Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


January 19, 2010
Valkyrie (2008)
Should I see it?
Yes.


Short Review: Want to make a Nazi sympathetic? Have him portrayed by a guy that reminds people of the Scientology.


I did not have high hopes for this one. Tom Cruise starring in a film about the failed assassination of Adolf Hitler? We already know how it ends and Cruise hasn’t shown his ability to act in nearly a decade. Luckily, the production was helmed by Bryan Singer and co-written by his The Usual Suspects partner Christopher McQuarrie along with Nathan Alexander. This production makes it clear that Singer and McQuarrie need to work together more often.

Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) is literally torn to pieces following an attack in Nazi occupied Africa. He comes to admit that Germany has been duped and the Fuhrer is leading them to destruction.

Stauffenberg is a German solider and he loves his country. To protect his homeland he decides the only answer is to assassinate Adolf Hitler. In this goal he finds many willing conspirators looking to do their part. As history tells us, they fail. Hitler survives the attempt and all the men are executed.

Despite the history, the film is surprisingly suspenseful. Singer managed to get me to hope the conspirators would succeed in their plot. Smartly, Singer and crew focused less on the conspiracy itself at the beginning and built up the personalities involved. This allows the audience to invest themselves in the doomed men. The men are presented not as Nazi stereotypes but for what they were, real men caught up in an impossible situation. Their leaders weren’t what they seemed and were an existential threat to everything they knew.

It should also be noted that Singer avoids delving into the worldviews of the Nazis, the concepts that they were fighting for. Its easier to create a sympathetic character if you avoid all of that Jew-hating, racist rhetoric he believes.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Cruise. This is primarily because I don’t find his films to be worth watching. He is a good actor when prompted and this film shows his ability. He’s a good and inviting lead who carries a bulk of the production. I would say this is his best performance in years, but that should go without saying. When he hasn’t been starring in Spielberg’s self-indulgent failures, he has been gritting his teeth in those tedious Mission Impossible movies. This is his best performance in years because this is his first film in years that called for a good performance.

Those who love historical and/or war movies will most likely enjoy this film. It is intelligently crafted while still being a Hollywood-safe version of history. It has enough conventional film making to have audiences entertained while having enough thought behind it to make it something more than just a waste of time.




Related Reviews:
World War II movies
The Hiding Place (1975)
Mephisto (1981)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
The Screening Log


Labels: , , , , , ,



Share






April 1, 2009
Dead Again (1991)
Should I see it?
Nope.



Kenneth Branagh’s murder mystery is a high-concept movie that fails to deliver the goods. Mike Church (Branagh) who takes on the cause of Grace (Emma Thompson). Grace is troubled by thoughts of a woman named Margaret at the hands of her jealous husband Roman. As Church and Grace go to Franklin Madson (Derek Jacobi), who knows hypnotism, to get to the bottom of Grace’s nightmares.

***Spoiler Warning***
After this point I am going to speak plainly and reveal the end of the film. I recommend avoiding the film, but if you wish to see it anyway, stop reading.

The intent of the film is to offer a tightly wound mystery involving reincarnation and revenge. The big twist is that Church and Grace were married in a previously life as Margaret and Roman. As an added twist their genders were swapped out following their reincarnation so Church was Margaret and Grace was Roman – so, in a previous life Grace murdered Church. The whole affair is quite thick. While screenwriter Scott Frank doe a good job of unraveling this convoluted plot, he does so at the expense of character development. Mike Church, in particular is a rather thin character without much depth. Frank gives Church the business of quitting smoking, that’s about does it as far as character goes. Branagh miscasts himself in the role of Church. While he does well as Roman Strauss, his Mike Church is flat. For starters, Branagh’s American accent is far from flawless and he seems a little lost for things to do. He’s awkward in the role. His Church seems far too squirrely and not nearly coarse enough to be a believable private investigator. Emma Thompson offers a good performance as Grace and is given a little more to work with by the script. Supporting the couple Jacobi, Robin Williams and Andy Garcia each give their stock performances. Jacobi is stuffy, Williams is the enlightened funny man and Garcia is brutish charmer. There’s no performance here that stands out. I believe this primarily because each of these actors bring more to the table than the script does. They’re left fumbling through underwritten scenes instead of building up the kind of performances one would expect from such a strong cast.

The names in this script are so hokey. Church and Grace are the leads? In the past they were Roman and Margaret. So Branagh is playing Roman and Church = Roman Church and Thompson is Margaret and Grace – Margaret means pearl (pearl of wisdom) = wisdom and Grace? You have the murderous son who’s last name just happens to me Madson – Mad Son. Am I making too much out of the names? Probably not. This is the kind of thing screenwriters will do all the time. Instead of creating names that fit the character they will often make the names symbolic or have some double meaning. The problem with doing this is that what makes sense when the writer pens the script may not make sense by the time the entire production crew gets done getting their filthy uncreative mitts all over the piece. Either way, the names in this script are way too obtuse and silly.


Worldview: The central concept is interesting since it unintentionally outlines the inherent flaw in the idea of karma. The characters committed sins in the past and they’re condemned to repair those sins in the present. The sins of today create the reality of tomorrow. It is a never ending and ultimately pointless endeavor. No one is perfect so no one can escape the cycle of karma. This is where Christ comes in for us Christians. You can believe in karma all you want but there is only one way out, Christ. Since he died for our sins and redeems us this constant karmic repair work is complete. This Ying and Yang nonsense is for dopes. Saddle up with Christ and get out of the loop.


Related Reviews:
Robin Williams movies
The Final Cut (2004)
The World According to Garp (1982)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Siskel & Ebert
Rotten Tomatoes





Labels: , , , , , ,



Share






December 19, 2008
Movie Trailer: The Boat That Rocked
And Kenneth Branagh in the role of Dean Vernon Wormer...

Uptight Square Underling: "Sir, unwashed hippies are running a pirate radio station in international waters."
Dean Vernon Wormer: "They are? Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION! "









Screenwriter: Richard Curtis (Bridget Jones' Diary)
Director: Richard Curtis
Actors: Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead), Bill Nighy (Underworld), Emma Thompson (Wit), Kenneth Branagh (Conspiracy) and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz)


Labels: , , , , , , ,



Share






September 30, 2008
Movie Trailer: Valkyrie
This movie has had its share of troubles and rumors on top of it's changing release schedule. It looks wonderful. Strong design, compelling story, great cast. It will be interesting to see if they can keep the story moving and filled with tension even though we know how it ends. For all of you who are under thirty who went to public school I'll tip you in: Hitler was a bad man we fought a long time ago and he eventually committed suicide in a bunker in Berlin.

Berlin is a city in a country called Germany.

I'm only half kidding with the condescending tone. I mentioned Der Führer to a smart, educated young woman once - she had no idea what I was talking about. I've had more than one instance of similar encounters.




Click to view the trailer



Screenwriters: Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and Nathan Alexander
Director: Bryan Singer (X-Men)
Actors: Tom Cruise (Vanilla Sky), Kenneth Branagh (Conspiracy), Tom Wilkerson (Michael Clayton), Terence Stamp (Superman II), Eddie Izzard (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian), Bill Nighy (Underworld), Stephen Fry (V for Vendetta), Kevin McNally (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) and Carice van Houten (Body of Lies)

Labels: , , ,



Share






August 4, 2008
The Goebbels Experiment (2005)
Should I see it?
Yes.

The Goebbels Experiment

Centering around Kenneth Branagh reading from Josef Goebbels’s personal diaries, this documentary about Hitler’s master propagandist is a fascinating look into Germany’s Nazi Party. We follow the mousy marketer from his initial idealistic impressions of Adolf Hitler to his eventual disillusionment and subsequent murder/suicide in the bunker with his family. For any student of World War II this is a must see film. Be warned there are some gruesome images like an unedited view of Goebbels’ naked and burned corpse.


Reviews:
The Los Angeles Times
Film-Forward


Labels: , , , , , , ,



Share






March 15, 2008
Sleuth (2007)
Should I see it?
No.

Short Review: You could make this film into a drinking game - take a shot every time you get bored.



Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Anthony Shaffer's stage play is lackadaisical from frame one forward. Branagh direction gets in his own way. From his choice of shots to how he lays out his compositions, the piece is over managed and isn't given the freedom to breathe. Its a remarkable thing to see a film so disturbed by the director's hand. The choices made by Branagh and company are so obtuse I had to check twice to make sure this wasn't cobbled together by student filmmakers. The sets, meant to show a rich man's lonely post modern mansion, look more like backdrops to a Duran Duran video than something a human would actually live in. While this may be the ultimate intent of the designer, they distract from the action taking place on screen. Combined with the bone dry dialog, this whole movie is a like a real crappy piece of conceptual art.*

The adaptation, written by Harold Pinter is as dry as old toast covered in sand and served on a plank of dried balsa wood. Shaffer's play pits two characters, the young, handsome Milo and the aged, wealthy and intelligent Andrew. Milo has run off with Andrew's wife and as come to Andrew's mansion to ask the old man to give the woman a divorce. Andrew has a devious plot for the young actor however and a well conceived plot unwinds. Pinter's takes Shaffer's piece and makes it into an antiseptic bore. By the time the piece picks up some steam, Pinter has asked the audience to sit through an insufferable amount of needless prattling. The characters exhibit no actual human qualities beyond the capacity to speak words and inflect their voices. Michael Caine and Jude Law both seem awkward in their lines and developing their roles. Caine in particular seems off. This is surprising since he can pretty much show up on a set and carry the show. In this instance however, he is clearly not comfortable. He should be quite at home in this film though since this isn't the first time he's been around this material.

Back in 1972, Shaffer himself wrote a cleaner and bouncier version that starred Lawrence Oliver and Caine. Caine of course, played the younger role his first time out. The previous version seems like a piece of brilliant cinematic art in comparison to this needless update. The original, directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (The Barefoot Contessa, Cleopatra) revels in the play of characters. Branagh's version comes across like someone reading the script to you for ninety minutes.

If you have a need to see this film do yourself a huge favor and head down to your local video store, dig around in the dusty portion of the drama section and rent the original. It will cost a great deal less and entertain a great deal more.


* - to be fair, all conceptual art is crappy.


Related Reviews:
Michael Caine movies
The Eagle Has Landed (1972)
The Weather Man (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
A Nutshell Review


Labels: , , , ,



Share