A very strong ad. It shows the story without revealing too much or going on too long.

I love the shot they chose to introduce Shelob - creepy.

Labels: Cate Blanchett, David Wenham, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, John, John Rhys-Daves, Karl Urban, movie trailer, Noble, Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin

Unlike the trailer for Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, which was well done, this trailer is below average. It goes on way too long, exposes too much about the story and lays down atmosphere or intrigue for the audience. This is simply a Cliffs Notes version of the film with titleboards tossed in to remind you it's a trailer.

This trailer also downplays the presence of Gollum in the story. He's in the a couple of times, but as one of the major players and one of the more visually striking ones at that, one would expect for him to be a bigger display in the ads.

Labels: Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Dominic Monaghan, Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, John Rhys-Daves, Liv Tyler, Lord of the Rings, movie trailer, Orlando Bloom, Peter Jackson, Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen

I find it interesting how much the trailer relies on the heroic archetype to sell the movie. This is a perfect execution of how to sell a story based on the heroic journey. They establish the opening act conflicts

• Open with the normal, fertile world (shown in the opening shot of the trees)
• The conflict (read evil) enters into the clean world - via the ring
• The hero (Frodo) is told of the conflict
• He refuses
• He begins the journey and collects his allies
• End with a montage of conflicts and moments of peril with promises of strange and frightening villains.

Perfect.

Labels: Cate Blanchett, Dominic Monaghan, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, John Rhys-Daves, Lord of the Rings, movie trailer, Orlando Bloom, Peter Jackson, Sean Astin, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen

Short Review: Russell Crowe goes from Maximus to Minimus.


Ridley Scott is a hit or miss guy. When he hits, he tends to knock it out of the park (Alien, Gladiator, Blade Runner). When he misses he lets go of the bat mid-swing and sends it helicoptering into the stands (Legend, G.I. Jane, Hannibal). In this instance, you want to make sure you're ready to duck.

Scott attempts to display “the real” Robin Hood by dispensing with all of that entertaining legend nonsense. This is as sensible as making Star Wars focusing on Luke Skywalker before the droids drop from the sky. The whole point of going to see a Robin Hood movie is to actually see ROBIN HOOD. Perhaps I’m just stilly that way. Instead of a movie about Robin Hood with his merry men and all of that fun stuff, Scott sticks us with an origin story for a franchise that will never come.

Scott, on one hand, wants to show the real Robin Hood, but then infuses so many ridiculous Hollywood cliché moments into the story that it saps the production of any sense of historical accuracy.

Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) rises from common archer (a.k.a. disposable, faceless soldier) to become a consultant to the King of England. This amazing and illogical transformation happens in what is apparently the course of a few weeks.

Longstride and his men are lying, philandering grunts who are prone to violence. They steal from corpses, get drunk and fight. Fun guys. Longstrides himself impersonates a dead knight so he can con people out of their money. This plan lands him back in the knight’s hometown of Nottingham where he finds the knight’s wife Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett) and the knight’s father, Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow a.k.a. Brewmiester Smith).

Sir Loxley is devastated by the news of his son’s death. Well, he’s more troubled by it. Brewmiester Smith turns on an emotional dime and then happily offers to have Longstride pretend to marry Marion in order to retain their property rights. Yes, Loxley learns of his son’s death and in reaction offers the man who stole his son’s clothes a fine meal and tops that off by offering to let him have a run at his son’s widow.

Spoilers abound in the next paragraphs. You have been warned.

This kind of dissonance is littered throughout the movie. Marion survives an attack on Nottingham by French soldiers. During the raid she also dispatches a rapist by stabbing him in the neck with a hidden dagger. Other than this brief moment of sneaky self-defense, she offers no recognizable skill at arms.

Since she is a woman and Scott is an adherent to 1970’s feminism, Marion being a woman isn’t enough. She isn’t a real woman until she transforms into a man with birthing hips. This translates to Marion arriving at the climactic battle sequence dressed in full battle armor surrounded by orphans riding ponies. Yes, you read that correctly.

Does Scott explain how she could afford a full suit of armor when she’s cried poverty the whole film? Does Scott explain how a thin woman could move in such a heavy suit? Does Scott explain why veteran Medieval soldiers would allow her to enter the field of battle, let alone fight? No on all counts. She’s a manly woman now, and she’s come to kick some butt. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, its accepted Hollywood sexist pandering.

The rest of the review is free of spoilers.


The previously mentioned contrivances aside, the actors are forced to recite dialog that does little beyond establish basic facts for the situation at hand. There is no deeper meaning to their words nor do they carry any emotional weight.

The thin dialog leads to stumbling character development which in turn gives the actors no footholds to explore their roles. Crowe ends up providing a mush-mouthed version of Maximus from Gladiator and Blanchett turns Maid Marion into Queen Elizabeth with muddy cheeks. If anything, this production may have you pining for their previous work, when they could display their talents in a forum that was worth of their effort.

The film isn’t a complete waste. There are many moments that are enjoyable and contain some worthwhile messages. Longstride is given plenty of lines defining self-determination and human freedom. These messages are lost however in the wandering plot and lose their impact. If you get bored you can look for these small kernels of meaning in this slop of a plot.

I wanted to enjoy the movie but Scott and co. wouldn't let me.




Related Reviews:
Russell Crowe movies
American Gangster (2007)
A Beautiful Mind (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
eFilmCritic
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, Max von Sydow, movie review, Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Scott Grimes, William Hurt

Short Review: The real gift is if this movie came with a complimentary barf bag.


Billy Bob Thornton can’t write.

Let’s be clear, neither can I. I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed my atrocious grammar. I understand I am chucking big ol’ cinder blocks at William’s glass house, but I must.

Billy Bob Thornton can’t write.

This film is a drifting, condescending bore. Even with a very talented cast (Cate Blanchett, Greg Kinnear, Giovanni Ribisi, JK Simmons, Gary Cole and Hilary Swank) and one of the best working directors, Sam Raimi, this film is like eating paste dipped in rotten flour. It’s bland and yet leaves an awful taste in your mouth.

Billy Bob is a very talented actor, but I refuse to give him credit for his script work. I need only this film and Sling Blade to buttress my complaint. This guy’s work is first of all BORING. Not just slow, but produces a soul-pounding boredom - listening to Ben Stein reading the collected works of James Joyce boring. Moreover, he hates southerners. Sure, Billy Bob’s name is Billy Bob, but this guy’s writing pokes the South in the eye at every turn. To view his work, you’d think no one below the Mason-Dixon line has any real value. Can we have yet another presentation of a dim eyed, drunken, slacked jawed yokel beating his wife? These guys exist sure, but can we have the other side of the coin every once in a while?

Are there positive sides to this film? No, not really. It’s not a complete loss, but there’s nothing here to recommend either. It’s a bland, lifeless movie waiting for its turn in the bargain bin at your video store. Which is where it belongs.


Related Reviews:
Greg Kinnear movies
Unknown (2006)
Ghost Town (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelFilmCritic.com
PopMatters

Labels: Billy Bob Thornton, Cate Blanchett, film, Gary Cole, Giovanni Ribisi, Greg Kinnear, Hilary Swank, JK Simmons, Katie Holmes, Keanu Reeves, Michael Jeter, movie review, Sam Raimi

Screenwriters: Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential)
Director: Ridley Scott (Kingdom of Heaven)
Actors: Russell Crowe (American Gangster), Cate Blanchette (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Mark Strong (RocknRolla), Matthew Macfadyen (Frost/Nixon), Kevin Durand (Smokin' Aces), William Hurt (History of Violence) and Max von Sydow (The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew)

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, Kevin Durand, Mark Strong, Matthew Macfadyen, Max von Sydow, movie trailer, Russell Crowe, William Hurt

Short Review: Apt title, if you redefine "Curious" to mean "Pointless".


Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, Alien3) is brilliant and creating films that are marvelous to view. Each of his films is a fully realized, rich visual orgy for the eyes. He has a talent for design and revels in it every time he gets behind the camera. There are times when his gift compliments his film (Fight Club, Se7en) but there are other times where it overwhelms a weaker script (The Game, Panic Room). Fincher seems to be a little too in love with his own cinematic voice and has begun to trend towards rambling too on long. Like his previous film Zodiac, he has some compelling source material and knows how to design a film around his story. He fails to keep his narrative from getting too lethargic. Like Zodiac this film tends to be a rambling mess without a useful conclusion. Unlike that film, this outing makes up for its deficiencies by displaying a couple of notable performances and a production design worthy of study.

Based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the film tells the tale of Benjamin Button who mysteriously is born an old man and gradually gets younger as his life progresses. The central conciet of the film is handled carefully by Fincher who eases the audience into the concept. Brad Pitt as the titular character gives his best performance in years (considering his films over the past few years, this isn't saying much.) He delivers on the task of combining the aging body of an old man with the spirit and mind of a very young boy. This a complicated duality to play out and make believable. Pitt, under Fincher's direction pulls it off. Opposite Pitt, Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, Button's love. While her performance is less challenging on the technical level, Blanchett does provide a empathetic and engaging character to counter Pitt's more novelty based role.

As mentioned, the film's strength is in its look and its ability to bring its world to life. The design work in this production is awe inspiring and a delight to look at. This is one of the rare films that I would recommend based purely on its look. This is a fortunate quality because the story itself ultimately fails. Since it takes place over a lifetime it is episodic. This is a result of trying to bring a life to the screen. Screenwriter Eric Roth managed this task in his script for Forrest Gump and he handles the passage of time in the same manner here. It makes sense to do so, in both stories we're following the life of an odd character across the decades, both of whom make a living on boats by the way. Like Gump, Button's story is interesting but unlike Gump it's not entertaining. This leads to being involved in his story for a good long time, it runs for almost two and a half hours, but not getting much in return. Forest Gump left its audience with a good vibe and a touching conclusion. This film doesn't strive for this result and the ending feels a bit uneven.

I do recommend the film but with the warning that it may be boring for some audience members. It is as stuffy and aloof as it appears. It is also a very literate movie that patiently displays its characters allowing us to enjoy their details.







Related Reviews:
Brad Pitt movies
Ocean's 11 (2001)
Babel (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Movie Every Day
Dear Cinema

Labels: adaptation, Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, David Fincher, film, movie review, Tilda Swinton

Short Review: A great movie, although it made me wonder how clean my hands are. Germs - all I see is germs!


I doubt I am the only who thought when the film cutie-pie Leonardo DiCaprio stepped on screen for the first time “What the heck, this guy is Howard Hughes?” I have to admit he pulls it off. DiCaprio's Hughes is a driven and deeply pained man. DiCaprio, along with director Martin Scorsese, express the fright and frustration that come with mental illness. To show this through a genius who lived a life of adventure and innovation is a tough job but they are up to the task. Opposite DiCaprio is Cate Blachett in a very strong performance as Katherine Hepburn. Even if everything else in the film were horrible, her performance would still make it worth seeing.

The film is not flawless. Like many of Scorsese's work, it goes on far too long. To be fair, in this instance, I don’t see how Scorsese could have cut it back. This is a grand film about a very big personality. It has the scope it needs to tell the story. This is more than worth the rental. This one is good enough to own.


Related Reviews:
Leonardo DiCaprio movies
This Boy's Life (1993)
The Departed (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
Goatdog's Movies

Labels: biography, Cate Blanchett, film, Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese, movie review

This certainly looks interesting and it is directed by David Fincher (Zodiac, Fight Club), one of the better directors of his generation. I have high hopes for this one but the presence of Tilda Swinton gives me pause. Don't get me wrong, Swinton is a solid actress, she's a red flag because she seems drawn to pompous films (Orlando, Adaptation, Edward II, Thumbsucker, Vanilla Sky, The Beach). She's not Nicole Kidman, her presence doesn't guaranty the film will be lousy (Kidman, to my knowledge, has the worst project picking skills of anyone since Dan Ackroyd). Swinton does have some good marks on her resume (Michael Clayton, The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) its just that her tendency is to pick insufferable projects. Toss in one of the Fanning kids and Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett working together again, (please let this be more watchable than Babel) and you have some reasons to be concerned its not as good as it looks.



Screenwriter: Eric Roth (Forrest Gump)
Director: David Fincher (Fight Club)
Actors: Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys), Cate Blanchett (Babel), Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton), Elle Fanning (Deja Vu), and Julia Ormond (Legends of the Fall)

Labels: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, David Fincher, film, movie trailer, Tilda Swinton

This is so bad it made me pine for the days of Temple of Doom. At least with Temple of Doom it was likely Spielberg didn’t realize he was making crap.

They open with Indiana Jones at Area 51 with an alien body and it actually gets dumber from there. This is a remarkably bad movie on all accounts. If George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford sat down and decided to create the worst cinematic abomination possible just to see if they could get away with it, they would probably end up making something superior to this horrid mess.

This isn’t the worst movie I have ever seen but it is probably the most insulting one I’ve ever laid eyes on. You have Spielberg, Lucas, Ford and screenwriter David Koepp revisiting their classic character. They have the resources of the whole industry at their fingertips along with an excited (or at least curious) fan base. What do they do? They churn out the most vapid, tensionless heap possible and slap the Indiana Jones soundtrack over the top. Remember in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones gets on top of that submarine and then somehow rides it across the globe to the Nazis’ secret lair? Remember how you had to ignore that tugging thought “Geez, wouldn’t a submarine be underwater that whole time? How did he survive? You can hide out in a sub”? This movie is two hours of moments like that.

There has been chatter than there may be another Indiana Jones movie in the works. Maybe next time they’ll name it Indiana Jones and the Realm of Lost Credibility.


Related Reviews:
Harrison Ford movies
The Fugitive (1993)
Firewall (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Huge Reviews
DarkMatters: The Mind of Matt

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones, movie review, Steven Spielberg

Screenwriter: Paul Attanasio (Quiz Show)
Director: Steven Soderbergh (Syriana)
Actors: George Clooney (Michael Clayton), Cate Blanchett (Babel) and Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man 2)

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, George Clooney, movie trailer, Tobey Macquire

Releasing in December, the latest film from David Fincher (Zodiac, Fight Club) looks great. They've finally released the trailer in English. Check it out below.



Screenwriter: Eric Roth (Forrest Gump)
Director: David Fincher (Fight Club)
Actors: Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys), Cate Blanchett (Babel), Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton), Elle Fanning (Deja Vu), and Julia Ormond (Legends of the Fall)

Labels: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, David Fincher, film, movie trailer, Tilda Swinton

The film opens with a boy masturbating after seeing his sister naked and then the piece actually manages goes south from there. Alejandro González Iñárritu's smug and unpleasant work proves that being critically acclaimed doesn't necessarily mean you've made something worth seeing. Much like his previous film 21 Grams, which I recommend, this effort weaves a chain of seemingly unrelated events into one narrative mash. Also like 21 Grams, this film seems completely unaware how self-important it is. This feels less like a movie and more like a rambling lecture where the speaker isn't making any sense but darn it, when they find a point, they mean it!


Related Reviews:
Other self-important movies
North Country (2005)
The Constant Gardner (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
In Film Australia
Cinema without Borders

Labels: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, film, movie review

Another trailer for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, a.k.a. Grandpa Jones Takes the Family on Vacation is now available.

Stallone came out with Rocky Balboa and Rambo, Willis popped up again with another Die Hard flick and now Grandpa Ford, Lucas and Spielberg are reliving the old days and collecting a fistful of cash. I understand Hollywood is so chocked with corporate non-thinking that its become utterly unproductive, but can we at least stop dragging out the corpses of generations past to populate our action films? I loved Die Hard, and Raiders of the Lost Ark as much as the next guy, but isn't it about time we put these old toys away and tried concentrating on making something new?

Enough of my whining, the new trailer is below.




Screenwriter: David Koepp (Spider-Man)
Director: Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List)
Actors: Harrison Ford (Star Wars), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers), Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth: The Golden Age), Karen Allen (Starman), William Hurt (History of Violence), and Ray Winstone (Sexy Beast)

Labels: Cate Blanchett, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Steven Spielberg

On May 22nd the fourth and, in my opinion, completely unneeded installment in the adventures of Indiana Jones hits theaters. C'mon, last time out he found THE HOLY GRAIL, what else is there to do?

Is this a return to the brilliance of Raiders of the Lost Ark or is it more like the stupid sequels - honestly, they had him jump out of a crashing plane in a life raft. Spielberg turn Indiana Jones into a rumpled James Bond. Watch the trailer and make your own judgments.





At least we won't have to listen to Kate Capshaw screeching the whole time...I hope.

Screenwriter: David Koepp (Spider-Man)
Director: Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List)
Actors: Harrison Ford (Star Wars), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers), Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth: The Golden Age), Karen Allen (Starman), William Hurt (History of Violence), and Ray Winstone (Sexy Beast)

Labels: Cate Blanchett, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Steven Spielberg

Short Review: Queen Elizabeth I longs for the embrace of Sir Walter Raleigh but he starts to diddle the help and gets one of Lizzy's court members knocked up. This puts Lizzy in a tizzy and - wait, there was something about some Spanish Armada or something and something else about some loony chick in Scotland or Ireland or Vermont or something...anyway, so Raleigh is like real hot and...

Just because something is interesting doesn't mean its worth watching. This clumsy film about the private life of Queen Elizabeth I (played quite well, again, by Cate Blanchett) does hold some moments of passing interest but the piece as a whole poorly framed and a waste of time. The story tracks the budding love interest between Elizabeth and adventurer (read pirate/thief) Sir Walter Raleigh (not played quite well by Clive Owen) and the international dealings between England and Spain. The real focus of the piece is the love relationship. Despite the advertisements pushing the war with Spain scenes, including the image of Elizabeth donning armor in the film's poster, there is surprisingly very little of the war in the actual movie. Much of the movie is Owen and Blanchett breathlessly stating their lines while trying to show how much of a drag it is to be queen.

The screenwriters William Nicholson (Gladiator) and Michael Hirst (Have No Fear: The Life of Pope John Paul II) seemed to be battling with one another for dominance - assuming Nicholson handled the historical Elizabeth stuff and Hirst managed the theological. It doesn't matter because at the helm, director Shekhar Kepur (Elizabeth, Four Feathers) couldn't help but allow his meandering style muddy the works. I find it interesting that a film that sells itself as being about a fight between Catholics and Protestants is controlled by a man who appears to have no connection to either denomination. From the text of his website, it would appear Kepur isn't even Christian. While his non-involvement in the faith doesn't automatically disqualify him from being able to work on a film like this (it is of course possibly for a non-believer to have valid opinions on the faith), it is still worth noting considering how poorly rendered the faithful are in the piece. Given the historical, and still existent, tensions between Catholics and Protestants, being so frivolous in dealing with the conflict is a sign of arrogance and stupidity.

Ultimately, this film spends so much time working the romance angle it fails as a whole. When the Spanish invasion comes, there's no time left and the whole war is handled in a passing series of scenes as if they were a distraction for the Queen. Ten thousand people dead is one thing but darn it! The Queen is lonely! Don't be fooled by the trailer, don't be mislead by your expectations, this is a mishandled work and your time is best spent elsewhere.




Worldview: The Catholics in this film are represented by King Phillip II of Spain. Phillip is shown as a dark version of Snidely Whiplash twilling his mustache waiting to pounce. Elizabeth isn't presented as being a Christian of any real depth and only makes passing references to her faith, just enough to oil the plot. The Queen is shown more as a secular, very material woman who must fight against the imposing forces of theology and control. The minor Catholic characters in the piece are all wild eyed terrorists or nuts. Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) is shown to be a hapless, loopy, birdbrain - which may have been the case, but Morton overcooks the character and completely saps her of any humanity. What is being done here is that the faithful are shown to all be horrid, evil folks while those more aligned with humanism are shown to be the real saints. When Elizabeth finds her confidants are disloyal she transforms into this odd super human. She "marries England" - having defeated the Catholics and her own need for human love (she's defeats God and human needs); she becomes a bride of the state. She gives herself to her post and sacrifices her self for the sake of her country. She is then shown in one of the more heavy handed scenes I've seen in a long time (and this is coming from someone who has seen Michael Moore's works), Elizabeth is shown with angel wings standing in a shaft of light glimmering from the heavens.

From what I can tell, the film asks us to trade one set of oppressing set of values (using the film's definitions here) for another. One is set by the church the other by the state. I'll cast my lot with God, thank you very much. Overall, this film is a disappointment. I'd like to see an adult version of this piece done where a fair depiction of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants is handled. It is good for both sides to honestly look at our differences and a film is a great place for this to happen. As it stands, this work only serves to spit on both groups in favor of offering vacuous secular remedies that help no one.


Cautions: This film has some violence including torture. There's a good deal of blood. There's some sensuality but nothing you wouldn't see on television...wait, I take it back, it's not that harsh.



Related Reviews:
Cate Blanchette movies
The Gift (2000)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
Eric D. Snider

Labels: anti-Christian, Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen, film, movie review

Labels: Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen, film, movie trailer