Reviews

Lars Von Triers always presents interesting, often compelling twisted dramas. There are usually little comic moments scattered about as well. So if you're willing to give yourself over to his vision for a couple of hours, it is quite rewarding, even if those couple of hours leave you a bit disturbed. But hey, that's part of what makes great movie-going, isn't it?

This film's title, and I'm giving nothing away as it has been part of every interview, is both the mental state the lead characters are going through in this film, as well as the name of a planet which may or may not be hurdling toward the earth the night of Justine's wedding, Kirsten Dunst's character. It is also a part of the mental state of the Director of the film. His last two films (Anti-Christ the one previous to this), in particular, have been ones which have been outward expressions of that state.

In any event, while Melancholia is available currently (as I write this) On Demand on cable TV, see this in the theater if you can. The visuals are marvelous and a large screen experience allows you to be enveloped in these larger than life images.

Regarding the performances, while it's an all-star cast, including velvet voice himself, Kiefer Sutherland, Alexander Skarsgard, Stellan Skarsgard, Charlotte Rampling, John Hurt, Udo Kier (of the Warhol/Morrisey films), many are rather throwaway roles for them. Here, it is really Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Sutherland's film.

Kirsten Dunst's performance is the celebrated one, as she won Best Actress at Cannes. While she gives an extremely raw and brave performance, and she does show off a range and complexity of emotions, Gainsbourg gives a quieter but more well-conceived performance. Dunst, for me, doesn't pull it all-together in as coherent a way. She doesn't give the character an arc I can believe in the way the best acting performances do. There is no doubt that this film shows Dunst to be an actress who is willing to bare her body and soul for the sake of a film (and there is little of her body that is not bared here), but her acting seems, at times,more of an acting exercise in emotions. So I liked her performance, but didn't love it. In the end, Gainsbourg's was the more interesting performance. It had more nuance and I believed her arc much more. And while Dunst has a natural beauty about her which is stunning, Gainsbourg has a understated beauty it may take a few more looks to appreciate. On the surface, she is certainly a plain Jane next to Dunst, but she has the ability to pull you quietly into her character.

Sutherland was all right, nothing special. I think he was put in there for box office purposes rather than being the best actor possible for the role. I really didn't buy his performance that much. Vocally, he has a rather limited range. Emotionally, his range is limited as well. He's like a volume knob than only stops at 1, 5, or 10. He still sounds like his character on 24.

Melancholia is both enthralling and a bit frustrating. Worth seeing, but not always totally satisfying. Fascinating at times, not quite believable at others (There are a couple of plot point holes I won't go into here.). Is is a very unusual 2 plus hours in the theater. Overall, if you're a Von Triers fan, see it!

This is a fairly straight forward telling of the story by the Coen Brothers. And that's what makes it a bit on the disappointing side. There was certainly the Coen humor present and a few interesting visual twists, but for the most part, this lacked the Coen Brothers typical M.O. of taking material and twisting it inside out, whether it be their own or not (No Country For Old Men). In the past, there have always been cinematic and story-telling surprises around every corner. Not here. For much of the movie, this could have been done by any decent story-teller of a director. I expect more from the Coens. It was almost coasting for them. My wife, in agreement, said that it seemed as though they were fulfilling a contractual commitment to a studio.

All I can say is that Tarentino clearly has such fun making movies that it's hard not to love his wit, passion and love for movie history. While the film drags just a bit toward the end in its pulse, there is great film-making, film homages and great performances to make this one of the great movies of 2009.

Christoph Waltz is justifiably awarded for his supporting role here, but there is another astonishing supporting performance by Melanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus, a teenager left orphaned by the Nazis. Her performance is both courageous and at times, heartbreaking. There was one moment of her's where my heart leaped up to my throat. I am an actor, myself, and know how skillful and honest that moment was to conjure.

I'm glad to see the great response from reviewers here. Frankly, I scratch my head at the somewhat tepid response it received, overall, from critics.

Well, given that Allen pulled out an old script from the '70s, this latest film is a welcome back of sorts to the stomping grounds he really knows best. The romanticized New York City from the mind of Woody Allen is very distinct -- distinct as Martin Scorcese's darker side of NYC from his earlier years.

The script for this film is smart and quite enjoyable. This script came before Annie Hall, but it shows Allen's first attempt to create a comedy that strikes a bit deeper than his purely comic works such as Sleeper. Here, you can see that there are aspects of Annie Hall as well as Husbands and Wives which were later more fully developed and more satisfyingly so in those masterpieces.

Still, this film has some joyous moments and it's great to see Allen return to the NewYork City of his of which we are so fond.

Larry David is very good in this as the VERY curmudgeonly protagonist. Evan Rachel Ward is charming and very funny. Patricia Clarkson is also very funny and very good.

This is not a film that will appeal to middle America, but for those who like Allen's urban intellectual wit, this film is quite good and FAR better than disappointments such as Shadows and Fog. Again, for those who are fans of Woody Allen, you can see the germ in this film for his deeper comic work. I give this a 7 out of 10 relative to Allen's best work. Relative to much of what Hollywood has to currently offer in terms of adult comedies, this rates certainly higher than that.

Well, if I could split the movie into two, I would say that the first half is a superb Proposal and the second half is fairly traditional Hollywood pablum. In the first half, the wonderful comedic timing and chemistry between Bullock and Reynolds was terrific. The writing was first-rate intellectual, snappy sparring, even throwing in some literary references in the put-downs. Kudos to the Director, Anne Fletcher, and the Screenwriter, Pete Chiarelli.

The completely different tone in the second half, I surmise, could only be attributed to the studios/producers stepping in and stating that the film must appeal to a wider audience. We, then, get lots of family characters thrown in, with a great reduction of Bullock and Reynolds mutual screen time. And when they do share time in the second half, it's more about slapstick/physical humor (cue studios/producers needing appeal to wider, a.k.a, younger audience). Maudlin music comes in on the soundtrack, letting us know that this part of the movie is supposed to tug on our heartstrings.

I don't buy the inevitable resolution either. I don't believe that it is supported well or justified by what came before it.

The 1st 45 minutes is WELL worth seeing. I wish the filmmakers could have pushed and maintained the pace and feel for the entire movie. Reynolds and Bullock are so good, they could be this generation's Tracy and Hepburn. I'd like to see them in another project that follows through all the way.

BTW, this film was actually shot in Boston and (the Alaska scenes) in Manchester by the Sea and Rockport on the North Shore with digital effects adding snow capped mountains. You might even recognize Motif No.1, a famous small building on a wharf in Rockport which has been the subject of many famous painters' and photographers' work. It was also fun seeing some of my local Boston area acting colleagues doing background work in the film.

This is a movie that is a serious case for a rewrite. Too many plot points, yet jumping around too much made for a movie that just couldn't settle into its mood. Imagine taking the original Godfather novel and putting ALL of it into just one film. Part of what made the Godfather movies so enjoyable was the easy pace that allowed wonderful character development.

The Wyvern Mystery screenwriter couldn't decide between editing out choices and what to leave in, resulting in both too much detail and too many plot points occupying the time, leaving out real character development. At the same time, instead of wise choices for plot points, too few at critical times were left out, resulting in leaving out situational development. For example, at the beginning of the film, you see very young Alice Fairchild and then abruptly, you see the adult Alice. This left out not only her growth, but the growth in relationship between her and her guardian, the Squire. A richer establishment of their relationship would have added texture and resonance to what follows in the film. Yet, this relationship was almost totally missing other than the superficial aspects of it.

The cast performances are fine. The music and some of the shots are over the top, coming from a Masterpiece Theatre feeling to suddenly horror, Friday the 13th style. They might have worked if the film's tensions had been established better, but as over the top (for a BBC film, that is) as those terror sequences are here, they are unsupported by the writing.

Too bad. I really wanted to like this more. This leaves me wanting to read the book. Apparently, Charlotte Bronte, who penned Jane Eyre, was inspired by the author of the novel upon which this movie is based.

I think this was a brilliantly done film. It may have its flaws (Not necessarily crediting everyone properly where credit is due), but that aside, it's a beautiful look in the auditioning process from both the actors' and producers' sides, using a the audition process for the revival of the groundbreaking musical about the auditioning process.

The structure of the film is wonderful. This is a documentary that works well, not just as a documentary, but as a film. I suppose that we may be a bit jaded by watching "American Idol" and similar shows which expose some of the auditioning process, this goes a bit deeper, looking at performers who operate at the highest level of work. Some of the audition clips show performances that are astonishing and thrilling. That American Equity Association, the union for Broadway actors, allowed the filmmakers to film the actor/dancer/singers to be filmed, it allowed us to see the audition process for performers such as Charlotte D'Amboise, already a star for her performance in Chicago.

That this film goes back to original interviews with Michael Bennett and some of the taping of dancers and actors who spend most of their time on the audition line and expose their inner selves when then perform, it helps us empathize with these performers who aspire to be part of one of the great acting pieces for musical theater performers.

The film never sinks to maudlin profiles of the performers, unlike American Idol and the like. That the filmmaker doesn't do this allows us to come to the film. Never did I feel that I was being hit over the head or were the emotions generated undeserved.

In addition to the clever device of the watching the audition process for a musical about the audition process, the film really gives you a sense that it's a challenging, grueling process for both sides. And it's incredible thinking about this "interview" process only results in a contract for 6 or 7 months. How would you like to spend 8 months preparing to interview for a job that only may give you 6 months of employment? Finally, the film keeps us in suspense, much the way watching an American Idol episode, so the film works on many, many levels. I'm glad that the producers are correcting some of the credits for the DVD release. Those omissions didn't keep me from being enthralled with this documentary. Anyone remotely interested in theater or musical theater ought to see this film.

Mickey Rourke is, indeed, as terrific as advertised and his performance is worth the price of admission. Aranovsky's films are very interesting and his style here is similar to the one evident in PI, his first major release. The film's first two-thirds is wonderful, and while watching it, I'm thinking that this film is going to be a major work to be remembered decades from now. The trouble is, the plot points that drive the latter third, divided between the relationship with his estranged daughter as well as the relationship with a stripper friend are handled so tritely that I can only figure that the writer didn't know what to do after he came up with the premise for the story. The result being that the ending is quite disappointing compared to the previous part of the film. Nevertheless, the first two-thirds of the film are mesmerizing shouldn't be missed.

Unfortunately, this is a movie that just didn't know where to go most of the time. We have an almost three hour movie that really feels longer and doesn't know where to go and when to stop.

First of all, let's talk about Heath Ledger's performance. The hype is absolutely justified. He lights up the screen with his performance and the film is delightful when he is on the screen. Part of the problem is that no other characters are equally as interesting and that includes Christian Bale as Batman. There is not all that much charisma in Christian Bale's characterization as Bruce Wayne and none of the other characters grab the screen the way Heath Ledger does, so the movie doesn't really give Heath Ledger much to play off of most of the time. Eric Roberts, almost unrecognizable probably due to the work that has been done on his face, has some acting moments in a minor role that cause a stir. I always liked him and wish I saw more of him.

Meanwhile, the film has so many twists and turns that do nothing more than confuse, I felt more like I was in a maze that I couldn't get out of rather than on a roller coaster ride. Just when I thought there might be a resolution to the film, yet another plot twist, a new discovery would occur. I found myself looking at my watch after about an hour and a half or so, and the movie was only half over! The first part of the film, that is to say, the first hour, was more character setup and that was far more interesting. The first part of the film relied more on dialogue and there was quite a bit of evident wit. But when the plot points started getting laid on thick and heavy, I got restless and continued to get more so. At film's end, I ended up thinking "So what?". I was glad to have seen Heath Ledger's performance, but not much more than that. I felt, other than for Ledger, the film wasted my time (and money).

I'm sorry to say that while this latest installment had its moments, it was disappointingly quite weak. Many ingredients from previous installments seemed to have been slapped together into this film, arising from nothing other than than the thought that, individually, each ingredient worked in the past, so let's put them all together now. It's like you were creating a dish from an amalgam of past experiences, so putting all of the ingredients that you loved so much in all your past meals into one dish will be even better! Let's hear it for that wonderful chocolate peanut butter dessert taste combined in one dish with the strawberry shortcake, creme brulee, blueberry-pineapple sorbet, grand marnier souflee, and cherries flambe. All of those desserts seemed so good individually, they should be wonderful all thrown together to make one dessert.

Harrison Ford seems a bit old and tired, not quite up for the adventure. Karen Allen seems a bit lost as if the filmmaker and writer(s) didn't quite know what to do with her. The character's appearance is useless and seems contrived, compared to the feisty character in the first film who was an equal to Indiana Jones and could easily survive on her own.

There are too many elements in this film, very few arise organically. Again, they seem to be thrown together because the elements somehow worked in the past, but the filmmaker ignored how to create a strong narrative drive and have the elements arise out of the need to tell the story.

Too much of the film has Ford explaining why we should care about various clues he finds. All that talking is going to make it go above the head of young Indiana Jones fans, while make us not care because, again, the plot is too contrived.

Yes, the first film came out of left field and the story and elements were perfectly created. At this point, however, I think they should put this series to bed. And if the reason that this film was created was to continue the franchise with Shia LaBeouf, there's not going to be much of a following as he seems as lost in this as the rest of the cast.

There were a few exciting sequences and Indiana's toughness and wit shone most successfully in the opening sequence, but the film just could not really keep up. There were several self-spoofing references, but on top of the relative tiredness of the film, it made me think that the filmmaker was less than inspired.

Many will want to know how this compares to Green Street Hooligans. The two stories are handled quite differently. The Football Factory has almost a black comic feel to it. GSH is really the story of one young man's descent into a violent environment and is an emotional drama. TFF has more of the rhythm of a machine gun, with a, great, very high energy music soundtrack keeping it pulsate along the way.

Perhaps not as emotionally deeply felt as GSH, TFF keeps you in the thoughts and feelings of those in the gang. It makes it much harder to feel empathy for its characters (as each of them are all aware and enjoy the catharticism of the violent lifestyle), yet incredibly you do. The fact that it also is also very funny in an intended ironic way (much in the way that the protagonist in Sunset Boulevard narrates the story already having already been murdered), this film has that same knowing irony that also keeps the film bubbling.

I really enjoyed the ride in this one.

This is one of the better Harry Potter films, but as with all of them (and particularly with the length and detail of book 5), a lot gets left out. Overall, this film was entertaining, but mostly forgettable.

Part of the problem with all of the films is the uneven acting performance quality. Here, Daniel Radcliffe mostly stands around reacting, and not particularly well. The girl playing Hermione also suffers from being a bit stiff. The more noteworthy performances come from the naturalness in the character portrayal of Ron Weasley, the Luna Lovegood actress, Maggie Smith's character (as usual) and the actress playing Delores Umbridge. There are a few others, too, but this is not, overall, great ensemble acting. Yes, there are the few great acting turns (I think of Kenneth Branagh's in one of the earlier ones), but the very fine performances make the mediocre ones (and the unevenness overall) really stand out.

I saw this in IMAX with the 3D presentation during the climactic scenes. The art direction, here, was overall SO busy that it was difficult to follow. I occasionally took off my 3D glasses and, even through the blurriness of the double image, it was easier to follow the action without the glasses. I have seen many films in IMAX, and the 70mm print and great quality soundtrack often make the premium admission price worthwhile. I think I would recommend going to see this one in a traditional theater in order to avoid the 3D.

All in all, I enjoyed this one quite a bit while watching it, but like the others, it became forgettable shortly after the end credits started running.

Personally, while I realize that there are going to be many who want loyal adherence to the plot of the book, I'd like a director to take some real chances and reinvent the story to really create something fresh for the screen so that the film can really stand alone on its own merits.

This film was greatly disappointing to me and my wife, and we are both HUGE fans of great animation. It seems like the story board had to have been created by committee, as though one of those faux pitch websites had been used.

Most of the characters are stereotypes, with all but one of the main characters of strength being male. The film starts as an ugly duckling type story then turns into a pro-ecology one. It couldn't seem to make up its mind what it wanted to be. Ultimately, I couldn't wait for it to be over. I just thought it was a poor piece of storytelling, which, for me, is first and foremost in any film.

The animation was certainly very good for CGI, with some stunning art direction. The film had been conceived originally as one to be released in 3D, and you can see by the framing of many shots the evidence for that. The studio ultimately decided it would be too expensive to release that way after all was said and done. Perhaps it will be released in that format to the theaters at some point in the future.

Aside from some pop culture film references near the end, this is not a multi-layered film that adults will get into as well as kids the way even Disney, at its best, can do (think of "Beauty and the Beast" or "The Little Mermaid" for recent vintage films.).

This film is a failure in my eyes. Too bad.

If you need to rent a family picture, stick with the "Toy Story" movies, the "Princess Monanoke" (sp?) or even the stunning (but for older kids and adults) "Pan's Labyrinth".

I saw the uncut version of this film last night. To me, this film came off as a sort of a black comedy. This film is about a woman who is perhaps looking for romance, but her own actions and choices, and her interpretation of these keep her mired in a circle that goes nowhere. There are surreal moments throughout that keep me wondering how much of the film takes place in her head, given the amount of voice-over that occurs.

All in all, this is not a film about eroticism, though there are a few moments of that too. The film is really about a woman's search for emotional satisfaction and her modus operandi that doesn't allow her to achieve it. Again, the title -- "Romance" ends up being more ironic than literal.

The film moves along quite well in spite of the amount of dialog -- but so did "My Dinner With Andre". The cinematography and subtle soundtrack are first-rate.

Those who want their films to be of the cut-and-dried variety or wish this to be a film of erotica will be frustrated. Those who will take it one its own terms will likely be rewarded.

This is the sort of movie that might have been a Movie of the Week many years ago, but without the slickness. The plot points are fairly trite. There is not much nuance in this movie. I hate it when a director or writer has to resort to black and white contrasts in order for you to get the point. You want to make someone be less sympathetic? Have that person rape someone. How 'bout making someone more sympathetic? Make sure they get a disfiguring, bloody injury.

Not many characters in this film are very thoughtful, except when the plot calls for that character to shine relative to a not very thoughtful character. Many act out of knee-jerk reactions.

Many speak with a phony hyped-up Maine accent. For some reason, everybody who lives in Bahston or Mayen have wicked accents. Anyone else laugh at the dialect of the educated psychiatrist in "The Departed"? This could have been a very good story about rehabilitation and redemption, and it's not terrible overall, but there are too many groaners in the form of badly written dialogue or plot points.

Perhaps my view of this film is tainted by having just seen a beautiful film, an HBO production called "Langford", based on a member of British Parliament who befriended a convicted child killer. "Langford" was a beautifully written, nuanced film, with lots of room for the viewers to think in the gray areas.

I wish the writers and filmmaker had more trust in the audience.