Menu

5 stars5 stars5 stars5 stars5 stars5 stars
Showing posts with label Olga Kurylenko. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olga Kurylenko. Show all posts

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Review: OBLIVION



Oblivion thinks it is much smarter than it really is. But the more you think about it after the credits start rolling, the stupider it gets. But I can compliment the film on two things: making an effort to channel Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and being just another dumb Tom Cruise thriller at the same time. That is not an easy feat to pull off. Oblivion’s strengths and weakness lie in the fact that it attempted do so.

 The movie begins with an unnecessary narration by Jack (Tom Cruise), one of the few people left on Earth after an alien invasion destroyed most of the planet. In the narration we are informed that most humans have left for Titan, Saturn’s moon.  Jack and his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are there to give maintenance to drones in charge of cleaning up the Earth and killing off any remaining aliens. When they don’t fix drones they spend the time by enjoying candlelit dinners and skinny-dipping in a glass-bottomed pool that hangs 1,000 feet in the air. They live a pretty nifty life, while their boss, Sally (Melissa Leo) supervises them from a pyramid-shaped control center orbiting the Earth; she is awfully cheerful. And you know that, in a movie, when the boss can’t help but smile 24/7 something has to be off.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Jack and Victoria had a routine memory wipe five years prior. The only think Jack can remember is a cheesy backlit dream of a beautiful woman when met in pre-invasion New York. One otherwise average day, a pre-war shuttle crash-lands on Earth. The only survivor is Julia (Olga Kurylenko), a Russian astronaut that looks exactly like the girl in Jack’s dream. And then we are off into a space-chase adventure; to figure out whom is this girl, and what does Morgan Freeman’s character know that nobody else does.

There are a lot of question, and not all of them are answered. But for the most part the ride is beautiful to look at. The opening is immersive, gradual, and even slow. But it is perfect to introduce us to the world of the film. We see stunning digital landscapes of buried cities, dried up rivers, and ocean-sized desserts. The film’s biggest problem is that this world is much more interesting than any of its characters, which are all – for the most part – flat cardboard cut outs.

Take for example the cheesy love story in Jack’s dream. Julia is an idealized woman that he can’t remember, but she claims to be his wife. Victoria is the sexy redhead he goes skinny-dipping in the sky with. Guess which one is the evil one. Meanwhile, down below on Earth’s broken surface, everybody but the audience has to learn that Morgan Freeman is always right.

Director Joseph Kosinski’s previous movie, TRON: Legacy, was also a visual smorgasm with very one-dimensional protagonists. But it didn’t lie to itself about that; TRON: Legacy’s target audience was much younger than Oblivion’s and they ended up with what they paid for going in. In Oblivion, those who paid for a brainy Sci Fi that could work as some political allegory will get Tom Cruise, while those who paid for Tom Cruise will get a slow brainy world building Sci Fi that still doesn’t work as a political allegory.

The best way to enjoy this film is to relax and not think about it too much, yet at the same time not to expect Mission Impossible, or any other noisy movie of the kind. If you do, like I did, this can be a very enjoyable film. At the very least it is a very beautiful film.

Having said all this, I do have two random musings:

1)   This is not the first movie where an unexplained affection for Olga Kurylenko drives the main character. This doesn’t work for me. Not because Kurylenko is a bad actress, but because the protagonist should have a reason to fall for her, other than “just ‘cause she is the love interest”.

2)   The film could have used some more female ass kicking. Tom Cruise’s character is all man; he’s a sharpshooter, a mechanic, a sports fan, and gets to drive a cool bike. Meanwhile the women just run and follow instructions. When Kurylenko finally picks up a gun, the Kingslayer from Game of Thrones kills off the badie that was threatening her, so she doesn’t get to use it.

3)   Had the movie ended 30 seconds before it did, it would have been wonderful. The extra 30 seconds and an unnecessary level of cheesiness and just ruin the whole thing for everybody.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Review: QUANTUM OF SOLACE


Ok, so I was wrong. Quantum of Solace is not "the best thing ever to happen to planet Earth". In fact, it was not even as good as Casino Royale.

However, this does not at all mean that it was not incredible. Marc Forster's newest installment of the James Bond series is exploding with greatness. There are only a few things that could have made this movie stronger. There are several forces at play that pound with power, sending the movie into a place where you can forgive its mistakes, and accept it as a truly great action movie.

So, let's start at the beginning. The opening music sequence is not the greatest. Yes, it's pretty cool, but the opening to Casino Royale is so awesome that it cannot quite be followed without a serious amount of work put in. Jack White and Alicia Keys perform the new song, "Another Way To Die" here and it rocks. It's no "You Know My Name", but the lyrics reflect the theme of the movie so well that you can forgive it.

Quantum of Solace takes place about an hour after the events of Casino Royale. James Bond (Daniel Craig) has Mr. White (Jesper Christiansen) in his car, and is driving back to meet M (Judy Dench) to interrogate him. The rest of the movie has to do with Mr. White's associate - Mr. Greene (Mathieu Amalric). It turns out Mr. Greene is involved in something very dangerous, and it is up to James Bond to stop it. Sound like every other Bond movie ever?

Here's the thing: it seems as though Greene is also linked to Vesper's death. Now not only is Bond motivated by his duty, he is motivated by revenge. While the idea for this plot is great on paper, the film fails to fully deliver the story, and that is where the real issue with this movie lies.

Greene's plan is never actually explained. It is clear that he is funding some evil military leaders and helping them with coups in exchange for large territories of land. A lot of them are in the Bolivian desert, where water can be found. However, it is never clear what Greene wants. Is he actually threatening the country of Bolivia with its own water? If the country is too poor to afford all this water for themselves, what kind of idiot must Greene be to hold it ransom? He says the word "Quantum" every now and then, but it still makes very little sense.

I have absolutely no idea why this movie is called Quantum of Solace. I did read Ian Fleming's short story, "Quantum of Solace", and I know that it centers on Bond at a very boring dinner party. As you may have guessed, this movie shares nothing in common except the name. Yes, it is a cool bunch of words, but it means nothing, and it has no relation to the story. Then again, maybe it does, but the story is so poorly explained that you cannot possibly catch on to it. Does Mr. Greene work for Mr. White? Or does Mr. White work for Mr. Greene? And where does Colonel Mustard come in? What about Professor Plum?

Why then, did I say this movie is so great? It's because everything else is extremely strong. The cinematography is some of the nicest I have ever seen. Roberto Schaefer did a great job here, especially with all the colors. Forster and Schaefer really teamed up to make this one of the most beautifully shot films I have seen in quite some time. I have a personal love of slowly panning track shots, and those were abundant here.

David Arnold, who has done the score for the last couple of Bond films shines again. While this score is not nearly as impressive as its predecessor, it still emanates likeability. It was nice to hear Vesper's theme chime in on the piano every now and then, almost providing an undertone to what Bond is thinking about.

And finally, the acting. Once again, Daniel Craig proves himself to be a Bond for the history books. Though I grew up looking at Sean Connery as the epitome of James Bond, Craig is slowly starting to change my mind. He just might be the best Bond in the franchise's history. He certainly plays the most complex one. He has that look, that permeating look, where, even though he is staring at you with those stern eyes, you know what he is thinking. Though little to no muscles actually move in his face, you can tell when he is trying not to laugh... and even trying not to cry. The other thing that must be said about Daniel Craig is that he is so damn manly, it is ridiculous. He pulls off some complicated, and visually stunning (not to mention brilliantly correographed) stunts. Walking out of the theater, Patrick joked, "he makes Leonidas look like a puppy".

Olga Kurylenko is fantastic as well. There is one thing that distinguishes her from all other Bond girls, but as much as I would like to, I cannot give that away. You will have to go and see it for yourselves. With her recent role in Max Payne, and now this, it seems like Kurylenko is rising up in the business, and deservedly. And last but not least, Dominic Greene might just be one of my favorite villains. I certainly like him more than Le Chiffre. He looks at you with these wide eyes, and you know that wheels in his brain are spinning fast, and that you are likely to be in trouble very soon.

In the end, the reason that this movie works is because it serves as a bridge between the hard, stone Bond of Casino Royale, and the other 20 movies that have been made. While at the beginning I kept thinking Bond was just turning into a dick, it slowly began to make sense - he is getting colder. The colder he gets, the easier it is to leave Vesper behind, and the more emotionally detached he becomes. His coldness coalesces perfectly with his immaturity, and the two ebb and flow beautifully throughout the movie.

He also drives about twelve cars throughout.

Go and see it. You will be disappointed in the story. Maybe even more than me. But it is worth it. It has something for everyone, and while it was no Casino Royale, it did a pretty good job keeping up with it.
3 stars
Disclaimer:
Views and comments expressed by readers and guest contributors are not necessarily shared by the consistent team of THE MOVIE WATCH. This is a free speech zone and we will not censor guest bloggers, but ask that you do not hold us accountable for what they proclaim.