Movie clip #5: Frozen (2013)
Frozen (2013) Directed by Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee
This movie definitely feels like 'old' Disney again. Songs, princesses, cute characters, snappy comedy, far off places, adventure. Everything that made a lot of the. for instance, Disney animated movies from the '90's so great and timeless are all present in this movie as well. Having said that, this is one is not among the best Disney movies of all time in my opinion but it's good to see the studio returning to old form.
And all criticism aside; I genuinely enjoyed watching this movie. It's some perfectly enjoyable, simple, quick, entertainment but that at the same time is also still my main problem with it; it's a very basic and simple movie really.
It's a movie with a very straightforward story, that doesn't feature that many distractions in it. There for instance are no real side-plots and it's spending all of its time with either the Anna or Elsa character. There is no time and room for anything or anyone else to ever fully develop. It makes the story a pretty simplistic and also shallow one, though at the same time it still manages to be engaging enough with its main story and characters.
The story also does still have some nice touches in it. I for instance liked that the movie showed that a very feminine and girl like character such as a princes can be an heroic, adventurous and strong character, without having to toughen her up first, by giving her a warrior outfit or weapons for instance, like lots of animated movies that want to feature a strong female lead in it often tend to do.I also liked how the love story was slightly different from usual and it handled themes such as true love and giving your heart to a person pretty well. Definitely better and more sensible than usual is the case with animated movies, aimed toward young kids.
The movie also features some pretty good songs in it. A bit too simple for my taste perhaps at times but I guess that's also why most of them are catchy ones. It's not exactly Alan Menken and Tim Rice type of material so to speak but it's definitely good to hear some original, good 'old fashioned', songs in a Disney movie again, without feeling forced and actually old fashioned.
Also good to see a genuinely good, fun and cute, comical sidekick in an animated movie again. There's always the danger with these sort of characters that they work out as annoying and forced one but Olaf the snowman, voiced by Josh Gad, actually definitely was my favorite character of the movie. His name alone is already enough to make me smile and he has a great, cute, personality and some funny one liners, throughout the entire movie.
Even though the movie as a whole feels a bit too simplistic and also certainly predictable, it still is one enjoyable animated movie to watch, of course especially for the young ones.
7/10
Watch trailer
TV spot #2: Frozen (2013)
Movie clip #4: Frozen (2013)
Fearless optimist Anna teams up with Kristoff in an epic journey, encountering Everest-like conditions, and a hilarious snowman named Olaf in a race to find Anna's sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom in eternal winter. From: IMDb.com
Movie clip #3: Frozen (2013)
Fearless optimist Anna teams up with Kristoff in an epic journey, encountering Everest-like conditions, and a hilarious snowman named Olaf in a race to find Anna's sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom in eternal winter. From: IMDb.com
Movie clip #2: Frozen (2013)
Fearless optimist Anna teams up with Kristoff in an epic journey, encountering Everest-like conditions, and a hilarious snowman named Olaf in a race to find Anna's sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom in eternal winter. From: IMDb.com
Movie clip: Frozen (2013)
Fearless optimist Anna teams up with Kristoff in an epic journey, encountering Everest-like conditions, and a hilarious snowman named Olaf in a race to find Anna's sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom in eternal winter. From: IMDb.com
4 new movie clips: Closed Circuit (2013)
Martin and Claudia are lawyers -- and ex-lovers -- who find themselves put at risk after they join the defense team for an international terrorist's trial. From: IMDb.com
Trailer: McCanick (2013)
A narrative feature film inspired by the events known as the Beltway sniper attacks. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Josh C. Waller
Starring: Rachel Nichols, Cory Monteith, Mike Vogel and others
Current release date: 2013
Trailer: Closed Circuit (2013)
Martin and Claudia are lawyers -- and ex-lovers -- who find themselves put at risk after they join the defense team for an international terrorist's trial. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: John Crowley
Starring: Rebecca Hall, Eric Bana, Jim Broadbent and others
Current release date: August 28, 2013
There Will Be Blood (2007) Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
'They don't make them like this anymore' is a much uses expression when saying something about a classy '40's epic. "There Will Be Blood" however is just a movie like that. Appearantly there are still directors around with the talent to bring back the old feeling of a brilliant epic from the early days of cinema, with the same style and approach of things, that might seem slow and old fashioned for some people but are a real treat for the lovers of cinema.
"There Will Be Blood" is a slow but real intriguing and very detailed portrayed of a man. It's like an autobiographic movie without being based on an actual person (well, not 100% fully). Just like in real life he faces some extreme ups and downs, of which the downs are of course the real interesting aspects of the movie. It's a real powerful movie to watch, even when there is actually very little happening. It's a movie made with such an eye for detail that this becomes a subtly brilliant movie.
'When ambition meets faith' is a great tag-line for the movie. It really describes what the movie is about. It's main character is a real driven one that has aspiring ambitions but countless times he's being pulled down by events and people around him, even when things are going really well for him. He basically sacrifices his entire life, without giving his actual life, for reaching his goal. When he has eventually reached that goal life is also empty for him. The movie is a great character study of a greedy man, who of course also still has an heart and soul.
Of course the movie is almost completely being driven by Daniel Day-Lewis. He for 90% basically makes this entire movie. Without him there also truly wouldn't had been "There Will Be Blood". Like always he really becomes the character, which is perhaps even a bit scary at times to see him get into his role so deeply. As expected he also won an Oscar for his role. Whenever Daniel Day-Lewis plays a role like this one there simply is no other competition for him. Most of the time he also completely plays all of his fellow actor from the screen in this movie, which perhaps sounds as a compliment but actually is more a bit of a complaint. He lets some of the other fine actors look bad, of which the movie doesn't benefit. Luckily though the movie is purely about Daniel Day-Lewis for 90% of the time, making the complaint not much of a complaint anyway.
But of course Paul Thomas Anderson shouldn't be forgotten. After all he is the man that had the guts to directed this movie, that isn't exactly mainstream in its core but nevertheless became a modest box office hit due to his professional skills. The movie won lots of awards, which of course wasn't just due to Daniel Day-Lewis his performance. Paul Thomas Anderson is a real talented director who really knows how to tell a story powerful, effective and intriguing, even when in its core the story might seem far from any of that. He proved this before with movies such as "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights". "There Will Be Blood" however still remains his most grand and epic production as of yet.
It's also a real beautiful looking. The movie does a very good job at creating a very authentic look and atmosphere for the story that is set at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The movie is gritty and dark and has a depressing look without ever giving you a depressing feeling. The movie also really deserved its Oscar which it won for its cinematography. The movie was nominated for a total of 8 Oscar's, making it one of the big movies of 2007. It won only 2 Oscar's though and lost out its most important awards to the hit-movie "No Country for Old Man".
A great unique movie made in the style and tradition of the movies from the 'good old days'.
9/10
Watch trailer
Mary Reilly (1996) Directed by Stephen Frears
(Review originally written at 16 September 2006)
In this movie director Stephen Frears tries to tell the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from a different view point; that of housemaid Mary Reilly. He does this in a subtle, slow and dark style. That all combined makes "Mary Reilly" an uneasy and unpleasant movie to watch that's all style over substance. The movie lacks scares, tension, mystery and an overall good pace.
It's hard to say what is the biggest problem and failure of the movie, since there are so many little things present in this movie, which all combined makes this movie a failed attempt. One of them is the story itself. It not only is told slow and perhaps even boring, it also features lots of unneeded sequences with uninteresting characters involved. Another major problem I had with this movie was its style. This movie is darker than dark. I don't know, for some reason a movie that is entirely dark just doesn't ever work out as a scary or mysterious one. Its dark style rather makes this movie an uneasy one to watch. Granted that the cinematography is good and so are the sets and costumes but this is mostly ruined and pushed to the back by the overly dark and depressing atmosphere of the movie. Everything also isn't told in the most arousing pace, which causes this movie at times to be a drag and far from interesting one.
Normally Julia Roberts obviously is one fine actress but not in this movie. She feels out of place and basically all she does in this movie is look scared with her big eyes. Not her finest moment. I also expected more from John Malkovich. I mean, he seems like the perfect guy to portray the evil and scary Mr. Hyde but he gets very little interesting to do in this movie. Lots is implied in this movie but very little is actually shown on screen. The movie also features Michael Gambon, Glenn Close, Michael Sheen and Ciarán Hinds in an early role. They are fine but they basically add very little to the story in their little roles, which seems to have been written just for them, so they could be in this movie. I also don't like how they changed the Mr. Poole the Butler character. Poole is a loyal, friendly, hard working man but in this movie he is more portrayed as a villainous tough boss, who you don't want to mess with.
Also perhaps the most laughable and unbelievable element of the movie is that the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character look obviously alike. Both are of course played by John Malkovich but no make-up is applied and he doesn't alter his voice. Some voice, same hands, same face, same eyes but yet nobody recognizes Mr. Hyde as Dr. Jekyll. Basically only difference between the two characters is that Mr. Hyde has long hair and Dr. Jekyll is unshaven. Also their personalities are actually much alike. I really didn't see so much difference between the 'good' Dr. Jekyll and the 'evil' Mr. Hyde.
The ending, although it's good looking and effective, is a letdown that doesn't feel like a fitting ending at all.
This movie is definitely not an easy one to watch. If you're not familiar at all with the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story, written by Robert Louis Stevenson, than this movie is completely unwatchable and not understandable to watch for you, as well as an even bigger bore than it already is at certain moments.
A failure but a beautiful one, that still is not worth seeing.
4/10
Watch trailer
Munich (2005) Directed by Steven Spielberg
(Review originally written at 8 July 2006)
This movie does provide a powerful, gripping and for most part realistic view of the 1972 Munich Olympic tragedy and its aftermath. Of course, especially the movie its view of the aftermath, is mostly, if not entirely, fictional and we will probably never know if events as presented in this movie actually really truly occurred. It however is not the movie its intention to provide a realistic and documentary like view on the events of the 1972 assassination of the Israeli athletes and what happened afterward. The movie does make the viewer think. Is violence always the best way to answer violence and what are the consequences of it. The movie is filled with deep and important questions like this that the movie does not try to answer but it leaves it up to us to think about and draw our own conclusions.
People often accuse this movie if picking sides. To me this just seems silly. It's not a question of whose side were the film-makers on, that really is not relevant for the movie. The movie does show both sides their motives and it does help you to somewhat better understand both parties and why they do the things they do. So is that the reason why this movie is considered to be controversial by so many all over the world? I don't think that is the main reason. I think it's because of it that everyone suddenly now has a face. The movie shows that terrorist are also humans who have a family and emotions. Not everything in this world is black and white or as simple as it first seems. You suddenly now see that the terrorist get nervous and unsure as well and doesn't seem to be so completely ruthless and heartless at all. This movie does a very good job at portraying this. This might be a shock for some people, who never really considered this or thought about.
The story is a very gripping and interesting one. Even though the movie is 164 minutes long, it's no bore. The events in the movie are always interesting and the questions asked in this movie forces you to think and perhaps might even reconsider some of your views. Basically the movie for most part is a good old fashioned espionage-thriller but with a realistic and gripping twist to it. The movie shows that ultimately violence leads to nowhere and in most cases only worsens things. It's a vicious circle and downward spiral, that leads to nowhere and ultimately only leads to more pain and suffering on both sides. At least that my view and interpretation of this movie. You can draw your own personal conclusions from it.
Really Spielberg does deserve credit and respect for having the courage to bring up such a sensitive but yet still relevant subject that is considered highly controversial.
The movie does a very good job at re-creating the '70's style and atmosphere. The settings, costumes, hair are all very good and realistic, as simple and irrelevant as it all might seem at first sight.
The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is at times highly impressive and delicious to watch. The musical score by John Williams was also great and just perfect for the movie. It was one of the best and most powerful scores of the year for me and in my opinion he should have won an Oscar for it as well.
Not sure if Eric Bana was the right choice as the main lead. I already wasn't the biggest fan of him after watching "Hulk" and "Troy". He doesn't really have enough charisma and is too boring. He also didn't really convinced me in this movie but I think that his way of acting and personality suited the character in this movie quite well. Daniel Craig was really good in this movie and he played a great character. Ciarán Hinds was also great as always and so was Michael Lonsdale, who is perhaps one of the most underrated and under-appreciated actors of the last decades.
The movie is for most part a very realistic and authentic made one. It however gets also a bit too obvious that this movie was made a bit in a haste. Not every storyline gets fully and well enough developed and the main reason of the Mossad mission gets a bit muddled in. At times you forget that this is a movie that concentrates on the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympic tragedy. I think that is also the reason why Spielberg constantly puts on flashbacks of that event into the movie to help us remember. It however does mostly feel out of place at times and works distracting. Not the best example of movie-making and storytelling really. The movie also gets a bit too moralistic at times, which causes it to lose some of its credibility. The movie does at times also chooses the easy, simple and save road. As weird as it might sound, the movie does still have lots of humor in it. It's the typical Spielberg humor that is present in this movie. I wouldn't call it misplaced, since it worked well in the movie but it does make the movie a little bit less impressive and powerful to watch at certain moments. It's the only reason why I don't really this movie to be a masterpiece. But fact remains that this movie still is one of the most powerful movies that were released in the last couple of years.
An important movie about an important event in history. See this movie and draw your own conclusions from its story and choose your own interpretation of it. It will grip you and make you think and reconsider guaranteed.
8/10
Watch trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
