Despite its status as a cult classic, I hadn't actually watched Tron before today. While I was probably born 20 years too late to be seriously impressed by its visuals, which no doubt were quite awesome in the eyes of the Pong generation, the film did have a lot of retro charm to it.
The hero of Tron, played by Jeff Bridges (immortalized in my mind as "The Dude" Lebowski), is a computer programmer named Flynn who, with the help of two former coworkers, hacks into the computer of ENCOM, the software company where they all work, to dig up proof that one of the higher-ups stole his game designs. As he enters the system, the Master Control Program (MCP), an AI serving as the film's Big Bad, uses a high-tech laser to digitize him into the system itself, reducing him to a virtual gladiator in a collection of video games. Thus begins Flynn's quest within the system to find the eponymous Tron, a security program created by one of Flynn's real life friends, hack the MCP, which in the real world seems to be channeling Colossus from The Forbin Project, and save the world from its control. Along the way, he allies himself with Tron, a female program, and a digital gatekeeper, and fights against the MCP and its henchman, Sark, all of whom are, a la The Wizard of Oz, played by the real life counterparts of the programs.
Beneath all the formerly futuristic graphics, Tron essentially boils down to a fully functional, albeit simple, "hero's journey"-type story about one person's struggle to save the world from an evil empire. Drawing inspiration from both The Wizard of Oz and Star Wars, the story is entertaining enough to keep you interested, despite some logical plot holes which might make perfect sense if you consider that most of the film takes place inside a computer where the rules of knowledge are different, but none of them are ever properly addressed. For example, Flynn is a "user", and that apparently gives him all kind of powers that other programs do not have. That would be fine, but those powers tend to be conveniently revealed to him at the exact moment when they are needed. Because of this, the story tends to be given the occasional push forward by things beyond our understanding, which becomes a bit unsatisfying.
Verdict: 3,5/5
A satisfactory story of a hero's journey with a lovable amount of retro-age animation
fredag 18 juli 2014
söndag 13 juli 2014
The Wrong Man (1956)
The Wrong Man is one of the lesser-known works of my favorite film director, Alfred Hitchcock. Based on a true story, it stars Henry Fonda as Manny Balestrero, a musician who is wrongfully accused of a series of armed robberies. Over the course of the film, he is ground through the wheels of th justice system; he is interrogated, arrested, booked, processed and finally goes to trial. Vera Miles, whom some no doubt recognize from Hitchcock's better-known masterpiece Psycho, plays his wife Rose, who becomes equally, if not more strained by the events.
The film is about an innocent man being suspected of a crime he did not commit, which is something of a staple in Hitchcock movies. But while most of those films focus on the hero's search for the real criminals and a chance to clear his own name, The Wrong Man places our viewpoint elsewhere. It is more about what someone in that situation feels rather than how they try to resolve it. As Balestrero is moved from the safety and freedom of his home to the precinct, to his holding cell, to another proceeding and finally to a cell at a prison building, the justice system becomes very alien to him. Almost nobody speaks a word to him, though many speak of and for him. He is passed from officer to officer, all of whom handle him in a cold, detached manner. The result becomes a conflict-filled story with an antagonist without a face or name that really is just trying to do its job.
As in so many of his other films, Hitchcock uses point-of-view to place us in Balestrero's situation. During the trial, for example, the proceedings are all filmed from the defendant chair in which he is sitting. In another scene, we see how he enters the holding cell and spends his first night in confinement, the camera slowly and almost sadistically trailing the outlines of the tiny room, from floor to ceiling and then return to the locked door to really hammer in how left to his fate Balestrero is. This direction puts us in the same cell as him, in the same situation, and makes us more acutely aware of the claustrophoia of his predicament.
Verdict: 4,5:5
A tense, claustrophobic film about an innocent man trapped in an inescapable situation.
The film is about an innocent man being suspected of a crime he did not commit, which is something of a staple in Hitchcock movies. But while most of those films focus on the hero's search for the real criminals and a chance to clear his own name, The Wrong Man places our viewpoint elsewhere. It is more about what someone in that situation feels rather than how they try to resolve it. As Balestrero is moved from the safety and freedom of his home to the precinct, to his holding cell, to another proceeding and finally to a cell at a prison building, the justice system becomes very alien to him. Almost nobody speaks a word to him, though many speak of and for him. He is passed from officer to officer, all of whom handle him in a cold, detached manner. The result becomes a conflict-filled story with an antagonist without a face or name that really is just trying to do its job.
As in so many of his other films, Hitchcock uses point-of-view to place us in Balestrero's situation. During the trial, for example, the proceedings are all filmed from the defendant chair in which he is sitting. In another scene, we see how he enters the holding cell and spends his first night in confinement, the camera slowly and almost sadistically trailing the outlines of the tiny room, from floor to ceiling and then return to the locked door to really hammer in how left to his fate Balestrero is. This direction puts us in the same cell as him, in the same situation, and makes us more acutely aware of the claustrophoia of his predicament.
Verdict: 4,5:5
A tense, claustrophobic film about an innocent man trapped in an inescapable situation.
onsdag 9 juli 2014
The Monuments Men (2014)
When I first saw the trailer for The Monuments Men, I was cautiously optimistic. It seemed fun at the time; a lighthearted World War II film that tells of a chapter in the history of the war that I wasn't familiar with. And to top it off, George Clooney, one of my favorite male actors, was in one of the starring roles with a cast of veteran actors. However, the actual film was something of a disappointment, partly because it is not nearly as humorous as the trailer suggested. Based on a true story, it tells the story of a group of artists, art experts and other creative workers who were sent into different parts of Nazi-occupied Europe to recover famous works of art seized by the Reich during the war.
Taking such a dark age of our history as World War II, or any major war for that matter, and adding a sense of comedy to it is a very difficult thing to do well. I can only think of a handful of works of fiction that managed to take a a story set in a major conflict and make it funny. The first one that leaps to my mind is Kelly's Heroes, which very skillfully balances humor with genuinely exciting combat action. However, The Monuments Men, in spite of its fair intentions and good heart, fails to make itself stand out as a war movie, a comedy or even a combination of both. Roughly half of the movie consists of moments meant to be humorous but rarely amuse, such as the lead characters, many of whom are middle-aged men, having basic combat training, or when John Goodman and Jean Dujardin gab during a firefight. The other half is made up of dramatic scenes generic enough to be found in almost any war movie, like Clooney's character interrogating a German officer or Blanchett's character being on the opposite end of a similar situation, almost none of which create a lot of tension or suspense. To make matters worse, the narrative is very inconsistent and mostly becomes a loosely-threaded quilt of sketches, half of which could have been moved around a bit without having any impact on the plot. When meshed together, these scenes produce an overall dull plot that neither thrills nor amuses.
The other major issue with The Monuments Men is its cast. Sure, it has a lot of veterans of the big screen on it, such as George Clooney and Matt Damon, as well as some less brightly shining stars such as Bill Murray and Bob Balaban (whom I will always remember for his role in Jurassic Park 2). The problem with assembling such a major cast is that it has simply become spread far too thin; almost none of the characters, except maybe Cate Blanchett's, stand out in any particular way, hardly any of them is given a big enough role in the story to be memorable and none of the actors is ever used to his/her fullest potential. It might have worked if the group were downsized and the narrative allowed to focus on a few of them; basically, the plot could have been streamlined by making Clooney, Damon and Blanchett the lead roles and using the others in a more supporting capacity.
Verdict: 2/5
Despite an interesting premise, Monuments Men fails on account of its choppy narrative and poorly used cast
Taking such a dark age of our history as World War II, or any major war for that matter, and adding a sense of comedy to it is a very difficult thing to do well. I can only think of a handful of works of fiction that managed to take a a story set in a major conflict and make it funny. The first one that leaps to my mind is Kelly's Heroes, which very skillfully balances humor with genuinely exciting combat action. However, The Monuments Men, in spite of its fair intentions and good heart, fails to make itself stand out as a war movie, a comedy or even a combination of both. Roughly half of the movie consists of moments meant to be humorous but rarely amuse, such as the lead characters, many of whom are middle-aged men, having basic combat training, or when John Goodman and Jean Dujardin gab during a firefight. The other half is made up of dramatic scenes generic enough to be found in almost any war movie, like Clooney's character interrogating a German officer or Blanchett's character being on the opposite end of a similar situation, almost none of which create a lot of tension or suspense. To make matters worse, the narrative is very inconsistent and mostly becomes a loosely-threaded quilt of sketches, half of which could have been moved around a bit without having any impact on the plot. When meshed together, these scenes produce an overall dull plot that neither thrills nor amuses.
The other major issue with The Monuments Men is its cast. Sure, it has a lot of veterans of the big screen on it, such as George Clooney and Matt Damon, as well as some less brightly shining stars such as Bill Murray and Bob Balaban (whom I will always remember for his role in Jurassic Park 2). The problem with assembling such a major cast is that it has simply become spread far too thin; almost none of the characters, except maybe Cate Blanchett's, stand out in any particular way, hardly any of them is given a big enough role in the story to be memorable and none of the actors is ever used to his/her fullest potential. It might have worked if the group were downsized and the narrative allowed to focus on a few of them; basically, the plot could have been streamlined by making Clooney, Damon and Blanchett the lead roles and using the others in a more supporting capacity.
Verdict: 2/5
Despite an interesting premise, Monuments Men fails on account of its choppy narrative and poorly used cast
lördag 5 juli 2014
Bridget Jones' Diary (2001)
There is a very specific brand of British romantic comedies that is hard not to love, impossible to forget once seen and never lose their edge no matter how many times they are seen. The champion of this genre seems to be Richard Curtis, the mastermind of romcom classics like Love Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral, who lent his writing talents to the adaptation of Bridget Jones' Diary, which I admit I didn't know was originally a novel the first time I watched it. There isn't much I can say about the film that hasn't been said in the ten years since its production, but here it goes, anyway. This will be my first real movie review in recent times that is longer than 140 characters, so please bear with me.
The film tells the story of Bridget Jones, single, aged 32, mildly overweight, and portrayed charmingly by Renée Zellweger. After an embarrasing encounter with a man named Mark Darcy at a Christmas party, played by the unsurpassably British Colin Firth, she makes New Year's resoluions about finding love. At work, she begins an office romance with her boss, Daniel Cleaver, played by veteran romcom actor Hugh Grant. As the film progresses, she is torn between between him and Mark Darcy (fans of the 1990s Pride and Prejudice TV series will no doubt appreciate the casting) while making changes to her life and finding happiness and contentment on her own.
I liked the film the first time I saw it, and that fondness remains today. One thing that I particularly like about it is that it manages to put Bridget in situations that are awkward and comedic without being painfully embarrasing; i.e. you do feel sorry for her, but you can still appreciate the humor. While the Jane Austen-inspired love triangle she finds herself a part of may not be very polarizing, the toing-and-froing is quite compelling from start to finish as Darcy and Cleaver duke it out over her. And finally, the cherry on top is no doubt the underlying warmth and charm that hums underneath all the cynicism, the heartbreak and witty sarcasm and that never goes away, even in the saddest moments.
Verdict: 4/5
A warm, humorous and periodically heartwarming romcom
The film tells the story of Bridget Jones, single, aged 32, mildly overweight, and portrayed charmingly by Renée Zellweger. After an embarrasing encounter with a man named Mark Darcy at a Christmas party, played by the unsurpassably British Colin Firth, she makes New Year's resoluions about finding love. At work, she begins an office romance with her boss, Daniel Cleaver, played by veteran romcom actor Hugh Grant. As the film progresses, she is torn between between him and Mark Darcy (fans of the 1990s Pride and Prejudice TV series will no doubt appreciate the casting) while making changes to her life and finding happiness and contentment on her own.
I liked the film the first time I saw it, and that fondness remains today. One thing that I particularly like about it is that it manages to put Bridget in situations that are awkward and comedic without being painfully embarrasing; i.e. you do feel sorry for her, but you can still appreciate the humor. While the Jane Austen-inspired love triangle she finds herself a part of may not be very polarizing, the toing-and-froing is quite compelling from start to finish as Darcy and Cleaver duke it out over her. And finally, the cherry on top is no doubt the underlying warmth and charm that hums underneath all the cynicism, the heartbreak and witty sarcasm and that never goes away, even in the saddest moments.
Verdict: 4/5
A warm, humorous and periodically heartwarming romcom
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)