LETTERS TO JULIET 3.0****
To begin with, “yes” this is a “chick flick” of a high degree, and “yes” it is rather predictable, and “yes” its an on-the-sweet side for a Romantic Comedy. But theres nothing wrong with any of that when the film turns out to be a beautiful, easy going , “feel-good” experience and a wonderful travelogue for the beauty of Italy, especially Verona and Tuscany.
In "Letters to Juliet" Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) goes on a pre-honeymoon trip with her fiancé restaurateur and chef Victor. It turns out this is more of a business trip for Victor and she’s left alone a lot. While in Verona, Sophie discovers and partners with the Secretaries of Juliet. They are the group of women who write letters back to the women, many heartbroken, who travel from around the world to leave their letters to Juliet at the famous balcony wall from Shakespeare's play. Sophie finds a letter from a lady named Claire hidden in the wall since 1957. Sophie is compelled to write her. After waiting more than fifty years, Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) is amazed to get a response to her long-ago letter and immediately travels to Italy and Verona with her handsome grandson Charlie (Chris Egan) to see just who Juliet is. What happens next is where the adventure begins as Sophie, Claire, and Charlie go on a quest to find Lorenzo Bartolini, the man Claire had fell in love with 50 years ago and left him without a goodbye.
The Italian landscape is itself a wonderful part of the story. This film is almost like a travelogue a since major part of the film involves Sophie, Charlie, and Claire driving around the countryside and villages looking for Lorenzo.
I admit that I love doe-eyed women, and Amanda Seyfried fits the bill. Her eyes just grab you and swallow you up. Here, Seyfried is very natural and quite appealing in her role as Sophie. Vanessa Redgrave is the real surprise though…. she is simply awesome as Claire. She is utterly charming and projects a commanding screen presence. She personifies wisdom and emotion in a way that feels dignified and real. An added charm is that Claire and Sophie develop a kind of a mother-daughter relationship, which I found poignant.
“Letters to Juliet" is a innocent and heartfelt movie about love, and about the wonder of “true love”, and if you don't expect too much from it, you will find yourself enjoying it. What you’ll also get is a “feel good” experience that leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy.
Clark
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
IRON MAN 2 2.5*** (more like 2.75***)
The sequel to “Iron Man”, the surprise hit of 2008, is bigger, louder, brasher and totally over-the-top with whiz-bang action and stunts..But is it better? No, not in my opinion mainly because of two things: First, this sequel lacks that wonderful sense of "fun" and “charm” that the first film had. This is sadly lost for the most part because in IM 2 both the main character, Tony Stark, and the story take on a more serious,darker tone with more complex themes. Second, Mickey Rourke is badly miscast as the villain…they could have done so much better. But at least the action is high-octane. Special effects are top notch and add a lot of sizzle to the razzle-dazzle of the story.
The basic story is that Stark reveals himself in the opening of the film as Iron Man and he receives much adulation for his bringing about world peace. But he also receives a lot of scorn from the USA Government, Military and Industrial Complex for not sharing his inventions with them. Also, there is a bitter, revenge seeking Russian in Siberia by the name of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who is working on his own super-duper Iron Man suit. Of course, as you can guess , this sets up what will be an ultimate showdown between Iron Man and Vanko.
Robert Downey Jr was the best reason to watch the first “Iron Man” and the same holds true here. He is perfect for the role of Tony Stark, the ultimate narcissist who also happens to be brilliant, brash and, beneath it all, big-hearted. The beautiful and perky Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Stark’s faithful assistant Pepper Potts..the perfect “girl Friday”. Adding Scarlett Johansson as the striking Natalie Romanoff was an incredibly welcome treat. I re-fall in love with Scarlett every time I see her on the screen and she does a fine job here especially with a few outright stunning karate style ass-kicking stunts. ( As an aside, there was one time when Paltrow and Johansson were in the same scene looking gorgeous……I didn’t know till then that I could hold my breath for 5 minutes which was the length of their scene). On the downside, casting Mickey Rourke as the dastardly villain Vanko, just didn’t ring true for me. He comes across as a retread of his “Wrestler” character, and while smarter and meaner, he’s even more sloven and unkept here . Iron Man deserves a better villain and, besides, Rourke frustrates the viewer by constantly mumbling his lines.
“Iron Man 2” is good, could have been much better but is worth a viewing. It’s PG 13 with intense sci-fi action and violence. By the way, there WILL be an Iron Man 3.
Clark
The sequel to “Iron Man”, the surprise hit of 2008, is bigger, louder, brasher and totally over-the-top with whiz-bang action and stunts..But is it better? No, not in my opinion mainly because of two things: First, this sequel lacks that wonderful sense of "fun" and “charm” that the first film had. This is sadly lost for the most part because in IM 2 both the main character, Tony Stark, and the story take on a more serious,darker tone with more complex themes. Second, Mickey Rourke is badly miscast as the villain…they could have done so much better. But at least the action is high-octane. Special effects are top notch and add a lot of sizzle to the razzle-dazzle of the story.
The basic story is that Stark reveals himself in the opening of the film as Iron Man and he receives much adulation for his bringing about world peace. But he also receives a lot of scorn from the USA Government, Military and Industrial Complex for not sharing his inventions with them. Also, there is a bitter, revenge seeking Russian in Siberia by the name of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who is working on his own super-duper Iron Man suit. Of course, as you can guess , this sets up what will be an ultimate showdown between Iron Man and Vanko.
Robert Downey Jr was the best reason to watch the first “Iron Man” and the same holds true here. He is perfect for the role of Tony Stark, the ultimate narcissist who also happens to be brilliant, brash and, beneath it all, big-hearted. The beautiful and perky Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Stark’s faithful assistant Pepper Potts..the perfect “girl Friday”. Adding Scarlett Johansson as the striking Natalie Romanoff was an incredibly welcome treat. I re-fall in love with Scarlett every time I see her on the screen and she does a fine job here especially with a few outright stunning karate style ass-kicking stunts. ( As an aside, there was one time when Paltrow and Johansson were in the same scene looking gorgeous……I didn’t know till then that I could hold my breath for 5 minutes which was the length of their scene). On the downside, casting Mickey Rourke as the dastardly villain Vanko, just didn’t ring true for me. He comes across as a retread of his “Wrestler” character, and while smarter and meaner, he’s even more sloven and unkept here . Iron Man deserves a better villain and, besides, Rourke frustrates the viewer by constantly mumbling his lines.
“Iron Man 2” is good, could have been much better but is worth a viewing. It’s PG 13 with intense sci-fi action and violence. By the way, there WILL be an Iron Man 3.
Clark
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
ROBIN HOOD 3.0***
FORGET everything you think you know about Robin Hood.
Banish any thoughts of a swashbuckling Errol Flynn cutting a dashing figure through a Sherwood Forest or Kevin Costner in just right green attiire riding through the glen.
Dismiss any notion that Maid Marion is a demure damsel in distress or that the macho men of Sherwood forest will be wearing tights.
Like the movie “ Batman Returns”, this Robin Hood is a “prequel” and is all about going back to ground zero and rebuilding a legend. The thrust of the film is the events leading up to Robin being branded an outlaw and what inspired his pursuit of justice for all. The movie ends where the usual Robin Hood story begins.
A complex story begins with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his band of brothers in loyal service to King Richard the Lionheart as they continue their weary way home from the Crusades. Back in England Prince John , brother of Richard, is eager to seize the throne . Events are set in motion that leads Robin to assume the identity of the late Sir Robert Loxley with the blessing of his wife Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett) and his aged father Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). In fact, they urge Robin to take on the identity to protect them and the people of Nottingham.
Like many great actor-director collaborations, Ridley Scott and Russell Crow ( they combined for “Gladiator”) once again deliver an action-packed adventure that is filled with lush scenery, epic battle sequences and strong characters wrapped neatly around quite a believable and solid story. Russell Crowe delivers a strong performance as the righteous and heroic but also flawed man haunted by his past. Cate Blanchett makes a steely, resourceful Lady Marion. She and Crowe have good chemistry in the film. Veteran actor Max von Sydow, as Sir Walter, has an uncanny ability to pierce the heart and invests the old blind father with such emotion and defiance that he constantly threatens to steal the show.
The cinematography is sweeping and gorgeous . Production and costume design are top notch - the royal family's castles are grand in design, and, instead of showing the poor living in grand fashion, the poor's living condition are starkly realistic - complete with dirt and grit. Also, and pleasantly so, computer generation/special effects were sparingly used , meaning real extras, real fire, real horses, real buildings were used instead. It's just plain real and absolutely refreshing; Cecil B. DeMille would be proud if he can see the number of extras employed for this film.
In short, this new take on the classic hero is a perfect summer movie…it has action, adventure, comedy, romance, and drama all packed neatly into one spectacular ride. See it on the BIG screen because watching it later on the small screen would be a letdown..
Clark
FORGET everything you think you know about Robin Hood.
Banish any thoughts of a swashbuckling Errol Flynn cutting a dashing figure through a Sherwood Forest or Kevin Costner in just right green attiire riding through the glen.
Dismiss any notion that Maid Marion is a demure damsel in distress or that the macho men of Sherwood forest will be wearing tights.
Like the movie “ Batman Returns”, this Robin Hood is a “prequel” and is all about going back to ground zero and rebuilding a legend. The thrust of the film is the events leading up to Robin being branded an outlaw and what inspired his pursuit of justice for all. The movie ends where the usual Robin Hood story begins.
A complex story begins with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his band of brothers in loyal service to King Richard the Lionheart as they continue their weary way home from the Crusades. Back in England Prince John , brother of Richard, is eager to seize the throne . Events are set in motion that leads Robin to assume the identity of the late Sir Robert Loxley with the blessing of his wife Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett) and his aged father Sir Walter (Max von Sydow). In fact, they urge Robin to take on the identity to protect them and the people of Nottingham.
Like many great actor-director collaborations, Ridley Scott and Russell Crow ( they combined for “Gladiator”) once again deliver an action-packed adventure that is filled with lush scenery, epic battle sequences and strong characters wrapped neatly around quite a believable and solid story. Russell Crowe delivers a strong performance as the righteous and heroic but also flawed man haunted by his past. Cate Blanchett makes a steely, resourceful Lady Marion. She and Crowe have good chemistry in the film. Veteran actor Max von Sydow, as Sir Walter, has an uncanny ability to pierce the heart and invests the old blind father with such emotion and defiance that he constantly threatens to steal the show.
The cinematography is sweeping and gorgeous . Production and costume design are top notch - the royal family's castles are grand in design, and, instead of showing the poor living in grand fashion, the poor's living condition are starkly realistic - complete with dirt and grit. Also, and pleasantly so, computer generation/special effects were sparingly used , meaning real extras, real fire, real horses, real buildings were used instead. It's just plain real and absolutely refreshing; Cecil B. DeMille would be proud if he can see the number of extras employed for this film.
In short, this new take on the classic hero is a perfect summer movie…it has action, adventure, comedy, romance, and drama all packed neatly into one spectacular ride. See it on the BIG screen because watching it later on the small screen would be a letdown..
Clark
Sunday, May 9, 2010
DATE NIGHT 2.0***
This is a date night movie ONLY if you want it to be the last night you’ll have with your date….but then again it may be such a bad mutual experience, you’ll re-bond and the relationship will survive.
I was quite disappointed in the movie because I’m such a BIG fan of Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Yet this one missed the mark fairly badly and it turned out to be more like a bad “blind” date. I put the blame on the poor screenplay and poor direction. What a huge loss of great comedic talent. ..it would have been much better if Fey and Carell had written the script themselves. In fact, this is borne out when they run the funny out-takes from the movie where Fey and Carell are ad-libbing and being extemporaneous.
The basic plot line is Fey and Carell are married, have kids, and the relationship is tired and in a rut. They decide to do a big date night at a high end restaurant on the spur of the moment and don’t have reservations. They get there and discover that they may never get a table so they pretend to be another couple , the Tripplehorns, who are no-shows when their reservations are called. All goes well for a while until 2 thug-like guys show up and escort them out to the alley and flash big guns . Their lives are threatened unless they produce a computer chip with apparently very valuable information. They try to explain that they are not the Tripplehorns but that doesn’t fly with the thugs but they manage to escape and they and the story are off on a mad, or for the viewer, madding, adventure trying to straighten out the mess.
I knew early on this was not going to be a good movie. In fact, I don’t recall laughing until the out-takes began to run. How bad can that be when you have 2 of the funniest comedians of the day. That’s really bad..on the verge of horrible.
Save your money and take your date to dinner or go see or rent a fun “feel good” romantic comedy in “She’s Out Of My League”.
Clark
This is a date night movie ONLY if you want it to be the last night you’ll have with your date….but then again it may be such a bad mutual experience, you’ll re-bond and the relationship will survive.
I was quite disappointed in the movie because I’m such a BIG fan of Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Yet this one missed the mark fairly badly and it turned out to be more like a bad “blind” date. I put the blame on the poor screenplay and poor direction. What a huge loss of great comedic talent. ..it would have been much better if Fey and Carell had written the script themselves. In fact, this is borne out when they run the funny out-takes from the movie where Fey and Carell are ad-libbing and being extemporaneous.
The basic plot line is Fey and Carell are married, have kids, and the relationship is tired and in a rut. They decide to do a big date night at a high end restaurant on the spur of the moment and don’t have reservations. They get there and discover that they may never get a table so they pretend to be another couple , the Tripplehorns, who are no-shows when their reservations are called. All goes well for a while until 2 thug-like guys show up and escort them out to the alley and flash big guns . Their lives are threatened unless they produce a computer chip with apparently very valuable information. They try to explain that they are not the Tripplehorns but that doesn’t fly with the thugs but they manage to escape and they and the story are off on a mad, or for the viewer, madding, adventure trying to straighten out the mess.
I knew early on this was not going to be a good movie. In fact, I don’t recall laughing until the out-takes began to run. How bad can that be when you have 2 of the funniest comedians of the day. That’s really bad..on the verge of horrible.
Save your money and take your date to dinner or go see or rent a fun “feel good” romantic comedy in “She’s Out Of My League”.
Clark
Sunday, May 2, 2010
THE GIRL WIITH THE DRAGON TATTOO 3.5***
This is a Swedish film and thus has subtitles but don’t let that keep you away. This is an extra fine whodunit thriller about the disappearance of a 16 year old girl 40 years ago, and the genius of the movie is how the 2 investigators go about trying to solve such an old puzzle. It is based on the first book in Stieg Larsson's crime trilogy with the main characters journalist Mikael Blomkvist and outcast computer hacker Lisbeth Salander Fans of the book will NOT be disappointed…I can say so because I read the excellent book.. A Two hours and 32 minute running time allows time for great depth and detail which makes the whodunit even more fascinating. Even at this length some subplot lines have been left out but fortunately they made the right choices. It does not hurt the overall feel of the movie and, in fact, helps to sharpen the focus on the mystery
. An aging corporate executive, Henrik Vanger, employs Blomkvist to solve the puzzle of his missing niece. .. a girl who mysteriously disappeared 40 years earlier. It has become an obsession to this man to shed some light on his missing niece's fate, and he is desperate to have closure before it's his own time to pass. Acclaimed investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist is hired for his researching skills. Eventually Blomkvist teams up with secluded computer hacker Lisbeth Salander. Their investigation unfolds a complex set of clues leading to a string of morbid sadistic murders spanning decades. Pieces of the puzzle slowly start falling into place, as inevitable confrontation with the hidden villain draws closer. Alongside this main plot line, both of our main characters have to deal with personal problems that help us understand their characters.
The two leads are both compelling but Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth is absolutely spellbinding. She has the perfect combination of toughness and vulnerability with a hint of possible psychopathy. You simply cannot take your eyes off her when she’s on the screen. This 90 pound female whirlwind of a woman is depicted as being somewhat craftier, stronger and more energetic than her male counterpart. This does not however diminish Blomkvists character a bit as he is the perfect contrast to her…steady, congenial, wise and much the gentleman. Having a female heroine such as Lisbeth is a welcome twist to the classic detective genre.
The violence in the film is often jarring and difficult to watch but there is nothing ingenuine or pornographic about it. The violence perpetrated against the various characters is as real as you can get it, especially a rape scene that is graphically violent but not sexually graphic and the film is more the powerful as a result.
Overall, this is an excellent film that will capture your attention right off and carry you spellbound to the amazingly exciting ending.
Clark
This is a Swedish film and thus has subtitles but don’t let that keep you away. This is an extra fine whodunit thriller about the disappearance of a 16 year old girl 40 years ago, and the genius of the movie is how the 2 investigators go about trying to solve such an old puzzle. It is based on the first book in Stieg Larsson's crime trilogy with the main characters journalist Mikael Blomkvist and outcast computer hacker Lisbeth Salander Fans of the book will NOT be disappointed…I can say so because I read the excellent book.. A Two hours and 32 minute running time allows time for great depth and detail which makes the whodunit even more fascinating. Even at this length some subplot lines have been left out but fortunately they made the right choices. It does not hurt the overall feel of the movie and, in fact, helps to sharpen the focus on the mystery
. An aging corporate executive, Henrik Vanger, employs Blomkvist to solve the puzzle of his missing niece. .. a girl who mysteriously disappeared 40 years earlier. It has become an obsession to this man to shed some light on his missing niece's fate, and he is desperate to have closure before it's his own time to pass. Acclaimed investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist is hired for his researching skills. Eventually Blomkvist teams up with secluded computer hacker Lisbeth Salander. Their investigation unfolds a complex set of clues leading to a string of morbid sadistic murders spanning decades. Pieces of the puzzle slowly start falling into place, as inevitable confrontation with the hidden villain draws closer. Alongside this main plot line, both of our main characters have to deal with personal problems that help us understand their characters.
The two leads are both compelling but Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth is absolutely spellbinding. She has the perfect combination of toughness and vulnerability with a hint of possible psychopathy. You simply cannot take your eyes off her when she’s on the screen. This 90 pound female whirlwind of a woman is depicted as being somewhat craftier, stronger and more energetic than her male counterpart. This does not however diminish Blomkvists character a bit as he is the perfect contrast to her…steady, congenial, wise and much the gentleman. Having a female heroine such as Lisbeth is a welcome twist to the classic detective genre.
The violence in the film is often jarring and difficult to watch but there is nothing ingenuine or pornographic about it. The violence perpetrated against the various characters is as real as you can get it, especially a rape scene that is graphically violent but not sexually graphic and the film is more the powerful as a result.
Overall, this is an excellent film that will capture your attention right off and carry you spellbound to the amazingly exciting ending.
Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)