Year: 2009
Director: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Screenplay: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Starring: Gerard Butler, Micheal C Hall
There's a brief moment in gamer where a dog is pissing on a women who grins inanely. It's an blink and you miss it shot but it talks in spades about the mind set of the filmmakers of this film.
Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor have been accused of crossing the line of bad taste in their last film Crank 2 and while I unfortunately haven't seen that yet. If Crank 2 talks about women like Gamer does, I'll probably not watch it.
Gamer is the closet thing to cinematic rape I've seen this year. It's Misogynistic, puerile trash dressed up as sci-fi and it really shouldn't exist. I'm sure the film will have it's fans (it's at 6.2 on the imdb at this moment) but I however, will not be one of them.
Gamer has all the problems I have with many films bad plotting, no characterization, no tension etc. But it also has the added issue of a dislike for women. I haven't seen women degraded like this since Bride Wars. Gratuitous half nudity is one thing but some of the things that are said to and done to women in this gives a nasty vibe. This vibe stems from the fact that there's hardly any reason for this treatment of women other than the fact that the filmmakers can.
The treatment of women is as nasty as the depiction of gamers themselves is lazy. Once again this is a film which shows us that gamers are either mouthy teens or fat greasy slobs, despite the millions of Wii's sold. The two factors combine to show that gamers view women not as other people but as sex objects. Not what I needed to see on a Sunday morning.
Neveldine & Taylor's OTT style of filmmaking is of course one to be taking with a pinch of salt. But of course that's when the film has a sense of humor. I enjoyed Crank as the film clearly didn't want anyone to take it seriously. Gamer however seems to have missed out on the joke and plays it's cards poker faced. Strangely this doesn't help the films script or quieter moments which are ridiculous to the point of unintentional hilarity. Of course Neveldine & Taylor does care about quiet moments because it's all about the violence which is doled out ad nausea. I don't mind a bit of the ol' ultra, but usually only when there's context. Gamer is a film which makes Micheal Hanke's Funny Games even more smug than it should be.
The acting? Bland. Gerard Butler does his best Russell Crowe impression but has nothing to grab hold of considering the matertal. I won't comment on any of the female performances because most of them are the bravest in the world for taking a role in this piece of divel. Micheal C Hall is wasted, while Ludicris appearz in dis movie 4 da kidz.
Like a Micheal Bay movie, Gamer doesn't seem to have any clue how to pace tension or bring about any sense of tone. The action is cut to ribbons so you have no idea whats going on and the kernel of an interesting idea that lies in Gamer is submerged in horrible overkill. Not that it's matters because David Cronenberg had already aced this material ten years ago in eXistenZ.
I didn't expect much from Gamer but then who would? To say it's mindless plays into the filmmakers hands so I'll end with saying it's dull, over edited tripe.
Note: If you really need to see a film like this check out Mamoru "ghost in the shell" Oshii's stunningly beautiful Avalon. It may be a far better use of your time.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Review: Push
Year: 2009
Director: Paul McGuigan
Screenplay: David Bourla
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou,
Push got a hard time when released and it's easy to understand why. It's nothing new in any shape or form. In fact when watching it, I compared it to X-men meets Total Recall. It is very derivative of other sci-fi. With this said, the film, with it's patchy narrative and "been there" tone is still a good laugh.
A film like Push need energy to keep it going and this movie has it in spades. Despite being slightly confused by it's naff exposition that crops up from time to time, McGuigan makes sure that the film is never boring. In an era where comic book style movies feel that they need a grand statement to be interesting, Push is good natured enough just to go with the flow, without slipping into monotonous storytelling.
What I enjoyed about McGuigan's film is that the action sequences still feel fresh and fun despite being seen in many a film before. your pushers, bleeders, shadows and what not are nothing new. However, once again, much like District 9, Push is placed in an completely different setting that invigorates the set pieces. It's great to see a film like this set in the hustle and bustle of Hong Kong (the whole film was filmed there) and McGuigan's reason behind filming there (a riff on Casablanca) gives me a a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Despite having a patchy script with badly introduced characters, the glue that holds the set pieces together are the performances. Chris Evans once again shows that he's a charming actor and has more than enough charisma for a film like this. His chemistry with Datoka Fanning (who once you get past those manga eyes is growing up to be a great actress) is one that is sorely missed by movies with a bigger budget than this one. In fact it's much stronger than the relationship with the forgettable (yet attractive) Camilla Belle that fails to truly sizzle.
Another acting damp squib stems from the chief villain played by Dijimon Hounsou, although this stems more from having a character with little to do than sneer.
For the most part, Push works well enough, even the films twists (something I telegraphed too easily in McGuigan's Lucky Number Slevin) worked with me due to the pulpiness of the genre. McGuigan's interest in time manipulation and perception once again plays a part in the movie and I found myself very invested in what he had to say about it, despite seeing it done better in other films.
A fun film that may provide strong background noise on a night out. Don't worry about what the characters say, it's not as interesting as it could be.
Director: Paul McGuigan
Screenplay: David Bourla
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou,
Push got a hard time when released and it's easy to understand why. It's nothing new in any shape or form. In fact when watching it, I compared it to X-men meets Total Recall. It is very derivative of other sci-fi. With this said, the film, with it's patchy narrative and "been there" tone is still a good laugh.
A film like Push need energy to keep it going and this movie has it in spades. Despite being slightly confused by it's naff exposition that crops up from time to time, McGuigan makes sure that the film is never boring. In an era where comic book style movies feel that they need a grand statement to be interesting, Push is good natured enough just to go with the flow, without slipping into monotonous storytelling.
What I enjoyed about McGuigan's film is that the action sequences still feel fresh and fun despite being seen in many a film before. your pushers, bleeders, shadows and what not are nothing new. However, once again, much like District 9, Push is placed in an completely different setting that invigorates the set pieces. It's great to see a film like this set in the hustle and bustle of Hong Kong (the whole film was filmed there) and McGuigan's reason behind filming there (a riff on Casablanca) gives me a a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Despite having a patchy script with badly introduced characters, the glue that holds the set pieces together are the performances. Chris Evans once again shows that he's a charming actor and has more than enough charisma for a film like this. His chemistry with Datoka Fanning (who once you get past those manga eyes is growing up to be a great actress) is one that is sorely missed by movies with a bigger budget than this one. In fact it's much stronger than the relationship with the forgettable (yet attractive) Camilla Belle that fails to truly sizzle.
Another acting damp squib stems from the chief villain played by Dijimon Hounsou, although this stems more from having a character with little to do than sneer.
For the most part, Push works well enough, even the films twists (something I telegraphed too easily in McGuigan's Lucky Number Slevin) worked with me due to the pulpiness of the genre. McGuigan's interest in time manipulation and perception once again plays a part in the movie and I found myself very invested in what he had to say about it, despite seeing it done better in other films.
A fun film that may provide strong background noise on a night out. Don't worry about what the characters say, it's not as interesting as it could be.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Review: Tyson
Year: 2008 (U.K release 2009)
Director: James Toback
Starring: Mike Tyson
I have what I think is a healthy attraction to certain subjects in humanity that have gained taboo be it bullfighting or porn. I sometimes quite fascinated by peoples motivations and what drives them to do what they do. Boxing is another one of those odd endeavours that I have a passing interest in. It's a bizarre mentality to step into the ring with someone and engage in combat with someone. Despite what many people say about the sport, it's not as "humane" as they'd like to think. And despite boxing have a certain allure to it that I've only just discovered, the scars of the sport are still there with almost every fighter, only they're not only physical (just look at Ali now), but mental.
The last shot of Tyson is of Iron Mike himself (most of the film is one large talking head of him) and no matter how hearting his last monologue is, his darting eyes are the eyes of an unfocused child. He has a look of anguish and his tone of voice is still one of a broken man.
Tyson is a film that is hard to recommend to many people for a few reasons. One is the aforementioned style of the film, which despite some old footage and some pictures, Tyson is still a a 90 minute one on one with the man. Director James Toback says nothing and there is no interviewer just Tyson with the camera (you) as the confident.
The film allows Tyson to tell us about his life in great detail. Get past his bizarre speech pattens and almost effeminate tone (even more than when his was younger) and you may be surprised by the man's smarts. His description of how he become undisputed champion is almost poetic as he recounts his game plan and the eventual outcome of the match. His telling of his own story is a vivid one and despite most of the film being shots of him, he certainly know how to create a colourful narration.
The films most powerful moments are his tearful description of his old trainer Cus D'Amto and his dubious (for lack of a better word) observations of women. It's at this point you realise how fractured this man's mind is because he looks at women in the exact same way that he looks at his opponent. It's a terrifying revelation for the viewer but also an upsetting one. As Tyson tells the viewer of his life as a youth in what he calls a "promiscuous household" you release that the sins of his parents have left a mark stronger than any other fighter could given him. Like they say "they fuck you up your mum and dad".
Cus D'Amto give this man some focus, but with no nurturing side to speak of, his trainer may have unleashed a untamed beast one the world. A man focused on excess, power and dominance. Tyson trusted no one but his trainer (not even his own mother) and his trainer conditioned the man to overcome everything to get what he wants. Cus D'Amto dies when Mike Tyson is still young and with his only restraint gone, the darker aspects of his psyche take over.
It's amazing to see how honest Tyson is throughout this movie. It seems that he and Toback had an arrangement stating that Tyson had no say other the final cut. However it could have been easy to refuse and Toback's film doesn't hold back in any shape or form, crafting Tyson as more rounded character than any media outlet ever has.
Let's not be too hasty, this is not to say that Tyson is an angel. Not by any means. He is clearly misogynistic, with a hint of sociopath poking through the cracks, but with this said. it's clear that there's a man like any other within the beast that wants to do right. This film may not change your mind about the man or the myth, but try to look at it this way. You could say what ever you want to him, it means nothing to Tyson as his demons shout louder and will be with him forever.
Director: James Toback
Starring: Mike Tyson
I have what I think is a healthy attraction to certain subjects in humanity that have gained taboo be it bullfighting or porn. I sometimes quite fascinated by peoples motivations and what drives them to do what they do. Boxing is another one of those odd endeavours that I have a passing interest in. It's a bizarre mentality to step into the ring with someone and engage in combat with someone. Despite what many people say about the sport, it's not as "humane" as they'd like to think. And despite boxing have a certain allure to it that I've only just discovered, the scars of the sport are still there with almost every fighter, only they're not only physical (just look at Ali now), but mental.
The last shot of Tyson is of Iron Mike himself (most of the film is one large talking head of him) and no matter how hearting his last monologue is, his darting eyes are the eyes of an unfocused child. He has a look of anguish and his tone of voice is still one of a broken man.
Tyson is a film that is hard to recommend to many people for a few reasons. One is the aforementioned style of the film, which despite some old footage and some pictures, Tyson is still a a 90 minute one on one with the man. Director James Toback says nothing and there is no interviewer just Tyson with the camera (you) as the confident.
The film allows Tyson to tell us about his life in great detail. Get past his bizarre speech pattens and almost effeminate tone (even more than when his was younger) and you may be surprised by the man's smarts. His description of how he become undisputed champion is almost poetic as he recounts his game plan and the eventual outcome of the match. His telling of his own story is a vivid one and despite most of the film being shots of him, he certainly know how to create a colourful narration.
The films most powerful moments are his tearful description of his old trainer Cus D'Amto and his dubious (for lack of a better word) observations of women. It's at this point you realise how fractured this man's mind is because he looks at women in the exact same way that he looks at his opponent. It's a terrifying revelation for the viewer but also an upsetting one. As Tyson tells the viewer of his life as a youth in what he calls a "promiscuous household" you release that the sins of his parents have left a mark stronger than any other fighter could given him. Like they say "they fuck you up your mum and dad".
Cus D'Amto give this man some focus, but with no nurturing side to speak of, his trainer may have unleashed a untamed beast one the world. A man focused on excess, power and dominance. Tyson trusted no one but his trainer (not even his own mother) and his trainer conditioned the man to overcome everything to get what he wants. Cus D'Amto dies when Mike Tyson is still young and with his only restraint gone, the darker aspects of his psyche take over.
It's amazing to see how honest Tyson is throughout this movie. It seems that he and Toback had an arrangement stating that Tyson had no say other the final cut. However it could have been easy to refuse and Toback's film doesn't hold back in any shape or form, crafting Tyson as more rounded character than any media outlet ever has.
Let's not be too hasty, this is not to say that Tyson is an angel. Not by any means. He is clearly misogynistic, with a hint of sociopath poking through the cracks, but with this said. it's clear that there's a man like any other within the beast that wants to do right. This film may not change your mind about the man or the myth, but try to look at it this way. You could say what ever you want to him, it means nothing to Tyson as his demons shout louder and will be with him forever.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Review: Away we go
Year: 2009
Director: Sam Mendes
Screenplay: Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida
Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph
A couple go cross-country to find themselves a perfect place to start the family they will soon have. There's the pitch for Away we go. Simple and effective, but will you watch it? Well it gained mixed reviews and didn't spread to wide release, despite being made by Sam Mendes. It's a shame because I found it a damn sight more interesting than Revolutionary Road. Maybe it's because Rev Road's "look at me!" acting and contrived wish to be important got in the way of the film being watchable (for me anyway).
Away we go is a cheerful departure away from the "grander" movies of Mendes' overture. We've seen his take(s) at the suburban drama, the gangster flick and the war movie, and for the most part (see my above paragraph) the director has brought a interesting curve to those movies. Here he takes on the road movie with Away we go.
Together with married writers Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida Mendes brings about a humorous journey between two naive and concerned people, who just wish to have their child under the best circumstances they can. The script is witty and the characters have a very down to earth feel to them. It's a shame that many have found the leads as smug and high and mighty over the bizarre "couples" they meet on their odyssey. They're not, they just want to get it right and although there's a few smart alecy comments at times and one huge outburst part way through the film, said outburst brings about one of the best moments of the movie, it's the first (and nearly only) moment of conflict that rubs our couple and the wrong way and it was truly welcomed by me because despite the laughs my mind kept wondering "yes....and ?"
You see, Mendes' film doesn't seem to have much point to it. The film's climax didn't send the shivers down my spine that the rising music and bleary eyed moments wanted me to have. This seem to stem from the fact that the film wishes to be funny more than emotional. In a lesser film the films tender moments (including one of the saddest poledances I'll ever see) would be lost by a weak director. Mendes (a theatre director first) manages to make those scenes linger in my head way after the credits have gone up. It's a shame that they seem to few and far between. I remember the softer moments more than the laughs, however the film is more interested in titters.
But this isn't too much of a bad thing. The humor is more hit than miss and the leads (The U.S Office's John Krasinski and SNL's Maya Rudolph) handle the comedy like good comedic actors should. The leads handle the emotional moments well also with help from a great supporting cast (stand outs being Maggie Gyllenhaal and Allison Janney on top form).
The film is a departure from the usual visual look and storytelling from Mendes and he pulls it off with a few minor scrapes. Although not the emotional ride it wishes to believe it is, Away we go should find its audience comfortably on DVD and with the English audience when it's released this Friday.
Podcast is here
Director: Sam Mendes
Screenplay: Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida
Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph
A couple go cross-country to find themselves a perfect place to start the family they will soon have. There's the pitch for Away we go. Simple and effective, but will you watch it? Well it gained mixed reviews and didn't spread to wide release, despite being made by Sam Mendes. It's a shame because I found it a damn sight more interesting than Revolutionary Road. Maybe it's because Rev Road's "look at me!" acting and contrived wish to be important got in the way of the film being watchable (for me anyway).
Away we go is a cheerful departure away from the "grander" movies of Mendes' overture. We've seen his take(s) at the suburban drama, the gangster flick and the war movie, and for the most part (see my above paragraph) the director has brought a interesting curve to those movies. Here he takes on the road movie with Away we go.
Together with married writers Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida Mendes brings about a humorous journey between two naive and concerned people, who just wish to have their child under the best circumstances they can. The script is witty and the characters have a very down to earth feel to them. It's a shame that many have found the leads as smug and high and mighty over the bizarre "couples" they meet on their odyssey. They're not, they just want to get it right and although there's a few smart alecy comments at times and one huge outburst part way through the film, said outburst brings about one of the best moments of the movie, it's the first (and nearly only) moment of conflict that rubs our couple and the wrong way and it was truly welcomed by me because despite the laughs my mind kept wondering "yes....and ?"
You see, Mendes' film doesn't seem to have much point to it. The film's climax didn't send the shivers down my spine that the rising music and bleary eyed moments wanted me to have. This seem to stem from the fact that the film wishes to be funny more than emotional. In a lesser film the films tender moments (including one of the saddest poledances I'll ever see) would be lost by a weak director. Mendes (a theatre director first) manages to make those scenes linger in my head way after the credits have gone up. It's a shame that they seem to few and far between. I remember the softer moments more than the laughs, however the film is more interested in titters.
But this isn't too much of a bad thing. The humor is more hit than miss and the leads (The U.S Office's John Krasinski and SNL's Maya Rudolph) handle the comedy like good comedic actors should. The leads handle the emotional moments well also with help from a great supporting cast (stand outs being Maggie Gyllenhaal and Allison Janney on top form).
The film is a departure from the usual visual look and storytelling from Mendes and he pulls it off with a few minor scrapes. Although not the emotional ride it wishes to believe it is, Away we go should find its audience comfortably on DVD and with the English audience when it's released this Friday.
Podcast is here
Monday, 7 September 2009
(500) Days of Summer
Year: 2009
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel
Honest, Emotional, Funny. That's not what everyone wants from a romantic comedy but it's those three things that I personally need when I watch one. In the same way that horror films should be unnerving, Rom-com's should be able be to from the heart as well as amusing.
Opening with a sketched scene (you'll see) that fans of Juno would be proud of (500) Days of summer has a whiff of "Hollywood quirk" to it. However, in no way does this stop the film from being a cheap imitator, no far from it. (500) Days of Summer is an unbelievably sincere movie. But even it was following the footsteps of the Juno's, Little Miss Sunshines and the rest of them, it would still appear more fresh then the latest manufactured Matthew McConaughey/Kathrine Higel/Kate Hudson piece of filth that litter the cinematic landscape.
Librally playing with time as if it were Quentin Tarantino in the 90's, the film jumps to various moments of the "relationship", but not in chronological order. It's hard to fully keep up with the numbers but that's not important. The point is the insight of perspective that the time skips give. The juxtaposition of scenes makes moments of the film which could have been uninspired in lesser films hilarious. But it also makes the realisation more painful. An awkward, strained trip to Ikea, becomes a cheerful romp through the fake rooms as the happy "couple" play husband and wife (big metaphor there) and you grin your arse off, if only to realise how truthful it is.
What makes (500) Days so good is how accurate it's observations are. During the movie you may finding yourself siding with our protagonist, I mean why isn't Tom's affections reciprocated? Why is this girl sending such mixed signals and after the film. Yes, it's the unreliable narrator that is our protagonist. The film is on Tom's side...a little too much. One character's mentions that Tom should look back at the relationship and realise that Summer may not be the girl of his dreams. The brief montage shows that Tom cannot, because he is in love with the IDEA of Summer so much so that he has blinded the actual reality. The lack of scenes with Summer at the helm only help prove it.
The film's accuracy stems from the carefully observed moments of madness the film captures. I've done the karaoke thing, I've stopped listening to bands because of certain women (I can't look at the beatles in the same way) and as for the outbursts? Just ask my mate rob about me on my 20th birthday yelling about dying alone. We pick these moments and we laugh because it's true (but also because of the sharply written script).
It also helps as it's shown by a male perspective. No I'm not being sexist, it's just refreshing. This is a genre that almost only caters for women. Also, the rom-com these days merely wishes to revel in the simplistic shallowness, improbable aspirations of male perfection, and of course unrealistic happy endings that the disgusting characters don't deserve. Here we have a man who is not just a handsome mouth breather but a young optimistic man who may be a little too needy.
This is a role played impeccably by Gordon-Levitt. My girlfriend stated that he has an "interesting" face and I argee. It's what separates him from other male actors. By not looking like a clean cut leading man, Gordon-Levitt elevates the performance even more by having a face that could fit well in a crowd. He plays against a women who could be considered by a few to be the next Parker Posey. Zooey Deschanel is all cute grins and sparkly eyes at first but the inside of the character displays a rich Independence. An Independence that isn't merely shown by the fact that she can be sexual, but its shown by her boldness around people. She's not a damsel in distress, nor is she a cold heart bitch, merely real.
Director Marc Webb a music video director, makes the film great to look at but doesn't let the look over power the film. In fact his visual tricky only enhance the emotions that Tom feels (the french new wave scene had make giggling). There's some great story telling at hand, and although some the metaphors are heavy handed (a t-shirt saying love will tear us apart? COME ON!), the film won my heart with it's wicked sense of humor (watching porn together?), visual playfulness and a chemistry between the two leads (and some strong support) which plays off remarkably well.
The film He's just not that into you had some horrible cynicism coated with sugar to pretend it was trying to be truthful. It was bollocks. Watch this instead, giggle with glee as Tom makes a fool out of himself, then cringe when you realise that you've done it too.
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel
Honest, Emotional, Funny. That's not what everyone wants from a romantic comedy but it's those three things that I personally need when I watch one. In the same way that horror films should be unnerving, Rom-com's should be able be to from the heart as well as amusing.
Opening with a sketched scene (you'll see) that fans of Juno would be proud of (500) Days of summer has a whiff of "Hollywood quirk" to it. However, in no way does this stop the film from being a cheap imitator, no far from it. (500) Days of Summer is an unbelievably sincere movie. But even it was following the footsteps of the Juno's, Little Miss Sunshines and the rest of them, it would still appear more fresh then the latest manufactured Matthew McConaughey/Kathrine Higel/Kate Hudson piece of filth that litter the cinematic landscape.
Librally playing with time as if it were Quentin Tarantino in the 90's, the film jumps to various moments of the "relationship", but not in chronological order. It's hard to fully keep up with the numbers but that's not important. The point is the insight of perspective that the time skips give. The juxtaposition of scenes makes moments of the film which could have been uninspired in lesser films hilarious. But it also makes the realisation more painful. An awkward, strained trip to Ikea, becomes a cheerful romp through the fake rooms as the happy "couple" play husband and wife (big metaphor there) and you grin your arse off, if only to realise how truthful it is.
What makes (500) Days so good is how accurate it's observations are. During the movie you may finding yourself siding with our protagonist, I mean why isn't Tom's affections reciprocated? Why is this girl sending such mixed signals and after the film. Yes, it's the unreliable narrator that is our protagonist. The film is on Tom's side...a little too much. One character's mentions that Tom should look back at the relationship and realise that Summer may not be the girl of his dreams. The brief montage shows that Tom cannot, because he is in love with the IDEA of Summer so much so that he has blinded the actual reality. The lack of scenes with Summer at the helm only help prove it.
The film's accuracy stems from the carefully observed moments of madness the film captures. I've done the karaoke thing, I've stopped listening to bands because of certain women (I can't look at the beatles in the same way) and as for the outbursts? Just ask my mate rob about me on my 20th birthday yelling about dying alone. We pick these moments and we laugh because it's true (but also because of the sharply written script).
It also helps as it's shown by a male perspective. No I'm not being sexist, it's just refreshing. This is a genre that almost only caters for women. Also, the rom-com these days merely wishes to revel in the simplistic shallowness, improbable aspirations of male perfection, and of course unrealistic happy endings that the disgusting characters don't deserve. Here we have a man who is not just a handsome mouth breather but a young optimistic man who may be a little too needy.
This is a role played impeccably by Gordon-Levitt. My girlfriend stated that he has an "interesting" face and I argee. It's what separates him from other male actors. By not looking like a clean cut leading man, Gordon-Levitt elevates the performance even more by having a face that could fit well in a crowd. He plays against a women who could be considered by a few to be the next Parker Posey. Zooey Deschanel is all cute grins and sparkly eyes at first but the inside of the character displays a rich Independence. An Independence that isn't merely shown by the fact that she can be sexual, but its shown by her boldness around people. She's not a damsel in distress, nor is she a cold heart bitch, merely real.
Director Marc Webb a music video director, makes the film great to look at but doesn't let the look over power the film. In fact his visual tricky only enhance the emotions that Tom feels (the french new wave scene had make giggling). There's some great story telling at hand, and although some the metaphors are heavy handed (a t-shirt saying love will tear us apart? COME ON!), the film won my heart with it's wicked sense of humor (watching porn together?), visual playfulness and a chemistry between the two leads (and some strong support) which plays off remarkably well.
The film He's just not that into you had some horrible cynicism coated with sugar to pretend it was trying to be truthful. It was bollocks. Watch this instead, giggle with glee as Tom makes a fool out of himself, then cringe when you realise that you've done it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)