Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

  • Speed Racer (2008, USA, The Wachowski Brothers) *1/2

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Speed Racer  (2008)

    Speed Racer is a movie based on a TV show that I had never watched and indeed, barely heard of.  In fact, no one I know has watched this show, a Japanese cartoon that I have a strange feeling is more popular due to nostalgia than quality.  I hope the show is better than this movie, which is seriously stupid.

    I was surprised to learn that Speed Racer is not an idea, but a character. Played by Emile Hirsch, Speed is a high school graduate who wants to follow in his brother Rex's (Scott Porter) footsteps.  You see, Rex was killed racing and Pops Racer (John Goodman), who owns his own garage is apprehensive but supportive of his son's choice.  The family summoned by a rich billionaire (Roger Allam) who wants to sign Speed to his big league racing company, but then Speed learns the horrible truth- virtually every big league race is fixed.  He turns down the billionaire's offer, and promises to win big races fairly even when the corrupt players will try to kill him with their special car modifications.

    Doesn't this sound silly? This could have been a fun effort if it had half a sense of humor about itself, however, knowing humor is not something found in the Wachowski Brothers movies in large quantities.  My theory is supported by the fact that they feel the need to add a comic relief in the form of the ultra-annoying Spritle Racer (Paulie Litt), Speed's little brother, who hangs around to make obnoxious comments and get into shenanigans with his pet chimpanzee, which is sadly not CGI.  I'd rather spend an entire film with Jar Jar Binks than this twit.

    The movie is also ridiculously expenses.  I have never seen so much money spend on such ugly effects.  The Wachowski's are going for a intentionally fake, cartoon look, but the movie is seriously hard to look at.  The racing scenes in particular, look so fake that it's impossible to build any thrills or suspense.  It looks at times like a video game, and that's not a compliment.

    Needless to say, none of this characters are in the least compelling.  Pops and Trixie (Christina Ricci) act exactly as you would expect people named Pops and Trixie to act, without any of the charm, or fun.  In fact, fun is something that this movie has a critical lack of.  In order to make a movie about a guy named Speed Racer work, you at least have to get the racing right.

    Speed Racer (2008)


  • Casino Royale (2006, Great Britain, Martin Campbell) ****

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Casino Royale  (2006)

     

    Casino Royale is easily best James Bond film, and it also the best film I have ever seen about espionage and secret agents.  At times, it is more like a drama than an action film, though it still manages to be one of the more exciting thrillers of recent years.

    It also the smartest of all the Bond films, and the one that seems least calculated to appeal to the lower strata of the audience.  Roger Ebert accurately commented that James Bond is really every teenage boys fantasy- he gets lots of women, alcohol, guns, sports cars and cool gadgets.  He gets the first four of those things in this picture (the movie’s more realistic take gets rid of gadgetry), but for the first time he has to deal with the consequences of those actions as an adult would in real life.  The violence he commits on a regular basis begins to take a toll the agent (who in this picture attains the status of 007 at the very beginning), and he finds that he’s looking for a single, monogamous relationship, because if he keeps doing this job, there’s not going to much left of him.

    And that’s what the picture is really about- how Bond (here played by Daniel Craig) struggles to remain a person despite the acts of violence he commits and is sometimes forced to watch.  Strangely enough, we have the effective of liking him even more.  There a scene towards the end of the film where we see for the first time in this 21 film series that Bond is a hero because he actually puts on the line for his cause.

    Every time a new actor plays Bond the reviewer is obliged to compare him to the previous incarnations, but that’s really pointless here because Craig is playing a different type of character than the five previous Bonds. The rest were essentially playing superheroes, Craig is playing a real person and he does it damn well.

    The story of the film of the film is not that different from the rest of the series- Bond is pursuing a terrorist financier and through plot machinations is required to win an epic poker game.  Along with the way he is assisted by Bond girl Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who works for the British treasury and Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), of dubious allegiance.  The romance between Bond and Lynd does not play out at all like expected, and the presence of Green and Giannini in the cast indicate the seriousness which this production was undertaken. 

    There are still action sequences and shootouts, but aside from an early chase that goes on too long, there is a real feeling of suspense, really for the first time in the series.  The poker game is very well done too, though I kind of which the screenwriters had kept the more European and cooler baccarat of the novel.

    Casino Royale is a movie that people who wouldn’t enjoy the usual Bond picture will be drawn in by, and there are still the elements that will be appreciated by the hardcore fans.  Only the immaturity is taken out, which means so much else is let in.

     

    Casino Royale (2006)


  • A Farewell to Arms (1932, USA, Frank Borzage) **1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

     

    Spoilers in this review.

    Frank Borzage’s A Farewell to Arms aspires to be one of the screen’s great love stories, but it’s ultimately hurt by the fact that the lovers are not very good people, and the movie doesn’t really understand the implications of this.  It’s like Casablanca with Bergman going off with Bogart instead of Paul Henreid, and Michael Curtiz not understanding that bad things would result because of that choice.

    The picture opens in the middle of World War One, and is one of the few films to deal with the Italian element of that conflict.  Frederick Henry (Gary Cooper) is an American who has joined the Italian medical corps, and works as an ambulance driver transporting the wounded from the front.  While at the hospital, he meets British nurse Catherine Barkley (Helen Hays), and the two fall in love.  Or do they?  I was never sure where the two were actually supposed to be in love, or their relationship was psychological way for them to cope with the super-stressful situations around them.  This is not a trivial point, as we shall soon see.

    Nurses are forbidden from having relationships with anyone and two have to carefully steal away to spend time together.  At one point, Frederick actually wounds himself so that he may spend time in the hospital with her.  Eventually the two are separated and (spoiler) both decide to desert so that they may be together.

    Was desertion an ethically justified decision?  I doubt it.  If everyone did this, there would be army.  Almost be definition, an army consists of a group people who are making sacrifices for a common purpose, and it must be reasonably expected that everyone must do their part.

    My complaint is not so much Frederick’s and Catherine’s decision as the movie’s failure to deal with this as a serious issue.  It wants so badly to be a great love story that it ignores some of the obvious themes in the story.  A movie like Todd Haynes’ Little Children is an example of a film that features a very compelling love story along with the implications of the lover’s actions.

    The movie is of course based on the novel by Ernest Hemingway, which I have not read, but I have a feeling is a lot smarter than this film.  The movie also suffers from the fact there are two many drippy scenes of the couple talking about how they will love through eternity and blah blah blah.  A little but of this type of thing goes a long way.

    The movie is very well shot by Charles Bryant Lang Jr. (who won an Oscar for Best Cinematography for this film) and does feature one of Cooper’s best performances.  The actor, known for his someone emotionless countenance, here goes all out playing a truly histrionic character.  The film is not terrible but it is not the classic that it’s reputed to be.  I have a feeling you’ll be much better off picking up the novel. 

    A Farewell to Arms (1932)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement