IrreducibleKoan's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

This user has no Want to See movie selections yet.

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre (2011)
5 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Ah, Rochester. So few adaptations depict him accurately. In the book, this was a romance between two plain looking individuals. That was the magic of it; it wasn't about looks, but the personalities. This movie, once again, gets the main characters wrong. Mia Wasikowska is too pretty for Jane Eyre, though the make-up artists at least tried to bring forth a certain plainness in her. However, no such effort was made for Michael Fassbender, who is simply too dashing for Rochester. I laughed out loud during the scene by the fireplace when Rochester asked Jane Eyre if she thought he was handsome. Of course, like the book, she answered no, and meant it. Except that this was Michael Fassbender she was talking to.

All that aside, this is ravishingly well-made movie. As long as one tries to forget the source material, and thinks about this adaptation as a more conventional romance, they should enjoy themselves. Fassbender, as with every film he's in, smolders the screen in every scene, and Wasikowska is suitably timid yet intelligent and moral, as her character should be. The cinematography is a wonder to look at, and director Fukunaga paces things beautifully, a feat considering all the cuts needed to keep it at two hours.

In the end, as good a Jane Eyre adaptation as I've seen, though none have gotten it perfect. Admittedly, it's a more difficult romance to pull off than, say, Pride and Prejudice or Wuthering Heights, which contain more fire and better-looking characters. Very much worth seeing for fans of gothic literature, Fassbender, or just good period filmmaking.

Hugo
Hugo (2011)
5 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

This movie simply blew my mind and gave me a feeling of enchantment I haven't felt for a long while--probably since The Dark Knight. I was wondering how Scorsese (my favorite living filmmaker) would fare with a children's film, and the answer is: by not really making a children's film. As wonderful as this was, Scorsese didn't compromise in the least. The pacing, the editing, the storytelling, was all at his usual style. In fact, one flaw that can be thrown at it is that it probably wouldn't be too successful with the target crowd as per the marketing (kids). As some reviews have pointed out, this is more a movie for film buffs and those who know the history of cinema, and for those who appreciate patient storytelling. The movie starts off kind of slow. Well, "slow" to most twelve year olds. I am going to predict that this movie just won't make the money that it deserves to. At the same time, though, I think it does have potential to be a great starting point for kids to discover the history of the Lumiere brothers and Melies to those young ones already interested. Still, I believe I enjoyed it much more than my younger brothers, because I recently took a silent cinema class.

It isn't a perfect film. I suspect that Scorsese and screenwriter John Logan tried to make concessions to the younger crowd because the script has its clunky moments of over-exposition ("it isn't writing... it's drawing!"). Also, as beautiful as the music is, it was a bit much when it kicked in at every heart-tugging moment. This was by FAR Scorsese's most sentimental film.

But those flaws get buried underneath the lush, nostalgic filmmaking and superior craft. The acting was superb across the board, though Chloe Moretz, as she's done with every film she appears in, stole this one with the natural confidence she's getting known for. Ben Kingsley excellently communicated the melancholy of lost opportunity that dominated his character. And finally, the main boy, Asa Butterfield was suitably sympathetic and resourceful, though he definitely didn't have as flashy a role. Ultimately, this was more a film about the supporting characters than the boy himself.

Time of the Gypsies
5 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

Kusturica is one of the great but overlooked filmmakers of recent times, and this is one of his best works. The story might be the usual rags-to-rich-gangster arc but what made this movie was the sheer inventiveness of the filmmaking. The photography was out-of-this-world brilliant, where I could've just stared at every frame. The characters all had their little (or not so little) bizarre tics to them, and Kusturica gave the entire film an aura of surrealism that made the experience unique. It was really the strangeness of the movie that made the most impact on me and elevated the drama. It also made for a lot of humor. As pure (intentional) comedy, it was as funny as anything out there, but the moments of sadness also rang true. The cast was uniformly excellent, even the main character's naive love interest, who is certainly not the most accomplished thespian but actually used that to her advantage to communicate innocence. Others have called it overly challenging and dramatic, but I think it was very fun to watch as pure entertainment as well, with the same sort of quick pace as, say, late period Scorsese.