8 posts tagged “movie reviews”
Unfortunately, someone heard his dying words. So, 'Hannibal Rising' is a so-called movie with people acting like there's danger, someone trying to stop or kill the dangerous, someone falling in love with the much younger danger. etc.
Is it sad that this "Movie" sucks all the life out of going to a movie? Yes.
But, that's not why we're here. We complain about the DP, the lighting, framing and movement choices that either make sense or don't. Here, Ben Davis is operating as if he was also made by a sandwich at that fateful meeting.
He pulls out all the 'shots' in his minimal, stolen, unimaginative arsenal. And he does it for no reason. Ben shot
'The Girl With the Pearl Earring' - so, maybe he knows what he's doing or perhaps he's trying to cover up the shit of the story by putting up shit in the frame. Well, my friends, we all know that only makes a shit sandwich.
And a shit sandwich by committee is 'Hannibal Rising'.
He starts with a bleach bypass look for the better part of the first act. Followed by serious color treatment in post to crush the blacks, and make the dimmer scenes look more contrasty. And the result is so passe. No one should be doing bleach bypass unless there's a very good reason. If it's almost a comment on bleach bypass. Otherwise, you're just eating the same sandwich.
He throws in a couple of early handheld shots in the opening sequence in the midst of being indecisive about the look of the scene. Well, Ben, it doesn't work. It's distracting with a medium lens close-up. It's too jittery. If you need to do the Private Ryan thing for some reason, find a better one than the escape sequence. it's been done, it's not reflective. come up with something else.
That's the real problem of the movie as a whole. It's a "Movie." It has Nazi's as bad guys, then Russian emigres as bad guys, and there's a French detective serving justice and all that's good - he knows the smell of clove oil, he lost loved ones in the war... There's a Japanese aunt who escorts dear Hannibal through his "movie" kung fu training sequence.
The whole genre of war movies is taken as the back drop and the cover-up for every plot hole. There are too many to list. One of my favorite is when Hannibal shows up at the restaurant of one of the bad guys and , to prove that he hasn't killed his daughter, (thereby saving the cat) He dials the man's number and has him talk to his wife....
My Lord, what a terrible waste of time. At least every one got paid..
The critics are overrating it, and I think it's his performance that they're grabbing onto. The story, starts off with good metaphors, character studies, actions that will have moral implications, etc. And Angelina does a nice job with all that later in the film and it'd be nice if she got a little recognition for it. She is the only one of all the tabulebities that made a good piece of work this year, afterall.
Anyway, a spy movie should be decipherable and not leave loose ends to be cut quite so thoughtlessly. The last third of 'The Good Sheepheard' leaves a lot to be desired, like a cogent story. It leaves question after question, and not in some 'Gosford Park' sort of 'the mystery isn't the story' type way, either. I mean sloppy storytelling.
But, thank the Lord for Matt Damon.
And top lighting. Who thought top-lighting these men and their fifties haircuts was such a good idea? Hi, big pink eared boy! Wild. Every time Exposition man would say something about whererver Matt had to be or why, I could only look at his back-lit ears blowing up in the screen.
I even thought of some solutions, I mean, I love top lighting, especially a single character on an otherwise dark set. But, you can use mole skin, or paper tape, matte make-up, something.
Or, bring in some flags and cut them off the ears.
I don't know, do something, pink ears, 8 feet high in the middle of the multiplex arent' doing any one any good.
SPOILER! ALERT!! Do not read further...
Why did they have to kill the girl at the end? The russians and Matt made the deal. It was over. Man, what bullshit.
And, if it was the Africans, we should have been warned. And why Africa? Couldn't he fall in love anywhere? And if bad guys in Africa are going to kill someone, why waste the fuel on the flight? Just shoot her where she stands.
And, why did the Russians rat out Damon's kid for falling for the spy? Just so they could use his safety against him? But, they could use his safety against him any way, right? These are killers and spooks. They don't need to blackmail anyone. Matt Damon's kid could be talking to a girl at Johns Hopkins about dentistry and the Russians could still kill his girlfriend.
I didn't get more of it. And, that's a problem with a spy story I think. Unless its like 'Gosford Park' and this wasn't.
It looked good, though. It should, they shot over a 1,200 rolls of films. That's more than the last four I've worked on.
Hollywood. They really do answer to no one.
The performances are phenomenal and like many have said, the solo by Jennifer Hudson really grabs you. What I found remarkable was the angles they chose to shoot this scene. There are some medium wide shots during this emotion song that really set her in a place in the frame where you can sense the tragedy that is going to befall her because of her simple humaness. I don't want to say mediocrity or normalcy, but just the framing is setting her in a way that is mundane, and you know that's what's headed her way. She has left he Dreamettes and now this is what's before her. She's just going to be another person. A less thoughtful director would have discounted this angle, with her bare legs and flat feet, but this angle is the backbone of the scene.
The lighting and camera work were A+, if I saw any mistakes beyond a camera shadow in a dolly shot, I don't recall it.
I don't like Hollywood movies. But, I still love movies, and so, my love of movies will sometimes trump my oft-broken heart and I'll let someone, usually the wife, drag me to a Hollywood film. Usually it's so bad, I don't say anything. Like, 'Firewall.' That was bad. Possibly one of the worst peices of crap I've ever seen. He falls asleep after breaking into his friend's house after his family has been kidnapped! Nevermind.
Anyway, 'Blood Diamond' is another reason I don't like Hollywood movies, but it's exactly the kind of Hollywood movie I get fooled by. "Blood Diamond" was an excellent movie at one time. And, then someone added the female love story to it. It may have been the original story for all I know. But, at some time, I bet this movie was about what it was supposed to be about - two men after one thing for their own purposes, in pursuit of which they learn about the costs and value of sacrifice. It's a great story and it's well told. Now, all you have to do is excise the claptrap love story - hammered into terrifying boredom by a stunningly bored Jennifer Connelly and you have yourself one diamond of a movie.
Man, it's too bad.
Anyway -
The gaffs -
Soft focus on the handheld stuff quite frequently, but particularly bad in the alleyway when he meets the soldier of fortune friend for the first time.
A very abrupt beginning to a zoom - but it was a long pull back from a car mirror - to a pan across the street - so, certainly understandable.
Biggest - the green screen shot of Leonardo DiCaprio in the bar the night he meets Jennifer Connelly. Wow. Did that shot suck. One of the worst green screens I've ever seen. Spend the money on reshoots or go with what you got. Don't try to make it halfway and halfassed for nothing. Sheesh.
On a positive note - good, well-directed action scenes. Excellent use of hard light. Strong, contrasy sources abound. Well used. This DP knows what he's doing. His operators could use some practice. Or some sobriety.
Hollywood wins again.
Oh, and Leonardo DiCaprio is an excellent actor. No one of his stature could have sunk themselves into this role so wholly and so well. No one I can think of anyway. Spot-on convincing. Forgot it was him in a heartbeat. That's good casting. Saved this movie.
What are you doing during the death of the film age? Not about the death of the film age, the death of film, etc. Through the things we all talk about - scattered media-scattered attention spans, democratization of filmmaking, etc. Just bear with me and let's say that the 20th Century saw the height of film production, which is true and ergo y saw most of it's masterpieces. We don't have to name them, they get trotted out like grandma at the home on Thanksgiving.
But, if the movies and especially the movie-going experience is really changing and will soon be gone for good, what are you going to do, film lover? To find those moments and memories to have with film. And your children, should you prove to be fertile, what experience will you be able to share with them about going to the movies before ads, cellphones and sporting events were the norm? When movies played, people watched, and then talked about the movie, let the movie become a part of their society.
No group of guys that I know, sits around drinking and quoting video games, myspace, or even television shows.
But movies, they get into your head and then into your group and after a while you might stop to wonder, who would we be without 'Caddyshack' (I'm dating myself). Without 'Raising Arizona'?
But as film becomes less film and more television, franchises, thoughtlessness, etc. and we watch as it comes to an end, what do we do?
I feel we can do little beyond getting a bigger screen television, a larger library of DVDs and hope we can someday afford to invest in some up and coming artiste who has found an idea that is filmic and worthy.
It'll happen about once a year. This year, it was 'Half Nelson'. A movie that loved moviemaking. That had an idea in it, simply told with strong, indelible characters. I'd see it again. In a theater. Unless, there's something else on that you think I should see.
Sure, it was a nice movie. I have little to add to all that's been said. But, as a gaffer, I was embarrassed. For the grips, especially.
Why? Well. In short, bad gelling. (Gels are what you put on a window to either knock down the light (ND); or to correct the daylight for tungsten-balanced film. If you'd like to know more, shoot me an email wesleydumont 'at' gmail 'dot' com)
Just about every scene where there's a window visible - restaurant, hospital, hotels, you can see the gel on the window outside just floppin' around.
Paul Goodstein, key grip; Paul McIlvaine, gaffer, I'm calling you out. You did a lousy job of letting them roll on that crap and now it's your name up there with that bad gel job for all the world to see.
Thumbs up for the movie, but to the keys I give the finger.
And, as for you Tim Suhrstedt, it's time for you to step up as well. Shoot me a message next time your in NYC and I'll show you a real crew.
Man, monumentally bad casting. Paltrow can't pull off loner, insane, friendless, introspective girl to save her acting life. Mary Louise was sorely missed in this play that only barely became a movie.
Dudes. You're making a movie. Move the camera. Get a wide shot. Open it up.
Oh. And check out the gaffs on the ADR (Additional Dialogue Recording) - I guess the suits thought they needed to keep Paltrow's teen audience and needed to keep the PG-13 rating, because, you can see Gwyneth's lips say, 'Fuck', but what you hear is 'hell' or 'friggin'' Pretty hilarious.
It's good. It's getting a terrible rap in the press. It doesn't do all the expected jokes about rape, even though they have some jokes about rape. It's low budget comedy, but at least it's real comedy.
Here's the gaffs-
- IN the shower - in the wide shots, the water was on, in the close-ups, the water was off.
- In the courtroom - the main character is dressed in a hooded sweatshirt and sunglasses, when we next see him outside the courtroom, he's without those articles of clothing.
- Bad, bad ADR with the judge.
- End credits, in the sunlight, you could see the shadow of the camera on the forground character's head.
