Movie Reviews (5 star scale)
Miami Vice - 2 1/2 Stars
I left the theatre thinking, "That wasn't very good." The characters were a bit too cheesy, the dramatic scenes a bit too artsy, and Colin Farrell was too unbelievable. "Yeah, that wasn't good," I thought. By the time I got to the parking lot, my opinion had changed. I was criticizing this film for everything that the TV show was. If I assume Michael Mann was attempting to re-create the iconic cop-drama of the 80's, he did a terrific job, which brings us to that philosophical question about movie criticism. Should a critic provide credit to a film based on its ability to hit the target at which it was aimed? Or, should a film be judged on its own merit and without the outside influence of additional information, such as interviews with directors and such? This question is especially relevant when considering re-makes, whether of films or television shows. Overall, I'd say the film achieved the feel the director set out to create, but probably missed the mark with the audience. The scenes failed to flow fuidly, and the character development was insufficient, perhaps relying on the knowledge the audience may have of the television show. While there were certainly moments for the avid action film fan, it was no "Heat". (Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell - 2 1/2 stars)
The Devil Wears Prada - 3 1/2 stars
This was a pretty funny movie, even if much of the film consists of watching Meryl Streep do a terrific job of talking shit to her assistant, Anne Hathaway. Normally this wouldn't make a decent movie, but the combination of some terrific writers, and the ability of Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci to deliver their witty barbs with near-perfect comic timing ended up being very entertaining. It also doesn't hurt that the film is jam-packed with attractive women. However, the movie is held back by it's trite and super-thin plot, to sell out or not to sell out, that is the question. Oh, and what is selling out anyway? Yes, it's just that thin.
The inclusion of Adrian Grenier doesn't help either. I understand why this guy is continually cast. He has that unique look and honest eyes that Hollywood pines over. Only, he's not a good actor. He's not a good actor because he's about as boring as they come. He's the reason I have been unable to get into that cult favorite, "Entourage". I love the concept, an actor makes it big and brings his friends along for the ride. Video games and debauchery ensue. The problem is that Adrian Grenier is so boring, the producers had to cast even more boring characters to surround him with, for fear that the cinematic success of the main character wouldn't be remotely believable. The single exception is Jeremy Pivin, who plays the same character he's always played, the uber-confident, singularly motivated male. He's been doing that well since "PCU". But I digress.
Don't be suprised if you're the only male in this crowd, and don't be embarrased if you're laughing louder than the rest. I certainly did. (Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway - 3 1/2 stars)
I left the theatre thinking, "That wasn't very good." The characters were a bit too cheesy, the dramatic scenes a bit too artsy, and Colin Farrell was too unbelievable. "Yeah, that wasn't good," I thought. By the time I got to the parking lot, my opinion had changed. I was criticizing this film for everything that the TV show was. If I assume Michael Mann was attempting to re-create the iconic cop-drama of the 80's, he did a terrific job, which brings us to that philosophical question about movie criticism. Should a critic provide credit to a film based on its ability to hit the target at which it was aimed? Or, should a film be judged on its own merit and without the outside influence of additional information, such as interviews with directors and such? This question is especially relevant when considering re-makes, whether of films or television shows. Overall, I'd say the film achieved the feel the director set out to create, but probably missed the mark with the audience. The scenes failed to flow fuidly, and the character development was insufficient, perhaps relying on the knowledge the audience may have of the television show. While there were certainly moments for the avid action film fan, it was no "Heat". (Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell - 2 1/2 stars)
The Devil Wears Prada - 3 1/2 stars
This was a pretty funny movie, even if much of the film consists of watching Meryl Streep do a terrific job of talking shit to her assistant, Anne Hathaway. Normally this wouldn't make a decent movie, but the combination of some terrific writers, and the ability of Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci to deliver their witty barbs with near-perfect comic timing ended up being very entertaining. It also doesn't hurt that the film is jam-packed with attractive women. However, the movie is held back by it's trite and super-thin plot, to sell out or not to sell out, that is the question. Oh, and what is selling out anyway? Yes, it's just that thin.
The inclusion of Adrian Grenier doesn't help either. I understand why this guy is continually cast. He has that unique look and honest eyes that Hollywood pines over. Only, he's not a good actor. He's not a good actor because he's about as boring as they come. He's the reason I have been unable to get into that cult favorite, "Entourage". I love the concept, an actor makes it big and brings his friends along for the ride. Video games and debauchery ensue. The problem is that Adrian Grenier is so boring, the producers had to cast even more boring characters to surround him with, for fear that the cinematic success of the main character wouldn't be remotely believable. The single exception is Jeremy Pivin, who plays the same character he's always played, the uber-confident, singularly motivated male. He's been doing that well since "PCU". But I digress.
Don't be suprised if you're the only male in this crowd, and don't be embarrased if you're laughing louder than the rest. I certainly did. (Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway - 3 1/2 stars)
posted by Junto at 8:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home