I finally saw the final installment of the Bourne Trilogy and it lived up to my expectations. A smart thrill ride. I didn't find it as compelling as Supremacy, but it was still heads and tails above most films of its genre.
The story was a little convoluted with all the zipping around Europe hoping to find "the source." I also found Bourne's character less compelling in this installment. He was too flat.
While it did a great job of wrapping up most of the questions about Bourne, the movie left one gapping question open: what is the relationship between Nikki and Bourne? It is odd that she shows up in all three movies because she is a very minor player in the plot. They could have left her character out after the first movie. The plot device bringing her into the second movie was plausible, but not great. The device used to bring her into this installment was lame. Add that to the comment "with you it was hard" and the obvious disappointment she displays at separating from Bourne and the look on her face when she sees Bourne kill Deft. There is a relationship of some kind there. Nikki clearly has/had feelings for Bourne/Webb.
While I don't really want to see this franchise keep churning out sequels, I would like to know what that relationship was. Maybe they could make a chick flick called Romancing the Bourne or the Bourne Tryst....
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
I Am Legend
"I Am Legend" is an interesting movie. It falls squarely into both the post-apocalyptic genre and the zombie genre. I'm pretty sure its intended more as a post-apocalyptic movie than a zombie movie since the zombies play a minor role and are technically not zombies (the 28 series of movies shares the same non-zombie zombie problem as "I Am Legend" but are most definitely zombie movies).
Will Smith puts in a solid performance as the sole survivor of a global holocaust. He makes the character's delicate grip on sanity, his loneliness, his monomaniacal drive, and his innate nobility tangible. The character could be either too easily pitied or loathed in lesser hands. Instead, Smith's portrayal makes him human.
The CGI and the setting shots are erie. The CGI effects are kept to a minimum and look natural. The New York of the movie is too easily recognizable in its emptiness. Instead of being devastated, it is just empty. Like a ghost town, nature has started to reclaim what man wrought.
My only complaint with the movie is that the story begs for more than a 1.5 hour screen play can deliver. The movie does an admirable job of staying focused. However, there are questions around the edges that are never tackled.
The question about the infected's humanity is the biggest one for me. It is clear that the battle between Smith and the infected is over a woman - yet the infected are treated only from Smith's perspective. He views them as both less than human and in need of saving (from a disease he had a hand in creating). Have they really been reduced to inhumanity? Does the drive to protect a mate only make it more imperative that they be "cured"? Or are they simply transformed into something beyond Smith's understanding and deserve to be left alone?
Perhaps the infected deserve to inherit the earth than Smith's kind nearly destroyed?
There is irony in the movies premise also - but letting out of the bag would spoil things....
Will Smith puts in a solid performance as the sole survivor of a global holocaust. He makes the character's delicate grip on sanity, his loneliness, his monomaniacal drive, and his innate nobility tangible. The character could be either too easily pitied or loathed in lesser hands. Instead, Smith's portrayal makes him human.
The CGI and the setting shots are erie. The CGI effects are kept to a minimum and look natural. The New York of the movie is too easily recognizable in its emptiness. Instead of being devastated, it is just empty. Like a ghost town, nature has started to reclaim what man wrought.
My only complaint with the movie is that the story begs for more than a 1.5 hour screen play can deliver. The movie does an admirable job of staying focused. However, there are questions around the edges that are never tackled.
The question about the infected's humanity is the biggest one for me. It is clear that the battle between Smith and the infected is over a woman - yet the infected are treated only from Smith's perspective. He views them as both less than human and in need of saving (from a disease he had a hand in creating). Have they really been reduced to inhumanity? Does the drive to protect a mate only make it more imperative that they be "cured"? Or are they simply transformed into something beyond Smith's understanding and deserve to be left alone?
Perhaps the infected deserve to inherit the earth than Smith's kind nearly destroyed?
There is irony in the movies premise also - but letting out of the bag would spoil things....
Friday, December 28, 2007
Charlie Wilson's War
Good movie with solid performances. Not really worthy of multiple nominations however. The performances are what audiences should expect from seasoned veterans - no more no less. Think place kicker hitting an extra point.
The script is disjointed but not fatally. The biggest example I can think of is the scene where Wilson is throwing away all of his booze - there is no explanation about why such a hard drinking womanizer would randomly toss out his booze. The underdeveloped love story between Wilson and the rich lady is also distracting.
The meat of the story - the Afghan War - is done well. I imagine the other stuff was tossed in to maintain some sense of historical accuracy.
It does provide an interesting look at how the Soviets were beaten back and how the Islamic terrorist movement made such a quantum leap. The relationship is not entirely causal - the terrorists may have found another home and eventually developed the skills needed to be a serious global threat without the Afghan War - but the two are tightly bound.
The closing quote is the most profound statement of US policy failure and continued failure - "we fucked up the endgame."
The script is disjointed but not fatally. The biggest example I can think of is the scene where Wilson is throwing away all of his booze - there is no explanation about why such a hard drinking womanizer would randomly toss out his booze. The underdeveloped love story between Wilson and the rich lady is also distracting.
The meat of the story - the Afghan War - is done well. I imagine the other stuff was tossed in to maintain some sense of historical accuracy.
It does provide an interesting look at how the Soviets were beaten back and how the Islamic terrorist movement made such a quantum leap. The relationship is not entirely causal - the terrorists may have found another home and eventually developed the skills needed to be a serious global threat without the Afghan War - but the two are tightly bound.
The closing quote is the most profound statement of US policy failure and continued failure - "we fucked up the endgame."
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Lucky's
It must be pretty lucky if it hasn't gone out of business yet. A restaurant in the basement of a warehouse in the middle of an unpopulated part of town that does not have a sign must be pretty spectacular if it can survive year after year. Right?
Not Lucky's. It is good, but not great. The service was above average, the food decent, the atmosphere forgettable, and the prices steep.
Luckily the quality of the company makes just about any locale fun.
Not Lucky's. It is good, but not great. The service was above average, the food decent, the atmosphere forgettable, and the prices steep.
Luckily the quality of the company makes just about any locale fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)