Vanilla Sky Rating: Nearly 5 out of 6 stars.
I avoid movie reviews before seeing a movie because they often reveal too much of the plot. If you were to tell someone the third quarter time scores of a football game before he watches it on video, he would have good reason to punch you in the head.
This is a timely rant. Pay heed.
Vanilla Sky is a roller coaster ride. Lots of jerking back and forth, and a speed that varies from comfortable to mind-bogglingly fast.
David (Tom Cruise) is a millionaire major stock-holder of a company. He's 33, single, having a great time, and it's dubious how seriously he takes the running of the business. He's about to go on a journey of self-discovery of depths he never anticipated. His portrayal (as well as the early portrayals of all the main characters) seems shallow and rushed, but this passes after time. Cruises acting has poor moments scattered here and there all through the movie, but he does a good enough job with a difficult role.
Sophia (Penelope Cruz) and Julie (Cameron Diaz) crucially intertwine in his life in areas of love and sex. Diaz plays her role surprisingly well, while Cruz never really shines past the adorable personality she plays. Playing a psychologist is Kurt Russell, who never really seems comfortable with his role. The role of best friend goes to Jason Lee who possibly gives the best performance in the movie.
Cameron Crowe has decided to direct something just slightly too big for him to chew it's a big task he took on, and all considered, he did a pretty good job of it. Vanilla Sky is a remake of the Spanish movie "Open Your Eyes". He has "Hollywoodised" it (or Americanised it, or however you want to say it) but not in a blind way. It speaks well toward an average American audience, but it is obvious that the good story saved Crowe a few times from what could have been some fairly bad scenes.
As well as smacking you over the head with subtle music, Crowe saturates the story with music references it becomes a disservice to the flow.
There is an absurd amount of over-explanation given in this movie. A majority of the audience has to wait at the corner as the movie supplies catch-up for people who haven't been keeping up, and for the talkers who have been busy telling their friends that they don't know what the hell is going on. (Our cinema had three of these people. Real popular.)
Classics don't explain. If you don't see it, tough.
But then, this isn't a classic. And the oft-asked question must be asked again: Why remake an already great movie?
Favourite line: (Talking about the Beatles, and a friend who had a child and became a loving father.) "He used to like John, now he likes Paul."
Worst points: Some dodgy acting here and there. Rock Star Rating: 2 out of 6.
Rise, fall, redemption - played out with all the emotion of muzak. Rock Star is not a passionate story, but neither is it a funny comedy, a moralistic revelation, or a realistic insight. It follows a story you could have guessed before you entered the cinema, yet doesn't seem to know where it wants to go. It doesn't involve your heart in the ride, leaving you watching characters that you don't really care about. There's no pain when he falls, there's no joy when he rises.
Perhaps inspired by the Judas Priest replacement of Rob Halford by Ripper Owens from a Judas Priest tribute band, this movie fails to deliver anything more than story to watch. You're better off watching "Almost Famous" and "This is Spinal Tap".
The director prefers to turn down the volume of the music than have the characters shout over it. This 'cleanliness' typifies the whole movie - like a Hammond organ cleaned up to sound less dirty, like a distortion guitar made to sound a little 'nicer'.
The camera work is cliched and uninspiring. The lessons of the movie rarely show themselves, and are instead explained out with dumbed down speeches made by the characters more obviously for the benefit of the viewer than for eachother.
However, if you've got a crush on Jennifer Aniston, this movie would probably be a must-see.
The movie is not without merits - it has it's moments and it's insights, but they are too diluted and far between. The Stage Manager role is completely wasted when it could have been a pivitol point for the whole movie.
Oh well. If the movie shorts attract you, you won't be completely dissapointed. It has merit, but it's hard to describe since it seems almost stumbled over when it comes.
"Wouldn't you rather fail as yourself than succeed as a Bobby Beers clone?" Lantana Rating: 5.5 out of 6
A movie quietly delving below the surface, there are no unnatural events to watch, no heroes or villains to choose, and no self importance. It quietly wanders through the story like an old man wandering through a suburb, never alluding, always simply watching.
Lantana is a story about several people, and gives many of them ample depth for you to grow to know. Unlike many movies where there is only the central storyline characters with empty characters around them to supply what's required, this movie instead gives all it's related characters a reality that is not bonded together, but genuinely sourced from one reality.
It involves love and loss, as well as nearly every emotion, and wanders through them humbly and truly, rarely actually explaining, never actually lecturing. Like a good storyteller who knows that it's not the emotions that need to be explained, whilst knowing they are one of the most important things in the story.
Usually I avoid talking about plot because most movies loose a good chunk of their pacing by giving away storyline. With Lantana, you could tell someone the whole plot and the damage would be slight. The storyline is excellent, with depth that appears understood by all involved, but never bragged about.
Initially, the characters seemed a little forced, the acting a little formulated, but this disappears. Also, there seems to be a few manufactured scenes to connect simply on principle rather than for any storytelling. However, these are mild criticisms.
A movie that doesn't walk away from honesty, and is undoubtably a success at what tries to achieve.
Driven Rating: 3 out of 6
Driven is a movie set in the middle of a Cart motor racing series. Cart Racing is similar Formula 1, but with a more raw focus. They race on a variety of types of tracks, have a more humanistic focus, and limit technology so as not to distract from the man driving a machine formula. The movie centers around a few plots intermingled with the main cast involving love, racing politics, humility, as well as the development of the racing championship itself.
The movie was filmed around the reality of Cart racing, and a number of racers and people involved in Cart have small parts or references. The race tracks used in the movie well represent the range of ovals and courses that Cart races are held on during each season.
Although it's not an emotionally deep movie, Driven delivers more depth than expected. Most of the characters develop beyond their initially stereotyped typecasting, which supplies a surprising depth of storyline (for a Hollywood movie. Don't expect too much). Cart Racing tends to be a more human focused series and the personality of each racer is there to imbibe to the fan, unlike Formula One. With this in mind (although done in a Hollywood way), the extreme variety of characters in the movie seems to fit right.
Stallone for the most part plays his character well, and he plays a fairly well written character who can think clearly about life. Most of the characters have some sort of growth or fear involving ego and pride (hence the name 'Driven'), which is a big part of this movie and gives it some of surprising depth for a Hollywood action movie.
If youre a Cart Racing fan (or a racing fan in general), youll be delighted with the racing scenes. About five races are shown during the movie and they are ample enough in length to decently develop. Although naturally any racing fan would want these scenes to be longer and less interrupted, they are long enough to be ample. The races are also well directed (apart from the last one, which is mentioned below) and include angles and race cams not used in actual Cart Racing coverage, and vision from the racers viewpoint.
Cuts to the steering wheel and pedals of the cars while racing are badly done and one of the letdowns of the movie. Another great pity is that often the computer graphics are badly used. They are of a high enough quality that they are not greatly noticed when fleetingly interspersed with racing scenes, but in some scenes they are utilised for way too long and badly used. The result is that you suddenly feel like youre watching a video of a Playstation game (which considering the advertising placement in the exact same scenes, seems to possibly be what was actually done).
However, these disappointments are only fleeting compared to the disappointment of the last race. The last race feels like it was directed by a 6 year old child playing with Matchbox cars. It has gratification in such unrealistic and childish ways that its impossible to enjoy. It presents situations as intense when they are anything but. Considering how well the other races are done, it is a massive letdown and notably worse.
None-the-less racing and crash scenes, while overcooked, are for the most part excellently done. The commentary is good although simplistic, but necessary for non-racing viewers.
A definite if youre a racing fan and if youre not, good enough to see if you like the shorts.
Things to look out for: "Somebody put in your mind that youve got to be perfect, or youre a failure. Get that shit out of your head."
Negative: Seeing racers driving in normal cars, not wearing seat belts. For people who know the value of safety, it seems strange that they would perpetuate the norm in America of not wearing seat belts.
|
