vampiremeg

They say that "time is fluid". It is beautiful. But I don't know about that. What I do know is that some movies are like a ship without an anchor, or an expedition without a compass, or a madly growing tree without a root. I mean, yes, all these can be beautiful things, but when you kind of flow on the ocean of Time and Space and try to share with your audience piece by piece your enjoyment along the whole voyage, you need to send a clear and recognizable signal in a code...To do that, you need disciplines, like all Quentin movies before, violent but disciplined. One story line, one purpose, one hit, one blast, one madness. Here, I kind of know what it is about. But I don't feel its disciplines. Or, let me say, the whole story looks condescending. It seems to be telling me "I know you don't know what Hollywood was like". OH, yes, I can say that to people 10 years younger than me, too. What's the fun?

Yes, it is not for everyone, then who is it for? Name the group of "right audience" and forbid the rest from going to the threatre...Otherwise, get some disciplines, the code, and then Time can still be Fuid...just in a more beautiful shape.

I could understand any psychological crap that one might apply to the movie, but save me the troubles because it is just not a very good Anderson movie, especially compared with There Will Be Blood.

The leading actress (whoever she is called) is a disaster...She is just a disaster...

Day-Lewis portrays a true craftman. That is why I gave it a six. Anyway, he is a great actor, isn't he? But the movie itself is so dellusional, and I just feel everything about the movie is but a ghost story about the dress maker's mother.

I gave 6 because of the riddle scene. The rest is a bore. I almost fell in sleep in a 3D IMAX cinema...Also, 3D itself seems unnecessary. Nothing really that stunning happened in it. The visual effects look quite mediocre.

The story is more of an introduction of how things begin, which is a good idea, I have to say. But if you rethink about what you've seen in the movie, you might feel that you don't quite need this introduction...The spin-off doesn't seem to enrich the Lord of the Rings series. It doesn't add anything new or better.

All we could see is a very handsome but stubborn princess leading a bunch of good and tough dwarfs, who by the way, every time could stand out when he faces his old foe Pale Orcs. I felt somewhat amused when I saw him "erect" at the sight of the monster...Jesus, again with the lone wolf hero? Isn't that happening in every Hollywood movie? Can't it be something different? And Cate Blanchette is truly a guest in the movie. I don't know how much she could get paid by playing this role in this very movie, but I would call it quite a big amount of easy cash.

A beautiful actress could decide a movie. Sounds exaggerating? Then, you shall see "Black Swan", the 2010 thriller about a ballet dancer, and then check how affirmative the statement could be.

Natalie Portman is amazing. But I bet she, instead of the technique reflected or emotion revealed by the movie, became the reason why so many people rated the movie almost 9 out of 10. For me, cinematography and editing were actually more wonderful, and these are quite independent from how Natalie Portman was doing. But I know other audiences will not separate Natalie Portman from the movie. They loved her and then they forgot viewing the movie as a whole.

I just felt there was not anything really so special about the movie. The struggle between dual persona, the absent father (uh...clichés, clichés...), and the lesbian sex scenes, though "strong" enough, have already been repeated in a lot of movies else. Again still, when I was forced to see them, I still couldn't help but wonder why they have to be a part. Or, have we got so used to them that movie makers tend to believe that we cannot live without them any longer? Oh, if that's the case, why were we moved to tears by a movie like "Forest Gump"? Why did we feel so much saved by a movie like "Shawshank Redemption"? Why were we so intoxicated by the eloquent "Shakespeare in Love" and so much thrilled by the music in "Dancer in the Dark"? None of these masterpieces took pride in shedding blood or semen...(forgive me), but they did open our hearts and lived rent-free there...

Another approach to leave a good impression is to be truly intelligent, like Charlie Koffman. He had a good idea of analyzing human being's brain, and then he was being honest enough to share the "process": how he did it, what he did, and what could be the consequences...But Darren Aronofsky was not that patient or scientific. His cinematographer and editor were being kind enough to sew pieces of impulse into a complete story that made sense. Without them, I wonder what the movie would look like...a collection of horror pictures? It is totally agreeable if Natalie Portman got nominated or even awarded because of "Black Swan". Her performance was truly impressive. It is not exaggerating to state that she has made another breakthrough in her career. But I will hardly consent to any idea of crowning "Black Swan" the best picture or best directing, for it pretended to be new when it was totally old, indeed trivial when it tried to be big. It is not the first time for me to see a young perfectionist struggling with the imperfection engendered by her natural inclination, her absence of father, her depressing self-discipline...let alone when here lives one.

I completely understand those who gave a perfect 10. But I am not necessarily one of them, am I? One simple question: well, what does Nolan exactly want to say? It is not so much related to "dreams", seemed to me, rather, it is about our natural ability to embrace or evade the good, the bad, and the ultimate void of our existence.

Through dreams, it just became easier to explain. However, when you cool down the mind blown by the imaginative scenes and cuts and lines, you shall ask yourself, "do I have to have a three-level dream to confront and finally evade the haunting late wife?" The answer might be yes, so you will give a 10. And the answer could be no, so the score will be 8, like what I gave.

In one word, the movie is just too complicated for a purpose that easy.

Maybe because I have seen "Paprika", a Japanese animated feature directed by Satoshi, Kon, the late famous Japanese animation director. He created a story that, seen by now, is a perfect basis on which Nolan drafted his. I am not saying who is stealing whose ideas of what, but I am implying (very clearly) that technically, Nolan is being derivative.

One "problem", I might call it that way, is the deliberately prolonged fighting scene before the vehicle touched the water. Yes, I understand that makes sense of the relativity theory, yet, it is just too long for a movie.

If you have a critic's eyes, you shall admit that the art direction, the cinematography, the original score, the sound and visual effects and the editing are just wonderful, if not state-of-the art. Yet, these cannot defy the facts that once again, it is just a movie about a troubled man with a troubling wife whose troubles will not be solved if one or both of them choose to disappear or stay far away from each other...If you replace the word "wife" with the words that I mentioned in the second paragraph, especially the negative ones, you will get what this movie is actually talking about...

Take or leave it.

I understood the plot after half was done, when Ruth was there talking to the ghost. Ruth, you spoke too much for a role like you. And, this made the rest half nothing but a drag...

It is depressing, dark and also disappointing. Very much a Polanski movie, it is devoted to conspiracy, doubt, and murder...However, it just doesn't surprise you. It tried to create mystery over unimportant things. Yet, when it came to the key, all of a sudden it became too easy...Reading the first word of each paragraph to get the dead man's message? My God, am I watching Detective Konan, the Japanese animation? Some of the scenes are just unbelievably stupid...How can one find out that an English politician is working for CIA by simply GOOGLING HIS NAME + CIA? Another thing is about its allusion to Tony Blair and his wife...Oh, do you really think I would believe that Tony Blair became the PM because his wife was working with CIA, who got connections, relationships, powers to make her husband a dummy? I mean the plots shall be thrilling and complicated enough to be called a suspense. And it shall be so out-of-the-box that when people finally get it they can't help but laugh at their naivety...Polanski did the opposite. I felt that he tried to make me believe that this was a complicated movie, when plot after plot I had to face the truth that the ghost writer was capable of getting clues from an old man living near the beach, a search engine called "google" and the initial words of the paragraphs...

5 is mercy.

I think the movie didn't tell a story more than what we could get from reading its screenplay, which means the editing, the cinematography, the acting and the direction are lousy, if not meaningless...

The lines were poorly written, and some of which were so plain that they could sound so similar to a speech made by Japan's Emporer...I don't know why Morgan Freeman was nominated as the best actor (drama) for Gloden Globes, but I surely know he won't get it...His performance loses what we expected to see in his past movies, especially that sense of humor. He tried to make his role a complete and true one, but this endeavor possibly gives him too little room to exert his acting skills and instead makes him talk, stand and sit like a puppet...

Clint Eastwood, though always somewhat politically correct, failed to make an "artistically enjoyable" movie this time. He should have added more personal understanding or critical argument in the movie, but he chose to make it something that you can read from a textbook. Why should people go to buy a ticket to read a textbook? People expect to see more of the famous figure in a movie, to know more than being told...It is the director's responsibility to achieve the goals, but Eastwood apparently forgot this...

Matt Damon is good for his performance, generally...I mean at least no fault could be found. But also, when everything turned to be so plain in the movie, for instance the editing, the cinematography and the lines, an actor's performance really didn't matter so much...

I truly doubt, when judged on Oscar level, that this movie could get any nomination...even including the best actor...

The cinematography is outstanding. I cannot forget the sharp contrast between the beautiful French country and the shabby, chilling, and deadening cottage's interior...The last scene, the cinema, is something that I have been missing for a very long time...Classic beauty mixed with a modern, hysteric and formalistic taste really took my breath away...I wondered how this could impact on the audience who saw the movie in a theater...It must be too real to ignore...

The acting is outstanding. But I largely refer this to Christophe Woltz. His performance equals what we can see from Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men"-creepy, cold-blooded, cultured killers...Other supporting roles were also wonderful. Brad Pitt made some progress in this film, but still lacked something that a top actor would master...something like the gentleman-ship of Humphrey Bogart, the rebelliousness of James Dean, the versatility of Al Pacino, or the leadership in Marlon Brando...He just lacked something that can differentiate him from the rest of the world, not only the rest of the actors...

The music is outstanding...The original score helped to build the atmosphere and added in a somewhat humorous tone in everything...

The screenplay, the editing and the direction are outstanding...Suspense, love, black humor, thrill, even comic...all of the factors were put in the place where they should be...So, bravo Quentin! This is definitely the best works of his since "Kill Bill". This movie makes me see his ambition and achievements in these years...

First of all, the performance of Meryl Streep is wonderful, largely because the character herself was a hilarious and cheering lady. Besides, Meryl Streep did make another break-through in her performance, since the humor, the ladyship and the "style" that the character exemplified in the film was something missing in the past roles of Meryl Streep.

But Amy Adams did not surprise me. What she has done is to create another diligent, confident lady with a tough inner world. I don't think this role, Julia, is so good as what she had done in "Doubt".

The film editing, however, failed to meet the requirement of the story-telling arrangement. The two ladies can be more closely associated by their kitchens and all the utensils therein, but I did not see a clever arrangement there. What I saw is a plain exchange from one scene to another, one 60s one today...and it is not interesting, definitely...

The photography is not so bad, especially when it comes to the outside...The costumes are wonderful, too, especially those for Meryl Streep. But these strengths cannot make up for the weakness in the plot and the plain editing.

Thus, I don't think it shall be rated over a mediocre 7.0 out of 10.

The theme is too common, if not somewhat a clichés. It is a movie about a gifted boy, and his love for freedom. Yes, but what else then? I have seen so many movies about gifted people, but none of them is so boring like this one.

First of all, his love for music is wired. It is music that made him find his "princess", and it is music that forced him to get rid of the disguise. But what does this love for music actually mean for the movie as a whole? To me, it is something beautiful but totally redundant. I understood the impact his grandfather has had on him, so I understood the flying thing, the craftsmanship, and the final take-off scene. But why is music so important? Without music, we still knew he was talented because he was talented in many aspects. Without music, we still knew he was interesting, because he created the whole drama to deceive the tough mother...Only his love for Isabel explains music, but guess what, his love for Isabel is also redundant...What I could see is a deliberate tact to make him look funny, a man's mind in a boy's brain...But does he look funnier? Certainly not so noticeably...

Only the grandfather did a good job. And this is the only compliment that I can give...

I am a Chinese, and I do not necessarily take Hong Kong movies so seriously, because their directors have shown an increasing eagerness to make gangster or Kungfu movies, which of course usually fail to be creative in plot and acting...

When I heard Martin Scorsese is going to adapt the famous Hong Kong movie "Infernal Affairs", I got amused - Well, does Mr. Scrosese need a good story so badly that he turns to a Hong Kong one? And of course I am not surprised that he still completely showed his contempt to China in the film, though theoretically speaking, the story was created by a Chinese...

How can I say that? Shall I be very happy with the arrangement? Of course not, I have seen it in China and it is only the same story told in another way...But I still have to put up with the dirty talks and the not-so-reasonable arrogance of Jack Nicholson when he traded with the Chinese mafia, repeatedly quoting "IN THIS COUNTRY"...Well, yeah, does Martin Scorsese wanted to say even mafias in America are far better off? Even if it is true, is it something that you are going to take pride in? Save me these laughs...

But the editing is terrific, and it is better than the Hong Kong version. No doubt in its Academy Award. And this is the only thing that is impressive to me in this movie...

Well, first of all, I have to make it clear that I am not an American so that by no means shall I know this character better than any American. Moreover, I believe a foreigner can be more easily attracted by this film, since he/she doesn't know it equally well as an American. And, my comments are based on the above statement and a possibly consequentially biased perspective.

I believe all shall agree that the casting is wonderful. Johnny Depp is the one that brings John Dillinger back to life. I was told that the director Michael Mann initially wanted Leonardo DiCaprio. Though I agree that Leonardo is also a good actor, I still believe that Johnny Depp is THE ONE. His wild and sexy charms, especially that kind of tricky smiles that hold a natural contempt against authorities, is just what we can see from a poster of John Dillinger.

As I watched the film, I gradually got convinced of this. Johnny has shown his understanding of the character and put on his face very naturally the multidimensional inner world of Dillinger: On the one hand, Dillinger holds unmatchable confidence in his strong executive abilities in cold blood, a defiance against then police officials, and quite a sense of narcissism oriented towards public popularity. On the other, he was a dreamer, lover and believer in freedom. Johnny Depp, with his complicated temperament and unbelievable range of roles, has nailed everything of the above.

Christian Bale also did a good job. I cannot understand those who claimed he was too obscure in the film. Let's judge his performance based on the character. Purvis didn't boast an out-going personality at all. Reviewing the history, we can find he was just the type of person who believed in the public good, the ultimate right, and gave his best to his job. That is why Christian Bale's controlled performance delivered a decent result, let us say "Grace Under Pressure". But in the Little Bohemian Lodge gun fights, Christian Bale kept shooting the gang nearly dead, with hatred glaring...This was an burst-out and a release of long-time pressure and hatred.

Another issue is HD cinematography. Since the director favored long scenes of gunfighting. He'd better do it by HD. Besides, the great sense of style of 30s America also needs HD to make the best of it. Still, there were so many night scenes, and the actors' movements and facial expressions need to be made clean, so HD is needed. We have to admit that HD was used because the director needed it...

Some viewers argued that there is a sort of inconsistency in cinematography of the film. Sometimes it looked like a master's work, and sometimes a beginner's. I guess they argued this because some scenes did look dodgy, unstable, and almost impatient, especially those gunfights. But I think there was a purpose behind it: the director wanted to make the gunfight scenes real, something you are supposed to see when you are shooting the gangs while chasing them...Yet, we have to admit that the result, when seen from the whole movie, is not so good, largely because you cannot only make the gunfights something like a documentary and at the same time the rest scenes a drama...

Though I love its casting, its cinematography, its fashion style, and its score, I have to say the plot is a failure, and I am pretty sure that this failure will much likely lead to the failure of the movie as a whole.

Just like what I stated in the beginning of this article, many Americans knew the episode pretty well. But this movie certainly didn't make them know it better. The plot can be easily summarized as "Dillinger escaped - He robbed again - In jail but escaped again - robbed and robbed - finally got caught and dead"...I can see the movie's writers studied Dillinger's life and intended to attach importance to the most decisive moments, but we all knew them, didn't we? Even a foreigner like me can know all these from Wikipedia, let alone the Americans who worshiped him for decades...

But it will be unfair if we say the director made no effort to explore more of the character. Echoing what I said about Johhny Depp's great performance, I believe the director tried to show how complicated John Dillinger was as a person. But, he only did it by arranging several dialogs with Marion Coutillard, Christian Bale, and the gang friends...and these were just NOT ENOUGH. Besides, these dialogs, though pretty brilliantly written, were too subtle in their expression and not likely to be spoken by a man who robbed and killed. More clever plots that told his deep inside shall be added, and the gunfight scenes deserved to be cut...

As a summary, I would say this is a good film, made by supreme technical skills and a carefully-chosen casting. The fashion style, the sound mixing, the score and the controversial HD cinematography were to me fantastic, but the plot was not good, which would ultimately gave it a mediocre reception from the critics...

Mediocre is the word that can describe the film.

Humphrey Bogart looks truly "exhausted" in the film, and Audrey Hepburn, on the contrary, looks too calm. She behaved just the same before and after her training of how to be a sophisticated lady in Paris. Is there any difference that has been performed by Audrey Hepburn that is supposed to be found between a girl of a humble beginning and a lady that has been influenced by the romance of Paris? There should be, but I could not sense that from the unchanged, undisturbed peaceful look of Audrey Hepburn. Worse is that, this so-called "consistent" look makes Humphrey Bogart quite a stupid old guy who seemed to be waiting for a crush over a young lady...

Humphrey Bogart is an actor that is charming when he doesn't mean to. A review of his works might tell us one thing: clever talks and deliberate witty responses didn't give him an Academy Award. But a tough while tender "man" in "The African Queen" gave him that. Why? Because he was tortured by the nature, and no so-called acquired sense of humor that disguises a lonely heart could be found anymore, and till then a real man as well as "actor of the actor" is therefore reborn. I can't agree more with the Academy that they didn't give him the award until he showed what a man really is, definitely not an old rich guy getting on with a romance with a lady whose facial expression doesn't mind a slight change no matter who she's playing! Every one loves Audrey Hepburn. False! Me, at least, feel nothing for her. She was adored by people throughout her life because she had something that a lot of women craved for, especially the so-called elegance and the way she delivered it. Yet, a true movie fan with critical eyes and skeptical thinking will question her position given by the history. Wasn't it a mistake? Katherine Hepburn, Betty Davis, Sophia Loren, and even Vivien Leigh truly truly did a far better job, but they were not so much loved by the audience. Why? Because they were too good to be appreciated...

A film critic shall be fair and objective and this is the only thing that I hope for the people who read and is going to read my comment on the movie "Sabrina", an overrated romance full of clichés.

I don't get it!!! Why there isn't anyone who jumped out and said it is a bore? OK, then I shall do it...IT IS A BORE! Of course it is easier to admit that the plot is carefully designed, and the performances are quite good. Great artists assembled and showed their talents without a doubt. Yet, why isn't someone who could admit that it is quite quite easy to identify Keyser Soze was Kevin Spacey? The role he played was so outstanding, so different from the rest, so weak and so humble. Maybe it is the culture thing...To us Chinese, when this type of guy stands within a group of desperate, cool and ambitious people, he usually is the culprit, the devil, and the real hero. Evil people don't tell they are evil by their face...Why is it so difficult for Americans to know it...That's really funny.

This is just pointless...

I have no idea what they really wanted to say...some Hollywood inside truth? Yeah, I knew that pretty clear, because this is not the first film that discussed that! Worse is that it seems that the actors did not know that it could be so boring...Come on, don't tell me they liked the script...

Robert De Niro himself looked quite "bored" in the film, and I couldn't help but wonder whether he just got disappointed in the midway of making it...His performance was so...plain, that you cannot give any serious comment on it...

Anyway, I do not know what this film is actually trying to convey, but I as a common audience were obviously ignored when it started to tell a story.