How would your life be different if an angel took interest in you and your passions, your desires?
Not that different apparently, except maybe you'd get involved in a gay relationship with said angel.
There were bits of brilliance, but overall, this movie is a lot of failure and very little success.
Things they did well:
- casting, the angel is creepy and androgynous, Sobran is a convincing, passionate wine maker, and many of the supporting roles are well done.
- some of the reveals about the angel were interesting
- ah... nothing else I can think of...
Things they did badly:
- While I'm a fan of Keisha Castle Hughes, I thought she was one of the weaker casts and was out of place the entire time
- The sex scenes were incredibly random. Rather than have a conversation, Sobran would just flip over, climb on top and pump away - not very sexy at all
- I kept expecting the angel's wings to just fall off
- The "sex scene" between Sobran and the angle was just dumb
- there is always the feeling that if the camera panned just 1 cm to the right or left, you would see some stage hand picking his nose. It felt quite shallow and fragile the entire time.
The most telling sign that this movie was dull? I kept wandering off to the kitchen for something to eat or drink without bothering to pause it. I sat through all of "Sunshine" with Ralph Fiennes. Believe me, I have patience.
I feel bad for Elizabeth Knox, the Wellington writer who wrote the original novel. She can't have been happy with this effort.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
TV Show: Lost (3/5 stars) (2004)
I have been a fan of lost since the beginning and I saw final episode this week. Lost has been there for so long, you know all the characters and they become like friends you look forward to running into each week. They won't be there any more.
At the same time, there is probably no way for the writers to successfully wrap up such a complex mess of mysteries and layers, backstabbing and lofty, noble enigmatic goals. I can vouch for that - they just didn't succeed. I'm sure there is a writer sitting back saying, "There. All done. All the mysteries explained.", but he would be wrong. They pretty much did not explain anything.
First of all - what the hell was the island? If you can't answer that, you've failed miserably. Does it exist in the real world? Can everyday, ordinary people actually get there? What was the smoke monster? What is the light at the centre of the island? Who was Jacob's mother? Where did she come from?
Too many loose threads for a successful ending. There is a bit of closure, in that you know where everyone is at the end and they are all happy and there's a warm, fuzzy feeling, but seriously, if you think that even a single mystery of the last six seasons was answered, then you are delusional.
Overall - fail. I'm sure the studio made a ton of cash on it though.
At the same time, there is probably no way for the writers to successfully wrap up such a complex mess of mysteries and layers, backstabbing and lofty, noble enigmatic goals. I can vouch for that - they just didn't succeed. I'm sure there is a writer sitting back saying, "There. All done. All the mysteries explained.", but he would be wrong. They pretty much did not explain anything.
First of all - what the hell was the island? If you can't answer that, you've failed miserably. Does it exist in the real world? Can everyday, ordinary people actually get there? What was the smoke monster? What is the light at the centre of the island? Who was Jacob's mother? Where did she come from?
Too many loose threads for a successful ending. There is a bit of closure, in that you know where everyone is at the end and they are all happy and there's a warm, fuzzy feeling, but seriously, if you think that even a single mystery of the last six seasons was answered, then you are delusional.
Overall - fail. I'm sure the studio made a ton of cash on it though.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
TV series: V (2/5) 2009
Everyone remembers the original "V" with the lizard aliens and eating the guinea pigs with their gaping mouths etc.. etc...
The new series isn't a re-telling of the original. That's good, since you get a new experience out of it.
My overall impressions:
- I like the actors, both V and human are well played and well directed. Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliette from "Lost") plays Erica Evans, an FBI agent, Morena Baccarin (Inara from "Serenity"/"Firefly", and Adria from "Stargate SG-1") plays Anna, the alien leader. In many ways, the rest of the story is incidental and the story is one of mother against mother.
- The story is pretty interesting, i.e. forming a resistance against an overwhelming enemy
- The special effects, specifically the background shots on the mothership are really bad - laughably so. Very obviously fake
- For a resistance cell led by an FBI agent and a former special ops guy, they are incredibly incompetent, made worse by the incompetence of the aliens to let them get away with it. They are regularly meeting in public places, saying each others names over their cell phones also in public places, including the FBI office!, getting caught on camera and the list goes on. I would be scared letting these people head a resistance. Fortunately, it's all fiction and I'm sure it will work out in the end.
While I'm hopeful that the series will get better, I'm not holding my breath and I think season one was, at best, a mediocre start.
The new series isn't a re-telling of the original. That's good, since you get a new experience out of it.
My overall impressions:
- I like the actors, both V and human are well played and well directed. Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliette from "Lost") plays Erica Evans, an FBI agent, Morena Baccarin (Inara from "Serenity"/"Firefly", and Adria from "Stargate SG-1") plays Anna, the alien leader. In many ways, the rest of the story is incidental and the story is one of mother against mother.
- The story is pretty interesting, i.e. forming a resistance against an overwhelming enemy
- The special effects, specifically the background shots on the mothership are really bad - laughably so. Very obviously fake
- For a resistance cell led by an FBI agent and a former special ops guy, they are incredibly incompetent, made worse by the incompetence of the aliens to let them get away with it. They are regularly meeting in public places, saying each others names over their cell phones also in public places, including the FBI office!, getting caught on camera and the list goes on. I would be scared letting these people head a resistance. Fortunately, it's all fiction and I'm sure it will work out in the end.
While I'm hopeful that the series will get better, I'm not holding my breath and I think season one was, at best, a mediocre start.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Movie: Iron Man 2 (3/5 stars) 2010
Robert Downey Jr. again plays playboy billionaire Tony Stark with the usual host of problems - what to do with his billions, the government wants to steal his stuff (the way-cool iron man suit), too many HOT chicks (Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow - both smoldering in this movie), the technology that is keeping him alive is killing him and some crazy Russian physics genius (Mickey Rourke) wants him dead to name a few.
I was quite worried at the beginning of this movie, with completely over the top death scene of the crazy Russian's dad, including the skyward scream (do they really do that any more?), but it slowly settled in and I enjoyed snappy dialog and a few laughs while watching super-tech (the iron man suit inside the attache case was probably the coolest) on display in the best do-it-yourself way.
The special effects were slick and well applied. It was certainly a guy movie (says my wife who actually loves guy movies), but then, lots of people are going just for that.
Not as good as the first - just more of the same really, but fun enough for a cheap night.
I was quite worried at the beginning of this movie, with completely over the top death scene of the crazy Russian's dad, including the skyward scream (do they really do that any more?), but it slowly settled in and I enjoyed snappy dialog and a few laughs while watching super-tech (the iron man suit inside the attache case was probably the coolest) on display in the best do-it-yourself way.
The special effects were slick and well applied. It was certainly a guy movie (says my wife who actually loves guy movies), but then, lots of people are going just for that.
Not as good as the first - just more of the same really, but fun enough for a cheap night.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Movie: The Passion of the Christ (2/5 stars) 2004
I finally got around to seeing this movie after wanting to for a while.
The draw for me was that all the dialog was in Aramaic, the language of first century Palestine and what Jesus was believed to have spoken. As Aramaic is a dead language, there are no more native speakers and insisting that it all be done in that language is a huge undertaking.
That being said, the actors speaking the language seemed quite rough and not polished at all, especially James Caviezel as Jesus. This isn't that big a surprise, since it's a dead language that few can speak, but if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right.
I found Monica Bellucci as Magdalen completely off putting, since in a world of ugliness, you have this hot babe hanging around. Strangely enough, Gibson decides to make Magdalen the "woman taken in adultery" as well, which I don't understand at all.
In the end, it's Mel Gibson's imagination going wild on all the many, many possible ways that a man can suffer while be prosecuted by the Romans in the first century.
A few criticisms:
- there is NO way that any human could take that beating (being flayed for five or ten minutes straight, being beaten several times, kicked, punched, caned, crown of thorns etc.. etc...) AND still carry the cross or even stand.
- once you are unwilling to believe that it's even possible (very early in), all that is left is Gibson's sadism, and that's not enough to sustain the movie.
- it becomes all about how many ways you can show blood spurting, covering surfaces, dripping, oozing, flowing and anything else that blood can do, and nothing about the message of Christ himself or even the meaning of his suffering.
- all of Christ's quotes in the movie seem completely senseless and out of context, since you can't put everything in, they are isolated bits of "wisdom" that everyone nods at as if it is something meaningful, but you are left scratching your head wondering what the hell he even said and what he meant.
- There isn't really one, cohesive narrative, and pieces of various gospels are taken with no real preference for one over another. The entire movie only makes sense because most of the watchers have a general idea what the story of Jesus is in the first place. Pontius Pilot's innocence and unwillingness to cooperate is really played up and the desire to have Jesus crucified is really strong in the Jewish population. In that way, it becomes far more antisemitic than say the earliest gospel, Mark (chronologically speaking) and more like the last Gospel, John. The later gospels are far more antisemitic as Christianity stopped being exclusively Jewish and started including members of the pagan population.
There are a few token scenes where some Jewish guy feels bad for Jesus and walks out saying it's out of control, or asking a Roman soldier to leave the man alone.
All and all a thoroughly unpleasant movie to sit through. I just kept wanting it to end.
My stars are all for the setting, language, look and feel and not for the main point.
The draw for me was that all the dialog was in Aramaic, the language of first century Palestine and what Jesus was believed to have spoken. As Aramaic is a dead language, there are no more native speakers and insisting that it all be done in that language is a huge undertaking.
That being said, the actors speaking the language seemed quite rough and not polished at all, especially James Caviezel as Jesus. This isn't that big a surprise, since it's a dead language that few can speak, but if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right.
I found Monica Bellucci as Magdalen completely off putting, since in a world of ugliness, you have this hot babe hanging around. Strangely enough, Gibson decides to make Magdalen the "woman taken in adultery" as well, which I don't understand at all.
In the end, it's Mel Gibson's imagination going wild on all the many, many possible ways that a man can suffer while be prosecuted by the Romans in the first century.
A few criticisms:
- there is NO way that any human could take that beating (being flayed for five or ten minutes straight, being beaten several times, kicked, punched, caned, crown of thorns etc.. etc...) AND still carry the cross or even stand.
- once you are unwilling to believe that it's even possible (very early in), all that is left is Gibson's sadism, and that's not enough to sustain the movie.
- it becomes all about how many ways you can show blood spurting, covering surfaces, dripping, oozing, flowing and anything else that blood can do, and nothing about the message of Christ himself or even the meaning of his suffering.
- all of Christ's quotes in the movie seem completely senseless and out of context, since you can't put everything in, they are isolated bits of "wisdom" that everyone nods at as if it is something meaningful, but you are left scratching your head wondering what the hell he even said and what he meant.
- There isn't really one, cohesive narrative, and pieces of various gospels are taken with no real preference for one over another. The entire movie only makes sense because most of the watchers have a general idea what the story of Jesus is in the first place. Pontius Pilot's innocence and unwillingness to cooperate is really played up and the desire to have Jesus crucified is really strong in the Jewish population. In that way, it becomes far more antisemitic than say the earliest gospel, Mark (chronologically speaking) and more like the last Gospel, John. The later gospels are far more antisemitic as Christianity stopped being exclusively Jewish and started including members of the pagan population.
There are a few token scenes where some Jewish guy feels bad for Jesus and walks out saying it's out of control, or asking a Roman soldier to leave the man alone.
All and all a thoroughly unpleasant movie to sit through. I just kept wanting it to end.
My stars are all for the setting, language, look and feel and not for the main point.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Movie: Yes Man (4/5 stars) 2008
Freaking hilarious. I liked this movie from beginning to end and laughed all the way though.
Jim Carrey plays Carl, a "no man" not living his life, sitting around sulking since he got divorced 3 years before. The plot contrives to get Carl to a seminar "Yes - the new No" and his new life begins.
I can't really describe all the funny scenes without giving things away - just enjoy. Well worth your time.
I know some people are saying they don't like Jim Carrey and they won't watch it. It isn't that the movie NEEDED Jim Carrey to be good - he was quite NOT like the Jim Carrey from "Liar Liar" or "Ace Ventura". So, if you don't know if you like Jim Carrey, this would be a gentle introduction.
The worst part about the movie was Rhys Darby's character. Not that I dislike Rhys Darby - he is hilarious, but the entire character seems like a bit of an add-on with little thought to how he integrated into the rest.
Still - well worth watching.
Jim Carrey plays Carl, a "no man" not living his life, sitting around sulking since he got divorced 3 years before. The plot contrives to get Carl to a seminar "Yes - the new No" and his new life begins.
I can't really describe all the funny scenes without giving things away - just enjoy. Well worth your time.
I know some people are saying they don't like Jim Carrey and they won't watch it. It isn't that the movie NEEDED Jim Carrey to be good - he was quite NOT like the Jim Carrey from "Liar Liar" or "Ace Ventura". So, if you don't know if you like Jim Carrey, this would be a gentle introduction.
The worst part about the movie was Rhys Darby's character. Not that I dislike Rhys Darby - he is hilarious, but the entire character seems like a bit of an add-on with little thought to how he integrated into the rest.
Still - well worth watching.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Movie: Iron Man (4/5 stars) 2008
I have been a fan of Iron Man since I was 12. I have wanted a suit like this almost since I can remember. This is Marvel's latest installment of super hero movies and follows (and beats in my opinion), the recent Spiderman and Fantastic Four movies.
Despite my huge expectations, the movie did nothing but impress me. Iron Man is the superhero for techies, geeks and petrol heads as well as anyone who likes some cool, slick action and a little bit of high rolling, over the top super-rich extravagance.
Robert Downey Jr plays Tony Stark, billionaire playboy (yes, yes, Batman is also a billionaire playboy - see the youtube clips below) and does an excellent job. He pulls off the smug, confident and dismissive genius really well and has an excellent supporting cast with Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeff Bridges playing characters to anyone familiar with the comic.
The armor with all its shiny, sharp edges lends itself perfectly to CG and it is beautiful to see. I also like the 3D "ink jet" printer that prints out the armor, as well as the weapons consoles, the flight sequences and pretty much the rest of the movie. Also, inclusion of Black Sabbath's "Iron Man" theme at the end of the movie and in all the trailers is a massive bonus.
Since Iron Man and Batman are both opening this summer movie season in the US, some forward thinking movie maker wanna-be created these youtube shorts that were highly entertaining:
Iron Man and Batman
Iron Man and Batman part 2
Despite my huge expectations, the movie did nothing but impress me. Iron Man is the superhero for techies, geeks and petrol heads as well as anyone who likes some cool, slick action and a little bit of high rolling, over the top super-rich extravagance.
Robert Downey Jr plays Tony Stark, billionaire playboy (yes, yes, Batman is also a billionaire playboy - see the youtube clips below) and does an excellent job. He pulls off the smug, confident and dismissive genius really well and has an excellent supporting cast with Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeff Bridges playing characters to anyone familiar with the comic.
The armor with all its shiny, sharp edges lends itself perfectly to CG and it is beautiful to see. I also like the 3D "ink jet" printer that prints out the armor, as well as the weapons consoles, the flight sequences and pretty much the rest of the movie. Also, inclusion of Black Sabbath's "Iron Man" theme at the end of the movie and in all the trailers is a massive bonus.
Since Iron Man and Batman are both opening this summer movie season in the US, some forward thinking movie maker wanna-be created these youtube shorts that were highly entertaining:
Iron Man and Batman
Iron Man and Batman part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
