daedaluseticarus

I haven't walked out on a film since I saw "Divorcing Jack" back in 1998. I used to appreciate both PTA as a Director and JP as an actor. I really enjoyed "The Master", and I'm not an impatient man when it comes to watching films categorized as "slow". I don't need an easily digestible plot. But this film proved too much. Walked out after about 2 hours and 10 minutes. Felt like I couldn't breathe anymore.

Films starts out as slightly more gritty Big Lebowski and then pops over to a more drug fused Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Heavy on the paranoia but still funny. Had it been trimmed down then maybe it could have worked. Instead the plot just drifts away over the horizon and when a corny sex scene goes on for way too long you just feel done.

That fake documentary that JP did, pretending to become a hiphop artist really helps to explain the mood of this film. It's as pretentious and self absorbed.

Still I'll give it 3 points cus of Josh Brolin's hilarious sushi scene.

I seldomly rate movies with just the one star. However there's no other way to grade this film. The plot is plain and boring, the acting is quite stale, the script is slow, it's long, uninteresting and has most definitely not stood the test of time. I love films from the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's but this has got to be one of the most hyped films in the history of motion pictures. Naturally it does not deserve a place in the IMDb top 250, but since that list in itself as quite heavy on the Hollywood side, that doesn't surprise me in the least bit. What does surprise me is the amount of people giving the film such a high grade, the whole thing has "the emperors new clothes" feel to it.

This movie touches on a series of issues troubling America today seen thru the eyes of it's youth. The film shows us that problems in areas such as violence, guns, race issues and obesity are no longer limited to adults but play an active part amongst young people as well. The film centers around a group of 12 year old friends and their families. All with different problems which reflect on their parents short comings. The script is very well written and the acting is quite extraordinary throughout the entire film. The only real problem is that the movie feels a little too short, but perhaps it's better to quit while ones ahead. I'd recommend this film to anyone with an interest in human nature and all it's flaws.

The biggest problem with this film is that it's nothing like Bruce Allmighty. The first film played upon every daydreamer's fantasy of being able to control ones surroundings as one sees fit. Evan's experience though is entirely different. He has none of the control that Jim Carrey fools around with and instead the story centers around the power of belief. Now this would have been fine, since the first film was preaching the same message. The problem is that the sequel does it's preaching at the expense of the comic relief. And to add insult to injury it also throws in politics into the plot. You get the distinct feeling that there is a clear message with this film, and it's main objective is not to make you laugh. To sum things up this movie is failed mixture of Eddie Murhphy's "The Distinguished Gentleman" and Charlton Heston's "The Ten Commandments". I'm not sure if Steve Carrell is at fault here, you get a sense that it's his character that limits his abilities as a comedian, the former news anchor Evan Baxter is not supposed to be funny, he's basically an antagonist made into a protagonist which in this case only adds to the confusion of what this movies message is supposed to be about.

This film has a nice production team behind it, which makes the mis en scéne very enjoyable. The settings, props and computer animations help make this movie quite scary. The acting is not very good (Michael Fairman playing Henry Walker being the exception), but that's to be expected in a horror film that targets a young American audience. The plot is clear, without becoming too obvious and boring, but naturally one shouldn't expect too much. One of the biggest pro's of the film is the lack of superfluous scares. By that I mean that the film focuses on what is supposed to be scary and does not lower itself to try and frighten it's audience when it's not motivated by the plot. So all in all it's an OK movie, and an above average commercially oriented horror film (by todays standard).

Yes it's true, I watched this film, as did the most of us just because it had Al Pacino in it. Pacino is also the only mediocre thing in it, the rest being quite awful. And that people taking pity on him is the reason for the films unreasonably high rating. The dime a dozen plot drags on for quite a while, and from the very beginning you get the feeling that the director is not out to impress his audience in any way shape or form, his only intention is to finish shooting this no brainer and put Pacino's name on his resumé. If you like watching movies you've already seen this sort of film, the type where the good guy is being framed and you know it's someone within his or her circle of trust that is masterminding the whole thing, and all within a stressful time frame. Put a few explosions in there and about 150 cellphone calls and you've got yourself a film worthy of the name "straight to DVD", it makes you wonder what old Al is up to, lately his taste in scripts is beginning to resemble that of Rutger Hauer's. I doubt he's running out of money, because that fluffy hairpiece couldn't have set him back much.

Seriously, what's going on here? an 8.1 rating? How is this possible I wonder after watching the film and barely finishing it. I'm a big fan of WW2 themed movies and I even found Verhooven's "Soldaat van Oranje" to my liking, considering it's from 1977 when WW2 movies were more action oriented without multi layered characters (like One Bridge too Far, etc). But Black book is significantly worse, sometimes you feel like you're watching an old action adventure like "Where Eagles dare" (1968). Don't get me wrong, I like that sort of thing in a cartoon black or white goodguy/badguy kind of way, but it has little to do with reality, which seems to be Veerhoven's intention to portray (granted he tries to spice it up a bit). But shallow characters a predictable plot and cliché typed dialogue makes this movie a big disappointment. After the release of recent films like "Der Untergang" and "Sophie Scholl" I'm quite surprised that "Black Book" is able to impress the people on IMDb enough to give it an 8 range rating. Maybe it's the old romantic portrayal of the second world war that people like. Uncomplicated, straight good guys versus evil bad guys. Because the fact that there are exceptions of a single good German in this film and two single "bad" dutchmen are definitely not enough to overshadow the classic stereotypes.