to complement this approach and does its part. The most striking aspect of it was the occasional sudden changes to a hand-held "documentary-like' camera, which seemed to signify moments that became "too real" even for our ill protagonist.
The power of this film lies in the performances and the extraordinary screenwriting that fleshes out every character into a believable and memorable human. The cinematography does little more than lend itself to presenting the actors objectively, making their efforts all the more impressive. Nor does the barely present score contribute much to manipulate emotional response. The plot requires a substantial amount of suspension of disbelief for many viewers, but it hardly matters by the end of the film, when it becomes clear how masterfully each character has been crafted into its own distinct and fully realized entity.
Stylistically genious, it's easy to see that Murnau's films made some great contributions to cinematic film language. German Expressionism is perfectly suited to this story. The acting is phenominal. There is enough expression, but it never feels overdone -- a considerable achievement without the aid of sound. The only shortcoming I see is found in the second act of the story. Though this version roughly follows the plot of Goethe's Faust: Part One (with subtle differences; one being an actual conclusion), having Mephisto so deliberately undermine Faust's desires eliminates the more fascinating conflict from Goethe's play. In this, we see that Mephisto never intended to play fair, making Faust's bargain easily regrettable, whereas, in the play, Faust's dilemma results from the eventual knowledge that he cannot be satisfied with earthly pleasures and seeks the divine truth that may now be denied him.
Plenty of good and bad here. The story was piss poor with no development, which thus hindered the lead actors. On the flip side of this, the supporting acting was a bed of gems, intentional or not. The cinematography was also pleasing for most of the film, but the few cinematic candies were utterly trashed by the immature dialogue that describes exactly why a particular shot is interesting. Perhaps this is some sort of post-modern device. I just think it's cheap.
I went in to this mostly out of curiosity from the rumors about Bertolucci and Brando exploiting the young Schneider for indulgent motivations, but what I got was one of the most intellectually stimulating, emotional dramas I've ever seen. Nearly everything is well-done to perfect, but the dialogue (and Brando's performance, in particular) make this a stand-out and a must-see for any fan of cinema.
The raw shooting was an interesting style for the story. The film is also very conscious of how other people judge the main characters. While they are concerned about their appearance, the camera, too, gravitates toward wider shots that include other individuals in public while the duo conducts their affair. The sex does become repetitive, but through this repetition, we become more aware of the psychological experiences of the two lovers. The inclusion of directorial footage was also interesting and enhances the mood of what even the actors might have been going through.
This is one fantastically fucked up way to cover the history of Hungary. Both creative and artistically successful, with some excellent cinematography.
As far as I'm aware, this has a pretty unique visual style. I appreciated that the humor was consistent enough to have some subtlety, and the movie managed to not be annoying with its appeals to different social groups.
There are some pretty good laughs here. I'm pretty sure Paul Verhoeven is my favorite action director. There's something about his sense of violence and unisex locker rooms that really speaks to me.
A science fiction masterpiece that actually raises interesting questions apart from the trite themes of the genre! This film ran the gamut of emotions from terror to heartbreak, and it does so with Tarkovsky's signature contemplative pace.