Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

GradysGhost Blog

Reviews

Reviews of movies
 
  • Renaissance has new visual style, old structure

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

    Renaissance  (2006)

    I waited for my local Blockbuster's single copy of this film to come back in stock so I could watch it.  I had extremely high hopes for Renaissance.  I am a fanatic for good science fiction and the visual style thrilled me just watching the trailer.

    I wish I could say the movie is as action-packed as the trailer makes it out to be.  This isn't the Matrix, though it is clearly heavily influenced by it.  There are also traces of Blade Runner here, with a noirish style.  That's not to say the story isn't original.  It's very entertaining, but I couldn't decide whether the movie was a calculated attempt at making us see the fallacy of beauty and immortality or a roller coaster of thrills.

    The visual style is amazing, however.  With the exception of the lip-syncing, I have never before seen computer generated animation bring such life-like movement to human characters.  The strong, black-and-white coloring removes the texture from things that usually end up making real life hard to create on a computer, like skin and hair.  What you end up with instead is something that doesn't try to pretend it's not animation.

    There is almost no gray in the picture.  The only such color comes in reflections.  This seems, though, that it would have been a style of filmmaking better suited for a movie like Equilibrium.  There it would have realized the severe contrast between people with emotions and their oppressors.  Here, there are no two specific sides.  An overwhelming corporation bent on bringing beauty to the masses becomes the backdrop for a plot about Barthelemy Karas, a tough cop, tracks down a kidnapped woman and stumbles upon a corporate scheme, a puzzle whose pieces have been scattered and hidden well.

    The plot is actually rather simple, but both my wife and I found ourselves vaguely confused since you are given no introduction whatsoever or even clues as to what characters are talking about.  I can't remember character names, mostly because the characters whose names are said frequently (aside from Ilona, the kidnapped woman) get killed off in rapid succession.  By the end of the movie, of course, everything makes sense.  I was a little underwhelmed to discover the simplicty of the story after I had found myself so confused.

    I still can't not recommend this movie.  It's great entertainment and the film is a wonder to watch, even if only for its pure aesthetic value.  And if you like the Matrix and Blade Runner, you'll probably like Renaissance a whole lot and even recommend it to others.


  • Bobby is powerful, moving, complicated...

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

    Bobby  (2006)

    The year is 1968. A controversial war rages overseas. Planet of the Apes dazzles American audiences. Robert "Bobby" Kennedy is nearing the first victory on the road to winning the US presidential election where he promises to end racial prejudice, pointless and hateful violence, as well as the terrible crisis in Vietnam.

    And then, the night his presidential candidacy is to be decided, he is shot and killed in the Ambassador Hotel in L.A.

    Bobby is not Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but it may well be the first honest-to-God good movie he's directed. The film has an ensemble cast of characters that each seem to feel a different connection to then-Senator Kennedy, whether it's simply greeting him and welcoming him into the hotel in the case of John Casey (played by Anthony Hopkins) or working by his side as a campaign volunteer like it is for Wade (Joshua Jackson).

    While Wade feels connected to the democratic process, constantly disparaging a reporter from socialist Czechoslovakia, his black sidekick Dwayne (Nick Cannon) believes with all his heart that, after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy is the last hope for putting an end to racial prejudice.

    Over the course of the movie, we also follow the stories of the hotel's manager (William H. Macy) and his wife, who finds out from the hotel's food and beverage manager (Christian Slater) that Macy is cheating on her with a phone operator (Heather Graham). Macy's wife happens to be the hotel's stylist. She cuts the hair of the stars who stay at the Ambassador Hotel, including Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore) who is slated to sing tonight prior to her introduction of Kennedy himself.

    William and Diane (acted out by Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan) are getting married in the church so that William won't be drafted to go to Vietnam. He's getting cold feet because he doesn't think Diane really loves him. Diane is slowly finding out that she really, really does.

    Cooper and Jimmy (the up-and-coming Shia LeBeouf and Brian Geraghty) are also volunteers for Kennedy's campaign, but they decide to take the day off. They get some LSD from a stoner named Fisher (Ashton Kutcher) and spend the day tripping.

    All of these stories and more (there are tons of them involving even more well-known actors not mentioned yet, like Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Emilio Estevez himself, Laurence Fishburne, Harry Belafonte, and Sharon Stone) take place concurrently without much interaction between them until the final, destructive moment of the film: the Kennedy assassination.

    This works both to the movie's benefit and detriment. While it's never difficult to keep the stories straight, there also isn't much story actually happening. It turns out what actually keeps you watching is the fact that the individual scenes are so short that you get the effect of plot. Instead, what you have is lots of character development with no real story development.

    On the other hand, Bobby isn't about the myriad characters coursing their way through the hallways and tennis courts and swimming pools of the Ambassador Hotel. It's about the death of Robert Francis Kennedy. Moreover, it's about the death of everything he represented to the characters - freedom from racial division, from the unending pointless violence, from the Vietnam War and the draft and the countless Americans travelling home by way of body bag.

    The point is... what's the point? Is this movie just a relic? Just a memory of Senator Kennedy as he would have been? Is it a call coming forward through time to look at our own situation? Is it saying we need a savior, and if so, is it saying our country's savior already died and that we already lamented this loss? Is Bobby just a love song for a fallen hero?

    This is where the movie has its real flaws. Ashton Kutcher's mediocre performance can be overlooked because it is so miniscule. There are a couple of cheesy lines, like when Laurence Fishburne delivers a monologue to one of his prep chefs saying that the prep chef is a "future king," but the biggest problem the movie has is that the themes are blurred together so you can't figure out what Estevez was trying to get at, like so much ink running down soaked paper.

    The condition of war, racial downtroddenness, high society and alcohol abuse, the emotional impact of human aging, death, life, youth, drug consumption -- I could keep on for quite some time. These things all have a prescence in Bobby. The trouble is simply figuring out why and for what purpose.

    But don't let that fool you. The film is still gripping. A stark reality surrounds everything. A sense of innocence falls over everybody. Irony runs through Bobby, and builds tension. We, the audience, know that Kennedy will be dead by the time we leave the theater (or sofa), but the characters do not.

    Bobby is unsure of itself, but still manages to be a powerful, moving picture that captures in its two hours a full snapshot of the 60's and the present-day ramifications of the tragic event on June 4, 1968.


  • Truly engaging...

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

    Intacto  (2001)

    Sometimes I find a little difficult to get into a foreign-language film.  I'll watch just about any movie you throw my way, foreign or not, but because I end up reading all the dialogue (even through sometimes bad translations), I have to have something else to really engage me in a film.

    Intacto does just this.  You quickly get introduced to some of the "players" - The Jew and Frederico.  The Jew takes away Frederico's "gift."  What is this gift?  You have to watch more of the movie to find out that it is the gift of being able to steal luck from other people that the Jew refers to.  Within the confines of Intacto, luck is a tradeable commodity which people with this gift of "luck theft" gamble with each other over.

    Enter the main character: Tomas.  Tomas is a wanted man, a bank robber, and the sole survivor of a plane crash.  His chances of survival are estimated at 1 in 273 million.  Frederico catches wind of this and enters Tomas into several tournaments of luck ranging from the bizzarre (covering people's heads with molasses and sending a molasses-loving praying mantis into the room) to the truly sadistic (an inverted game of Russian Roulette).  At the same time, they attempt to escape the cops at every twist and turn, since a federal agent is trying to pin Tomas with his bank robbery.

    It's exciting at every minute, often suspensful to a degree that most movies don't reach, but it does have a couple of downfalls.  First, and probably least, it's a little predictable.  Especially in the last fifteen to twenty minutes.  Also, it gets a little overcomplicated at points, making you study the "rules" of the movie and either question them in order to get it, or simply ignore them and accept the events for what they are.

    Definitely worth watching, though.  The movie is partially in English (most of the Max von Sidow scenes), so don't feel too discouraged by the foreign-ness of it.


  • At wit's end...

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

    Okay.  So the movie was entertaining.  It's tough, but I have to admit to that.  That said, the movie was still extremely flawed, and I can't say as I like it as much as Curse of the Black Pearl.

    First, the plot was so confounding that I felt like I was playing a board game.  Seriously.  You know how when you're playing Monopoly with the family, there's always that stickler to rules who says, "You can't sell your Get Out Of Jail Free Card for fifty bucks!  It says so right here on the box cover!"  That's what it felt like watching At World's End.  "You can't elect Elizabeth Swan!  That's against the rules!"

    Secondly, there's the fact that this third installment doesn't exist without the second installment.  If I had it my way, I would have taken all the plot-driven elements of Dead Man's Chest (about 20 minutes of screen time) and thrown them at the beginning of At World's End.  It would have made both movies better.

    Still, the special effects were terrific.  The acting was decent (though it seems like Depp may be getting tired of the Jack Sparrow routine).  The maelstrom scene at the end was pretty cool.  I wish they hadn't brought the god Calypso into it.  That's Greek and we're discussing the Caribbean islands.

    If you're a fan of the series and you easily buy into the convoluted storylines, you'll probably like this one more than I did.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<December 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement