We are pleased to present below all posts archived in 'January 2010'. If you still can't find what you are looking for, try using the search box.
What absolutely is going for this film, are its two lead characters: Steve Carell and Tina Fey. Not only do they give a shining and very funny performance, they also appear very credible as a real low-key, average couple, going on a date night in the Big Apple.
A tolerable movie, entertaining at times, fun animation, yet completely formulatedand lacking wit. Kids, however, love it.
If the motto of many Hitchcock movies is placing an ordinary person in unordinary circumstances, then Baumbach may be the backward spelling of Hitchcock… This is to say that the main characters in the few Baumbach films I had a chance to see, exemplify extremes of character, of various types, placed, mostly, in the most ordinary situations. Greenberg is no different.
A mostly harmless fun flick. It follows, for the most part, the traditional genre of time-travel sci-fi films, even if a hot-tub is used as the vehicle of choice. No big surprises in the thin plot, but then again, none are really called for. Watch with no expectations and you’ll have a good time.
Green Zone is a film that is complex as much as it is simple. On the complex end it reminded me of Kafka meeting Orwell: Big Brother watched (and tries to control) a nightmarish chaos. Yet, on the other hand, the film seems to simplify the war into action-packed good and evil story, which war is usually anything but. Green Zone does hint at deeper layers, which in an indie film would have probably been explored in more depth. One reason I went to see Green Zone is Matt Damon, as I am a sucker for his Bourne movies, and I figured that if for nothing else, at least it will be good Bourne-like action, especially with Paul Greengrass at the helm as the director. And that I received – superb action was there, and plenty of it. But what is the film really about? Intelligent people such as Greengrass and Demon would not do a film with Iraq as the backdrop, unless they had a statement to make. What is this statement? That this war was made of a web of lies about WMD? That the Bush administration knowingly deceived the American people? All of this is now a known fact (at least to the majority of us, who are not blinded by political loyalty) and unless this film was made for future generations’ sake, why bother? The answer may be in some subtle lines and situations which the movie conveys – situations such as an attempt made by a decent soldier, portrayed by Damon, to try and keep a general from Saddam’s inner circle alive, in order to prove the deceit of the administration. For this soldier truth matters more than individual justice. Now this is a moral dilemma I would have liked to see more of. Similarly there are lines exchanged between Damon and a CIA official about naïveté which again are not well developed. I would have rather see it than hear the rhetoric of it. And then there is the helicopter hovering over a fighting scene, human targets tracked and clearly marked for a kill. The USA is trying to play a Big Brother over a chaotic Iraq. This is further enhanced by some American officials who believe they understand how to manipulate the local people into a democracy they are completely not ready for. These moments in the movie take it to a different level. Unfortunately these moments pass by almost unnoticed, swallowed into the engaging action, which, in this sense, does disservice to what may have been the film’s true intention. All this made my rating task difficult, as this film’s rating hangs somewhere between 3 and 4 stars. But since I strictly follow the “no halves” rule (for now…) and when in doubt go with the lower rating, I’ll have to, with a somewhat heavy hear, go with 3.
Initially this film reminded me of the recent Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes: why take a decent story and attach it to a classic instead of making it stand on its own? But as the film progresses its evident, unlike in the Holmes movie, why this connection was necessary. Only thing is that rather than naming it Alice in Wonderland it should have been named Back in Wonderland. The premise of the film is actually good. The idea of Alice returning to Wonderland years later, as woman coming into her own, is quite original and compelling. But, and there is a ‘but’, the film as a whole does not hold together well. Here is what I liked about the film: the visuals are absolutely stunning – its Burton at his best; I loved many of the characters and parts of the plot; and I loved Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter – he’s perfect for the role. Yet the film as a whole suffers from some diversions including the element that makes it stand-out – the visuals. It becomes the movie’s centerpiece instead of having Alice’s journey the focal point. Also, the journey itself, rather than being as magical and twisted as Alice deserves, ends up being pretty much formulaic, ending in a standoff of good and evil. In that sense, the film is a disappointment, and as I my interest lies with plot and character, I give the film only three stars. I wish I could have given it deservedly more.
Get the latest film recommendations by email! (we NEVER share or sell emails to marketers)
Your nickname:
Email address:
Subscribe
Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, to a screenplay by Mark Perez, Game Night is a comedy-action thriller, that delivers jokes while...
If I had to sum-up the experience of watching this film in one word, it would be: impressive. Although, not without hiccups. The Last Jedi counts as ...
A bio-drama, Professor Marston and the Wonder Women tells the story of psychologist William Moulton Marston, and the two women in his life. Martson, a...
Life is stranger than fiction; this paraphrase of a Mark Twain’s famous quote may come in mind, when watching American Made. It is a film based on true...
Who would have guessed that in Japan, especially post-WWII, American country music, including Bluegrass, will have not just fans, but actual talented ...
Blade Runner 2049, or BR 2049 for short, is a 2017 neo-noir sci-fi film, directed by Denis Villeneuve to a screenplay by Hampton Fancher and Michael ...
An indie bio-drama, Maudie follows the life of Nova Scotia painter Maud Lewis. The film, a Canadian-Irish production, shot to a small budget of $5.6mm...
The Guardians Vol. 2's storyline is as thin and infantile as a young twig, yet it serves one purpose – delivering perfect punchlines. And yes, the special...
Franz tells the story of a German woman named Anna, beautifully portrayed by Paula Beer, who, in post-WWI Germany of 1919, while grieving Franz, her fianc...
Directed by James Mangold, who co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Frank and Michael Green, Logan is based on a story by Mangold. Logan introduces us to...
Re: Logan (2017) ***
I agree about the relationship with Logan and Charles - added a lot of depth, especially with the next...
-- ed
Re: Eye in the Sky (2015, UK) *****
Great Review Ronen!
-- Scott
Re: Top Five (2014) ***
wonderfully expressed review and very accurately describing the movie...
-- Zoes mom
Re: Begin Again (2014) ***
such great performers - would have expected more of.... very disappointing to hear....
-- mother of four
Re: Waltz with Bashir (2008) *****
Stunned. Speechless. This is a powerful movie. Its objectivity and lack of judgment IS its power, and...
-- Monroe Movie Lover
Re: Inception (2010) ***
Special effects are more than ever present even in drama movies, its almost normal that an action thriller...
-- Alvaro
Re: The Real Dirt On Farmer John (2005) ***
Interesting though i was expecting more of the film.
-- rondnor
Re: Midnight Run (1988) *****
great movie indeed
Re: The Bounty Hunter (2010) *
wont bother then
-- superair
Re: Stardust (2007) *****
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this movie :-)watching Robert De Niro in a dress what could be better.Enjoy
-- YRD