Short Review: This film demonstrates that just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should go through with it.


Spielberg is one of the masters of film, but this is an embarrassment. I have my expectations of Spielberg - extremely high expectations. This is a man who is literally one of the most powerful people in human history. Think of the power he has access to. He IS Hollywood. Everyone who thinks of working in the industry references him directly. He has the industry at his feet and can make nearly any movie he wishes. He has the resources available to him to satisfy any creative itch he needs to scratch. When he does produce something it is a global event. His voice is heard across the Earth each time he clears his throat.

If, as a world, we are willing to allow Spielberg to breathe this rarefied air then we must hold him to the highest standard. With his position, resources and most of all talent, he should be making Schindler’s List level films without fail. Each production stemming from this man’s decisions should be nearly perfect. Is this too high of a standard? No. We should be getting John Ford, Hitchcock or David Lean and we’re getting Michael Bay.

This film shouldn’t have been made. There is no purpose to it. We know the story and Spielberg has nothing new to add except that HE’S DOING IT. The whole production stinks of hubris. It says something about a man who would be in the opening of Austin Powers in Goldmember, holding up his Oscar as a means of showing his importance. Yeah, it’s a joke but can you honestly see yourself doing the same thing?

Here is the whole film: Tom “Sure I’m Straight, Why Does Everyone Keep Asking Me?” Cruise and the rest of the cast spend their time running from unimpressive alien machines while patching up their dysfunctional family. They run some more, they in-fight some more. People get killed then Cruise and family runs some more. Did I mention they run? The story is an exercise in transparency. You know how each scene will play out and you know how the film will end. The fate of the ship in Titanic held more surprises than this sad film. To worsen matters, the internal logic of the whole piece falls apart upon the slightest touch. The rules of the movie are set up in one scene only to be contradicted in the next. The only consistent thing about this film is young actress Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the single bright spot in the film - and I say this as someone who doesn't like Dakota Fanning - she usually irritates me to no end. Other than her convincing performance, we are left with a grand disaster of a film.

Steer clear of Cruise and Steven Spielberg’s self-congratulatory “Me” fest. They’ve made this film for themselves, let them watch it, you don’t have to.


Related Reviews:
Steven Spielberg films
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001)
The Terminal (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Rolling Stone
Roger Ebert

Labels: adaptation, Dakota Fanning, film, movie review, Steven Spielberg, Tim Robbins, Tom Cruise

Thanks to Jeff Burton of BURTONIA for this quick review.

Short Review: This story has more leaks than a 200 year old pipe.


City of Ember is a weak adaptation of Jean DuPrau's children's novel of the same title. Set in an underground city built to escape some unnamed apocalypse, two children attempt to escape Ember's inevitable collapse into darkness as the main generator begins to fail. The story is plagued with ridiculous contrivance and numerous loose ends. Its primary failing, however, is a missing connection between the villain and the main conflict. Bill Murray's performance as the machinating mayor is too laid back to menace, and too serious to amuse. The two lead performances are adequate, but I think the delightfully elfin Saoirse Ronan would be better cast as a genuine elf.

In spite of its shortcomings, this production succeeds spectacularly in the visual department. The set design perfectly convinces that Ember has seen two centuries of decay. There is enough detail and visual interest to make us want the camera to slowdown so we can take in more of it.

But then the silliness reasserts itself and we are treated to a tacked-on monster sub-plot, a father-son conflict that goes nowhere, and the final escape sequence, whose geometry much like an Escher drawing in its logic. In sum, it's a mediocrity unworthy of popular kid fiction.




Related Reviews:
Other Adaptations
Five People You Meet in Heaven (2004)
Because of Winn-Dixie (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SpoutBlog
Roger Ebert

Labels: adaptation, Bill Murray, guest review, movie review, Tim Robbins

Dear Troops:

Sorry about all of that pissing on you for the past few years. Nothing personal. Hope this little ditty makes up for it.


Love,

Hollywood


PS: You see, we really REALLY care.





Screenwriter: Neil Burger (The Illusionist) and Dirk Wittenborn
Director: Neil Burger (The Illusionist)
Actors: Rachel McAdams (Wedding Crashers), Tim Robbins (The Shawshank Redemption) and Michael Pena (Shooter)

Labels: film, Michael Pena, movie trailer, Rachel McAdams, Tim Robbins

Most artists fall flat on their faces at least once. The Coen Bros. (Intolerable Cruelty, Fargo, Blood Simple) perform a serious face plant with this outing. Tim Robbins keeps to his apparent demand not to make any film better than Shawshank Redemption. He portrays a doofus who ends up running a corporate empire in this less than amusing comedy. More visually interesting than actually interesting.


Related Reviews:
Coen Brothers movies
O' Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)
No Country for Old Men (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Independent Critics
Almost Fabulous Movie Reviews

Labels: Coen Brothers, film, movie review, Paul Newman, Tim Robbins

Screenwriter: Caroline Thompson (Edward Scissorhands)
Director: Gil Kenan (Monster House)
Actors: Bill Murray (Caddyshack), Tim Robbins (Code 46), Martin Landau (Ed Wood), Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), and Mackenzie Cook (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End)

Labels: adaptation, Bill Murray, film, Martin Landau, movie trailer, Saoirse Ronan, Tim Robbins