The Fighter
This movie was definitely not what I was expecting. It was super weird to see Batman playing a scrawny, crack-addicted ex-boxer, but man did he ever do a good job. There were some sweet shots in this movie and definitely great acting (mostly between Christian Bale and the main character’s mother). I have to give massive respect to the amount of obvious training that both Bale and Wahlberg put into their roles. After the movie all I wanted to do was fight, which (I think) was the sign of a really great movie. I found the ending a tiny bit anti-climactic (mostly because I don’t understand the rules of boxing and so I wasn’t aware that the fight was over, oops) but other than that I was thoroughly entertained the whole time. Was it a really great movie? Yes. Was it the best movie of the year? No.
Social Network
Hmm, I’m not gonna lie, I have my doubts on this one. When I first saw the previews for it I assumed that it was going to be a complete publicity thing and will get massive revenue because of its subject. I was right, but the fact that it got award nods and whole bunch of amazing reviews made me think that it was more than what I’d originally assumed. I don’t think I was entirely right, but I definitely wasn’t entirely wrong. The movie was entertaining but my main problem was with these two trivia quotes:
“In October 2010, the real Sean Parker told Vanity Fair that he actually once met Justin Timberlake and that Timberlake wanted to get to know him better for his preparation for his role in this movie. Parker then replied getting to know the real Sean Parker wouldn't help Timberlake at all, because the Parker from Aaron Sorkin's script has little to do with the real person.”
"Mark Zuckerberg originally planned never to see the movie. He ended up taking several of his employees to see it. He later remarked that, despite some of the film's inaccuracies, they got his clothing right.”
Regardless of how well the movie was done or acted, the purpose of this film was still meant to portray the beginning of Facebook, and from a bunch of articles I’ve read, that really doesn’t seem to be the case at all. It’s scary that now hundreds of thousands of people have an impression of a real-life company and real-life people that seems to be entirely inaccurate. I would hate to be any of characters of the movie after this. For that reason, I am not a fan of this movie.
The King’s Speech
Darn expectations. I went into this movie with way too large of expectations since I had heard rumours that audiences were applauding at the end of the film. Unfortunately it did not meet my ridiculously high expectations, but it did come pretty darn close. It was brilliantly, brilliantly acted and I hope Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush both win their respective awards for it.
This was not a complicated movie. The plot is straightforward and the synopsis tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the action. The focus is definitely on the characters and it does a great job making them relatable and human. It had some really enjoyable, artistic camera angles and I’m not one to notice things like this normally, as studying film is not my passion. It also had some sweet shots that allowed you to feel what the characters were feeling, which was unique and not something you would expect in a biographical movie like this.
I laughed my head off at some of the scenes and was truly moved by others. I’ve been close friends with a couple of people with stutters and the movie did a great job of portraying the feelings that accompanied those interactions. I obviously can’t say what it felt like to watch this film while having this impediment, but for me it was really eye-opening to the struggle it brings. The music was great, the acting was phenomenal, the cinematography was amazing, all around it was just excellent excellent excellent.
This movie also stands as an example of our failed movie rating system. How did this movie and Black Swan get the same rating of “R”?? Surely there can be a better classification and separation between movies that deserve it and movies that don’t. Lame.
And I still want to watch it again before I rate Inception. Hopefully I’ll get a chance before the awards ceremony this Sunday.
2 comments:
I haven't seen any of these movies, but I have read a lot of movie reviews, so maybe we can find common ground there and talk about that?
I think first of all, a review must give the movie a fair and ballanced hearing so that audiences will be able to think about what you said and have a good idea if they'll want to see it. That should be the baseline in reviews. What takes a review past acceptable and into excellent is when it helps the audience understand the movie - the ideas, the techniques, the context, the symbolism - better. A great review won't just be a statement of opinion, but will somehow make the reader wiser and more thoughtful about film.
I think that is what every reviewer - amateur and professional - should strive for every time. Too often it is about looking smart and witty and the reviewer elevating himself instead of his audience.
OK, I have seen The Social Network. I disagree with what you say about it. First, I have never really understood the people (not you) who say that it was made on the gimmick that facebook is popular. facebook is a form of infrastructure more than an activity. Would anyone accuse a movie about postmen of being made for the reason that lots of people use the mail system and so they'll want to see a movie about that process?
This is a dialogue based drama with no typical hooks such as romance, action or even really suspense. It is made by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club, etc). Cliches are muted and shoved into the background when they aren't excluded entirely. There is no pumped up resolution with his friends, there is no indication that Zuckerberg is a happier or better person by the end of it. Only richer and obsessed with something else. My point is that if anything, its plot is working against its success.
More to the point, however, is that I strongly disagree with the idea that this movie is intended to be accurate. It is not a documentary. This is important. If it were a documentary, then it should get to the heart of its subject which conventionally requires it to get its facts right (though this is not strictly necessary: see every Herzog doc).
But it is a drama. The film makers saw something interesting in the real story, and they started thinking about it and they started imagining connections and conversations and using fact and fiction, created a compelling movie. We are fundamentally opposed: I think it is significantly better for not attempting to get all the details right because its purpose is NOT to to get a spot on the History Channel but to entertain and say something about brilliance, obsession and the need to belong.
I think it was fantastic.
I'm seeing Black Swan this week, and I'm guessing I'll agree with you on all but one of your paragraphs. ;)
Post a Comment