Change Your Image
crossing_lethe
Reviews
A Knight's Tale (2001)
Not one to open your wallet for
While watching this movie, you have to accept the anachronisms without question. They are a purposeful choice of the film - this is less sophisticated than Mideval Europe for Dummies. The film makers weren't going into it with a pretense of historical accuracy and cannot be judged as if they were (the makers of "Troy" and "King Arthur", however, are fair game). But even when you leave yourself open to the anachronisms, the movie is still not good. The script is nothing to brag about at all. I don't even want to get into it's lameness here.
A great cast is enough to make even the worst scripts into good movies. Unfortunately for "A Knight's Tale", it did not have such a cast. With the exception of Paul Bettany's Geoffrey Chauncer, there are no really inspired performances. Heath Ledger puts in a fine, but not great performance as the lead character William Thatcher. Shannyn Sossamyn's Lady Jocelyn is about as flat and uncharismatic as she could get. The scenes between William and his love interest, Jocelyn, are awkward and, frankly, kind of embarrassing. There is no chemistry at all between the two. Rufus Sewell's performance as the villain, Count Adhemar, is about as one dimensional as Shannyn's efforts. The secondary characters are not much more than props who deliver witty one-liners. In the end, Will's sidekicks become that older guy, that redhead with a bad temper, and the female blacksmith instead of three-dimensional characters in their own right.
If you must see this, try to catch it on TV if possible. Rent, don't buy, and try to get someone else to put out the money for it. There'll be much less regret that way.
Wimbledon (2004)
Nothing Special - mild spoilers
"Wimbleton" is the kind of movie that fails to impress if one is familiar with the romantic comedy genre. The plot itself is so-so: A retiring professional tennis player who has lost his zeal finds his love of the game re-inspired by a top female tennis player during his final tournament. Add in the typical romantic comedy quirks - sassy lead female, charming lead male, quirky sidekicks, somehow deficient male rival, contrived embarrassments, a final conflict between lovers that ends in a reunion - and we've all seen this movie before we've even seen it. One could argue that the script writers weren't setting out to write Shakespeare, but would it be so bad to be a little original?
Paul Bettany is wonderful as the disheartened Peter Colt. His role doesn't really require much range, but Paul's performance exceeds what is written on script. It's not enough to cover for the mediocre script, but it's better than nothing. Kirsten Dunst's Lizzie Bradbury is written similarly one-dimensional, although her performance adds enough obnoxiousness to keep us from wishing for more. While supposedly charming and charismatic, Kirsten comes off as childish and annoying. True, the zeal of children can be quite inspiring, but it doesn't quite work out when that zeal is coming from the love interest. It really highlights the age difference between Paul and Kirsten. I don't think we are intended to think of Peter as a cradle robber throughout the film, but that is the end result. While Peter seems to be a late 20s/early 30s man, Lizzie seems like a 16 year old girl. What's especially disheartening is that Kirsten appears to play the same character again in "Elizabethtown."
The supporting cast is well cast and work well with the leads. I suppose this is a silly argument due to the plot of the film, but I found the tennis matches boring. Paul's voice-overs seem more of a hindrance than anything else - I'm not sure what it is about them, but I could have done without. Overall, this is nothing to rush out and see.
A Room with a View (1985)
A Timeless Masterpiece
"A Room with a View" has a kind of dream-like fairy tale quality to it. It's romantic and funny while still working within the framework of a drama. This is NOT an Edwardian Julia Roberts/Meg Ryan movie. Neither is it a historical melodrama. While probably earning the title of 'chick flick', this certainly doesn't feel like one. This is the kind of romantic movie that you don't feel the need to justify your love for it.
Everybody rises to the challenge with their characters, from central roles such as those played by Daniel Day-Lewis, Helena Bonham-Carter and Julian Sande to the smaller characters played by Judi Dench and Rupert Graves. The scenery is beautiful and the music adds to the experience wonderfully. In some ways, this movie doesn't have that typical "costume drama" feel to it - while being set in a certain period in history, "A Room with a View" feels rather timeless. One doesn't feel the social and cultural differences of the era as much as one might while watching "Pride and Prejudice" or even "Maurice" - a second E.M. Forster novel adapted by Merchant Ivory. Whether or not this is a good thing depends on the viewer. Regardless of preferences, I fully recommend "A Room with a View" to anyone who enjoys light romantic comedies that don't resort to being silly and contrived.
The Forsyte Saga (2002)
Better than the first part - slight spoilers
One of the main things that put me off of "The Forsyte Saga" is that the story seemed to be running through story lines at full speed - a fault that is understandable when considering the huge amount of years and characters involved. This mini-series does not suffer from that affliction and, as a result, is an improvement over the first.
The centralization of the storyline on Jon and Fleur's short relationship means that we can get attached to the characters in ways that were not possible with the first mini-series. The plot unfolded at a more leisurely pace and the characters are given room to evolve. I am especially glad that the cast of the first series were recast for this one. My only fault with the casting is Gina McKee, who's wooden portrayal of Irene means that the compelling aspect of her character that all the other characters are supposed to feel is non-existent. It is hard to understand Soames' continued obsession with Irene.
The casting of Emma Griffiths-Malin and Lee Williams as the young lovers is spot on. One feels for them in a way that was never possible in the first series. An interesting point in their love story is that Jon's rival, Michael, is not a flawed character. Too often, the second man of a love triangle is "lesser" than the one we're meant to root for - for example, he could be a womanizer, a drug addict, a nerd, cold-hearted etc. There is nothing wrong with Michael, except for the fact that Fleur doesn't love him.
The B-plots involving the minor characters doesn't take away from the story, but adds to it. This again is another thing that the first series didn't quite manage. Altogether, I find "The Forsyte Saga: To Let" to be much more enjoyable than it's predecessor and very good story on it's own.
Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)
Baffled by it's popularity
I will never understand why so many people rave about this movie. I found it annoying and boring to the extreme. Neither the plot or the acting kept my interest - I ended up finishing the movie by sheer force of will. Renee Zellweger did absolutely nothing to endear me to her character. This movie single handedly ended any appreciation I had for her work - I now avoid movies that have her in it. Bridget is more annoying than anything else. Not to mention that "fat" Bridget is not that fat at all - the majority of women these days wouldn't look half so good in that bunny suit. For all the glorifying praise Renee got for gaining weight, there really wasn't anything to write home about. Frumpy clothing does not make someone fat. I actually think she looked better in BJD than she did in her wedding pictures. While I love Colin Firth and "Pride and Prejudice", I found his character boring and uninspired. I suppose he probably was bored and uninspired, considering this is exactly the type of role Colin keeps getting thrown into.
I understand that the book (which I haven't read) was based on "Pride and Prejudice", but the movie turned out as such a blatant knock off of P&P that it probably would have made more sense to acknowledge the inspiration in the previews. I hadn't read the book or heard much about BJD before watching the movie, so the striking similarities in the storyline were more annoying than they could have been. I was expecting a clever movie about a modern woman's struggles with her self-image and social life. What I got was this.
The Forsyte Saga (2002)
Better than the first part - slight spoilers
One of the main things that put me off of "The Forsyte Saga" is that the story seemed to be running through story lines at full speed - a fault that is understandable when considering the huge amount of years and characters involved. This mini-series does not suffer from that affliction and, as a result, is an improvement over the first.
The centralization of the storyline on Jon and Fleur's short relationship means that we can get attached to the characters in ways that were not possible with the first mini-series. The plot unfolded at a more leisurely pace and the characters are given room to evolve. I am especially glad that the cast of the first series were recast for this one. My only fault with the casting is Gina McKee, who's wooden portrayal of Irene means that the compelling aspect of her character that all the other characters are supposed to feel is non-existent. It is hard to understand Soames' continued obsession with Irene.
The casting of Emma Griffiths-Malin and Lee Williams as the young lovers is spot on. One feels for them in a way that was never possible in the first series. An interesting point in their love story is that Jon's rival, Michael, is not a flawed character. Too often, the second man of a love triangle is "lesser" than the one we're meant to root for - for example, he could be a womanizer, a drug addict, a nerd, cold-hearted etc. There is nothing wrong with Michael, except for the fact that Fleur doesn't love him.
The B-plots involving the minor characters doesn't take away from the story, but adds to it. This again is another thing that the first series didn't quite manage. Altogether, I find "The Forsyte Saga: To Let" to be much more enjoyable than it's predecessor and very good story on it's own.
The Village (2004)
An OK Film Afflicted by Bad Marketing - Slight Spoilers
"The Village" is a perfect example of why it's dangerous to mis-market a movie. While being handled like a thriller, the audience would have been much better informed about what it actually is if it were handled more as a human interest piece. "The Village" becomes much more interesting when watching it as a character study than a horror/suspense movie.
Changing focus on a movie can only take you so far, though. There's still the matter of the plot - does it work? The answer is yes and no. It works when you consider the movie a warning against being ruled by fear - I once heard that M. Night Shyamalan (henceforth MNS) had post 9/11 America in mind when writing the film. In that light, one sees the villagers purposely using fear as a control mechanism and the movie becomes a fairly clever commentary on our times. It doesn't work when you question the plot to much. It's not easy to try to make sense of the choices and actions of the Elders. Superficial answers are all one can get. The final confrontation with a "creature" at the end doesn't quite work out as well as it should. For a movie that works best on a psychological level, the action involved seems misplaced. I tend to see it as a built in bathroom break and usually don't watch it through.
The actor's portrayals of their characters are hit and miss. I don't know if it was a purposeful choice of MNS, but portrayal of the Elders don't ring as true as the younger generation. Given the final twists of the movie, maybe the Elders were meant to sound rather clunky with their speech. Regardless, the work of the older generation (with a special mention of William Hurt) largely comes off as rather wooden and uncomfortable. The acting improves greatly with the younger stars. It is mostly the work of the perfectly cast Bryce Dallas Howard and Joaquin Phoenix that make the movie bearable at all, although smaller roles such as Judy Greer's and Michael Pitt's definitely add to the film. In my experience, it's general consensus that Bryce and Joaquin's scenes together that are the best in the film.
Overall, I think MNS's greatest achievement in this movie is in creating atmosphere and a visually appealing directing style. I think it's time he starts working on scripts with other people - he needs someone to tell him when something doesn't work.
Timeline (2003)
Meh - mild spoilers ahead
As much as I would like to love this movie, it's just not going to happen. The script is nothing special - in fact, it's just plain bad in many places. One of the most notable instances is Claire only communicating in French with Marek and the other time travelers at first despite being completely fluent in English. Another is the ITC's determination to kill off one of their men they left behind instead of going to get him. Why do they want him dead? Nobody will ever know - Unless it's in the book, that is.
The actor's performances are enough to make or break a movie, regardless of the quality of the script. It is especially important for the main characters to shine - see Gina McKee's tanking of "The Forsyte Saga" or Johnny Depp's rescue of "Pirates of the Caribbean:CotBP." The former's bland portrayal makes the storyline of her central character seem implausible while the latter's energetic portrayal is credited with saving the pirate movie genre.
For the most part, the character portrayals here are uninspired at best. At worst, they're the reason why God invented Razzies. Paul Walker's career is living proof as to how far good looks can get you. His wooden acting is more than any suspension of disbelief can overcome. One wonders if there's a deal out there that Paul has to do so many mediocre B-list action/horror flicks before he gets to become a real boy. The usually fine Billy Connelly and Frances O'Connor do nothing to rise above the script. Ethan Embry isn't all that bad, except for being woefully miscast. Anna Friel is just plain lucky that I have a bad ear for accents and can't tell if one is really badly imitated. Most of the other actors - like David Thewlis and Marton Csokas - sleep through their roles. While watching this film, it seems like the majority of the actors saw it as simply a paycheck and didn't bother to try.
The only good performances - recognized by the fact that they make certain parts of the movie watchable and, dare I say, even enjoyable - are by Gerard Butler and Michael Sheen. Both of them seem oddly animated in a cast of cardboard cut-outs to the point that they seem out of place. Having the larger role of the two, it's mostly Mr. Butler who carries the film.
By and large, the movie isn't too bad as long as you don't try to think about it. Ignore the plot holes and the bad acting and it isn't so bad. "Timeline" isn't something I'd keep on regular rotation, but is the kind of movie that fans of Sheen and Butler might want to check out for their performances alone.