Reviews

Sweet love story!

What wonderful problem to overcome: Writer who goes to dark places in her soul to produce her best work, becomes too happy, running into writer's block. Now her editor must try and make her miserable to get her to finish the book, but in the process he fall for her.

When the story started I didn't know or think it would be a love story but as it progressed it became a sweet and simple love story.

No this movie is really not about "Anguishes of her father" and it is really not about diving deep into human psychology. It hints at dark places, but it never goes there, and keeps us in a happy place. What it really is about is that one encounters sadness, one can overcome it, and finding love makes it all good!

Like the suspense in the end, whether it was going to be happy ending or not......glad it was not another unhappy ending!

Sit back and enjoy this sweet fun movie and don't over think it!

Exhilarating! That says a lot about a movie about ballet, about done to death ballet, and about a tortured mind of an introvert girl.

I suppose when I do get to see a ballet, I would have much greater appreciation of the hard-work and dedication to their craft that goes behind the scenes.

As for rest of the movie, it is brilliantly made. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, because the character of Natalie Portman is a good person, so it is our natural inclination to wish a positive and happy outcome for her. However, since she is descending into madness, the suspense arises from the fact, whether she would hurt herself, or would she make it, and resolution of this fact is what gets your full attention.

Since she is called upon to perform a role that is complete opposite of her entire being, and the fact that only if she successfully transforms herself from a completely noble Swan Queen, to her diametrically opposite character of completely evil Swan swine, can she successfully make it, the audience is almost drawn into rooting for her to embrace darkness, so the real her can succeed.

There can be endless discussion of what went behind her psyche and caused complete breakdown, but it is safe to say, there were plethora of reasons. A Mom who is living through her vicariously, and to whom she doesn't want to disappoint, a Mom who has unintentionally sheltered her, and her normal development as a woman has not taken place, her limited world of home and studio, her lack of any real friends, her lack of sexual maturity, her fear of failure, her self-imposed trauma of achieving perfection, and lack of any helpful or consoling voices.

The Director of the ballet clearly lays out what Swan lake is about, and how it ends in suicide of heartbroken innocence, and it is clear to everyone, that this ballet would have no different ending. You go in expecting tragedy, sadness and self-destructive behavior, and still the actual suffering and pain shown in the movie, far exceeds your expectation. As an audience member, you feel helpless, as there is not even slightest hope of positive outcome.

The most beautiful and exhilarating sequence is when Portman's character is actually transcends her pure nature, and is able to touch the darkness. She makes it clear to her Director that whether she is late or not, and whether she is feeling good or bad, it is her role, and she will do it, unless he wants another controversy on his hand, like the retiring ballet dancer, character of Winona Ryder, who he knows jumped in front of a car on purpose. This is sort of a blackmail and it actually gives hope to people rooting for her, as you believe now she can successfully play the role of black swan.

The filming of the actual scene of black swan for the first show is just beautiful and brilliant. They show how she transforms, growing one feather at a time, and how her eyes dilate and become read, her snake like movement of her head, the force of negativity she exudes, is all brilliant. Then of course we find out, that our choice are either dead heroine or a fallen heroine, who has committed a murderer. It is better that she did not become a deranged murderer and the hurt she inflicted, was on herself.

Since this is a runaway tragedy, one wonders what can we salvage from this movie? I suppose that a moment of peace that she felt, right before her demise, knowing she reached perfection in her craft, to which she devoted her life, is something positive that one can latch to. Yes it is grasping at the straws, but the only way her tortured mind was going to find any peace, this might be her happy ending.

Ben Affleck with Irish accent - it is tormenting to watch. He tries so hard, but he can't do it. He should have stuck with directing.

Second, bits and pieces of this movie remind me of the epic DeNiro/Pacino movie, "Heat". That movie remains consistent throughout, and characters remain true to themselves and are brilliant on top of that.

Here, characters start out OK, but then they forget who they are supposed to be. The character that least remains true to himself is Ben Afflec himself.

Jeremey Renner's character, James Coughlin is the BEST and is consistent and never wanders for a moment. Same could be said about character Slaine, although it is not as prominent as other characters.

Ben Afflec falling madly in love with a cliché good-girl and putting all his BROTHERS at risk, simply doesn't jive. No self-respecting bad-guy/bank-robber would allow that to happen.

A line from heat is that you can't let yourself get attached to anyone or anything that you can't walk away from. Now that is how you maintain your edge.

Not saying it is not OK for Ben Afflec's character to be weak, but it is simply not consistent. When you are able to take people out at moments notice, you are supposed to operate at different plane, then normal good guys.

Why does Afflec's character want to be a good guy so desperately? Why not just turn yourself in? Also, even when he discloses to the girl he is a bank robber, she is so madly in love with him, that she is OK, with the man who kidnapped her and threatened to take her life? Is that Stockholm syndrome on roids? In Heat, DeNiro's character never admits to the girl what he does, and remains consistent.

Also, character played by Blake Lively is inconsistent. It didn't appear her and Ben Afflec's character had strong relationship and it was mostly about sex, but as soon as she hears about Diamond Necklace he has given to another girl, she gives away supposedly her son's father, her brother and her friends out of anger? No way. If a character that is supposed to be cool with a man being bank-robber, then despite cheating or not, she won't resort to throw her own brother and her child's father to FBI.

Problem is that Ben Afflec got hung up on a TYPICAL Hollywood cliché, "bad guy wants out". So he tried hard, ignoring natural instincts of characters to form the story where the guy just wants out at all cost, because he is in love with cliché good girl, who plants community gardens.

In real life, how many successful bad guys want out, specially when they are doing great? Who wants to risk prison, and throw their best buddies in jail for a woman? Better story and more consistent story would have been if the girl he fell in love with, comes to realize who he really is and she turns the whole crew in, which she tried later on as well, and not Blake Lively's character. Afflec's character being true to himself, should have realized he is in fact bad guy, and should have gone after that girl to revenge the death of his friends due to her and taken out the FBI guy and her and then we would have a proper ending and a better movie.

Can we jam pack any higher number of clichés in one movie? Here are few listed below:

1) Assassin who is shook up by a job that ends in rough manner 2) Assassin who wants out 3) Assassin's boss who has no intention of letting him out 4) Assassin who spends his spare time talking to a priest 5) Man who likes to end all his sentences talking to priest with "father". 6) Assassin falls in love with a prostitute 7) Prostitute who falls in love with Assassin 8) Assassin wants to do one last job and make a break for it 9) Assassin and prostitute fail to make it 10) Even thought they don't make it, they do nail their enemies

I am not sure if this film was inspired by some European movie, because it did have that feel to it, as there is not too much dialog, and people actually are pensive and observant, and don't blow your ear drums out. However, unlike many European movies, this one just couldn't quiet grasp the depth of emotion and create bigger sense of mystery.

George Clooney is out of his comfort zone. He is best suited to play smart Alec tough guy, and not man tormented and conflicted, being eaten up alive inside. Sometimes, when he tries to play a disturbed man, trying to show he is pained, he seems to have a look that almost makes it appear he is mocking his own character.

Lack of creativity and newness is bothersome. If you really stand out as much because you are American, then perhaps a small town is not the best place to be. He is able to drive to his favorite spot near the lake, but no one else ever visits that place? Not even the town kids hang out at the water hole?

Only things I liked is the repeated scene of him driving through a beautiful valley, and they zoom out and show the entire drive. Also, the smile of the prostitute seemed genuine and sweet, and also the way she looks at him.

There is something haunting about the whole movie that was endearing to me. Besides that, it is simply not good enough.

I am surprised by the popularity of this movie.

Anyone who has ever watched Indian Movies would know that 99% of them have same exact plot, and same exact twists and turns and they are all love stories with someone getting in between the guy and the girl.

So when I watched this movie it felt like every other Indian movie I have ever watched. The difference being the characters all speaking in English.

I found it annoying when the host of the 'Who wants to be a Millionaire', played by Anil Kapoor, kept saying after every answer, "Lock ki jiye computer ji", which means "Lock that answer Sir or Mr. Computer". Really? I haven't been to India in long time, but I find it odd to refer to a computer as 'Mr.' or 'Sir'.

I also didn't like the ending where the hero doesn't know the answer to the question who the third musketeer was and he uses his 'life-line' to call the girl, and her answer is, "I don't know". So he guesses it and gets it right.

What purpose did that serve? She was supposed to be the third musketeer with the hero and his brother when they were growing up. So they could have flashed back and shown another conversation that the three had as children where she remembers the name of third musketeer. That would have been more fun and exhilarating then pure guess.

Finally, after his first night on the show when the hero is taken in custody by police and they torture him, even electrocute him, and then they simply return him to the show on next day.

I don't know even in India such torture is that brazen. That part of the story didn't fit.

In some ways that all fits together because that makes it TYPICAL Indian movie.

If you have seen "Slumdog Millionaire", you have watched 99% of ALL Indian Movies.

Congraturaltions ji.

One thing that 'Priory of Sion' value and the whole novel is all about is the 'Balance' between Man and Woman.

From "Mona Lisa" (the reason she is supposed to have the 'all knowing' smile) to Da Vinci's "Last Supper" (the true Chalice that holds the blood of Christ), the concept of 'Balance' (Equality) between Man and Woman is re-enforced.

However, that point either completely missed the creators of this movie or they didn't care. Eitherway, nothing highlights the 'Im-Balance' between Man and Woman today than this movie.

In the Novel, the character of Sophie played by Audrey Tatou is not supposed to be completely helpless and clueless. In fact her character contributes equally to the effort of solving the mystery, just as much as the character of Robert Langdon played by Tom Hanks. They BOTH take turns in finding the answers to different puzzles.

It is Sophie who translates the Annagram "So Dark the Con of Man" and not Robert Langdon. It is Sophie, who rescues Robert Langdon, by first sending the cops on wild goose chase, by removing the 'bug' from Robert Langdon and planting it on a dump truck. It is Sophie, who takes the valuable painting hostage, and threatens to tear it apart, unless the guard trying to arrest them disarms. It is her training by her Grand-father all her childhood, that makes her the best person to understand the clues left by him. In the novel, just when they are about to open the Vault, they get one and only chance to enter the correct account number, which they don't have. If they enter it in-correctly, then the contents of the the vault will be forever lost to them. While Robert Langdon is about the enter the scrambled Fibonacci sequence, left by Jacque Suniere written in invisible ink next to his body before his death, it is Sophie who figures that the sequence is way too random to be a password and would be too difficult for her Grand-father to remember. An unscrambled sequence would be a better password to remember as it can always be figured out.

Unfortunately, in the movie, the credit for all those efforts is entirely given to Robert Langdon's character. This pattern continues throughout the movie. This is truly tragic! After coming so far, even today, its impossible for this world to accept that a woman can make a meaningful contribution, aside than being eye-candy. No, the only appropriate role for her is to be a damsel in distress who has to be rescued by her knight in shining armor.

Even bigger sin is to portray Sophie's character as one who truly doesn't care about solving the mystery. She seems to be upset at being thrown into this mess, and it seems that she doesn't really care about something so important that it could shake the foundation of Church and change mankind forever. Anyone dealing with that prospect would find themselves enthused about the resolution of the facts. However, in the movie, Sophie's character is 'apathetic'. That is exactly opposite of how she is portrayed in the Novel. In fact, she truly wants to find out what her Grand-father wanted her to inherit. She does not want to be left behind by Robert-Leah team.

Apathy is one of the reasons behind woman being treated as inferior over the ages. A man is the one who ask 'Whys' and would go to any length to get them answered. Woman supposedly only care about surviving, pleasure and material things. All things that are unworthy of being the main purpose of life.

By portraying Sophie's character as 'Apathetic', the same libel has been thrown upon her as on every woman since dawn of mankind. She doesn't care about 'IMPORTANT' things, so it is natural to keep her out of matters of 'IMPORTANCE'.

Aside from messing up the underlying main theme of the Novel, the main focus of 'Kninghts Templars' and 'Priory-of-Sion', this is a nearly flaw-less movie! Usually one finds that novel was way better than the movie, but here the difference is minimal. You could for all practical purposes either watch this movie or read the Novel and you won't miss much, aside from what is pointed out above.

Some of the facts are unnecessarily distorted like Jacque Suniere was not really Sophie's Grand-father, but in fact he is shown to be her real Grand-father in the novel. She even has a brother that she is re-united with in the end. Most importantly, the reason, a man would entrust the most powerful secret in history of mankind to a man he has never met before is once again given a sexist explanation in the movie. Sophie is too clueless and too helpless to resolve the mystery on her own so the wise Grandfather tells her to find her Knight in shining armor, Robert Langdon. To an extent that maybe the case, however, even more important reason is that Robert Langdon had written a manuscript that his publisher had sent to Jacque Suniere to get his praise for the book and in that he unknowingly spells out the location of the Grail itself.

That was the main motivation for the old man in contacting Robert Langdon. Once he knew his life was coming to end and he could not reach the one person he could trust his secret with, who he knew was not compromised, but who he has failed to fully prepare. His last thought was to team up his Grand daughter with one person beside him who knows the location of the Grail but doesn't know that he does - Robert Langdon.

I recommend every man and woman to watch this movie!

The Badness of this movie can not be described in the 1000 word limit imposed by IMDb so I would only describe some of the obvious blunders.

How many young hot US attorneys take cabs to work? Then hand out their business card to the cab driver after a brief conversation?

That is the opening seen of this movie.

If you are a professional hit-man, are you going to take a Cab driver hostage and make him drive you around and kill five people in high profile case including the US attorney and then hope that JUST LIKE one previous time in nearby city, the detectives would conclude that a Cab driver with impeccable history just lost his mind?

That is the PREMISE of this movie.

If you want the detectives to conclude that Cab driver indeed lost his mind, are you going to sit in a restaurant with the Cab driver and with the owner of the restaurant that you are going to kill and expose yourself to all the employees of that restaurant? Do you think a detective following up on the case would ask the waitresses, whether the Cab driver was sitting alone by himself?

The 'Hitman' in this movie feels he is invisible and hundreds of the people around him are not able to see him.

If you are driving around town with a Dead Body in your trunk, are you going to stick with the same cab on which you threw a dead body and SMASHED its windshield? Is this the way to NOT draw attention to yourself?

Right after the third Hit, Cruise comes out and kills two more people in the alley.

Two people that Cruise shot in the alley who tried to rob his hostage, the Cab driver, actually started out as four people. However, even though there were loud gunshots, two of the four did not bother to check on their friends.

As a matter of fact, just before that, hundreds of people were passing through alley perpendicular to where the Cab was parked, and even though they could hear the car horn, they couldn't hear the gunshots, leaving Cruise and Fox to have a nice humorous conversation in peace.

The Conversation: Apparently Cabbie's Mom was raising a ruckus by calling his company, and his Boss was trying to reach him to tell him to call her at the hospital where she is at.

This is the same Boss, who Cruise (Hitman) and Fox (Cab Driver) told only a few minutes earlier that "they would shove a giant Yellow Cab up his...." if he demands that Fox pay for the damage to the Cab. Cruise actually pretends to be a US attorney passenger and threatens to prosecute the Boss for extorting Cab driver.

If your EMPLOYEE cursed you in absolutely insulting manner, are you going to convey a message from their Mom to them a few minutes later?

Then RIGHT AFTER the conversation, Cruise and Fox head to the hospital to visit Fox's Mom.

However, even before Cruise and Fox arrive at the hospital, the CORPSES of the 3 victims have ALREADY arrived at the SAME HOSPITAL, and the detective who is searching for them, shares an elevator with them.

Congratulations to LAPD for their efficiency in cleaning up Crime Scenes!

If you are a FBI agent or a LAPD detective and you have your suspect under surveillance and the CAB that you are looking for, in which you believe the assassin working for your suspect is going around and killing your witnesses, that Cab is parked at side of the building, what would you do? If you think the Cabbie is the Killer, and he meets your suspect, and you know that he is heading to next witness, what will you do? Would you try to take down the killer right at the building which you have under surveillance? Most likely.

Not in this movie.

Here the entire LAPD and FBI get into a caravan and head to the club where witness is supposed to be. Apparently they don't want to take out the killer at relatively empty spot on the side of the building, instead they prefer to shoot the killer in middle of a Night Club where hundreds of people are dancing. Since both sides (Cruise/Fox & FBI/LAPD) started out from same spot, they arrive at the club at same time!

Finally, if you are a hit-man and you leave your hostage for dead in a car wreck, and you are about to shoot the US attorney and your former hostage shows up with a gun pointed at you, are you going to ignore him? Even if you thought the guy was a total loser, the fact that he still walked out of the same car wreck as you and got to the same place as you and has a gun pointed at you, are you still going to ignore him? Cruise does and gets shot in the face, but doesn't die.

Chases the Cabbie and the US attorney in a train, and as he is about to get to them, he YELLS and warns them of his approach and thus promptly gets shot. Is this how professional killers approach ARMED victims who are anticipating them?

Last Blunder: Fox kills Cruise and then he and the girl walk off the train and he immediately takes his coat off and puts it on her.

This after they have been running for miles, jumping trains, crashing through glasses, and have been shot at repeatedly. How cold do you think the girl was at that point? How cold does it get in LA anyway?

It takes a genius like Michael Mann to make a movie this bad.