timepiececlock (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timepiececlock) wrote2006-05-10 02:50 am
timepiececlock) wrote2006-05-10 02:50 am
Entry tags:
Munich, finished.
So in between breaks to eat or do other stuff, I eventually watched the whole movie. Watched the last 45 minutes in a continuous run, which was probably a good thing.
I'll get into spoilers in a minute, but I want to say that whoever did the text overlay in final shot is an idiot.
You out there, text graphics guy? Text graphics woman? You're an idiot. You remind me of the same sort of idiot that designed my senior high school year book cover. Hell, for all I know, you ARE the idiot that designed my senior high school year book cover.
The text at the end was barely readable. I had to squint and pause and squint again. Don't they teach you somewhere along the way that whenever you put text on something you have to have it contrast enough with the background that its readable? White text with a light half-outline and a faint shadow in thin-lined print overlaid over a multi-hued and multi-shaded city backdrop creates a lot of confusing light/dark lines that are really hard to read. Even I know that, and all I do is make livejournal icons. Hell, I knew that even before I ever made icons. But that's because I'm not an idiot.
Okay, maybe that sounds harsh. I don't mean to sound really upset, because I don't honestly care. I'm not upset at all. I'm dismissive. Here I was watching a really lushly produced, highly visual, very symbolic-imagery-heavy film, and it concludes with bad text choices. That's just... that's lame. Lame-o.
Before anything, a question: What happened to the bomb-maker? Did he commit suicide, or was it a hit, or was it an accident? That confused me.
Okay, now onto the review.
As often happens with very hyped films of high quality that almost but not quite satisfy me, my first inclination after watching is to break it down and find that little kernel of why, precisely, it failed to totally satisfy me.
This film was very, very good. Excellently made, with fine dialogue, fine acting, and a moving message of confusion and pain that boils down to "killing=bad." I felt for the characters and was still compelled by the ones I didn't feel for. I think, if it had been done with a sliver--only a sliver!--more restraint that it would have been a fucking amazing film.
First, it was too long. I'd have shaved off about 15 minutes. Not much, but a little. Some of the stuff with the French family, probably, and cut down on the scene of murdering the Dutch assassin.
Secondly, the ending. Not his freak-out with the baby, I get that. And not the final scene, because that was awesome and that dialogue was emotional gold. GOLD. Also, Geoffery Rush hasn't creeped me out this much since Elizabeth, which is a win for everyone. No, what I had a problem with was the sex contrasted with the hostage flashback. That was excessive, and didn't hit the right emotional chord with me. Actually, it pulled me out of the emotional place I was in and tried to put me in another, but failed in doing so. The same feelings that scene intended to evoke could have been evoked with more resonance with a more restrained scene. I'm not asking for total subtlety; heck, sex=violence and sex=healing is hardly a subtle metaphor. But I am asking for more restraint. It was over the top.*
Actually, I disliked the use of the flashback in that sense at all. The previous use made sense, because he was having a nightmare while in the middle of an emotional and mental breakdown. That worked thematically. This did not; I would have cut it out entirely, or, if necessary, I would have moved it to some other point in the film. The end, perhaps? Then at least the structure would have made more sense: the hostage situation opens, cuts in the middle, and concludes the film in a nice frame. Having it near the end but not at the end mucked up its purpose as a story framing device. However, having it at the end would mean not having the final scene be what it was, and I loved the final scene. So, dilemma.
In total, this film was just over the line of the right emotional power. For most of the film I was right with them, but the resolution didn't feel as strong as the rest of it. I was kind left wavering, wondering why they paced the climax and falling resolution to the pace they did. A little more restraint, a little less aggrandized and blatantly emotional, and I would have adored it.
That being said, a lot of the emotional scenes worked perfectly for me: the race to save the innocent little girl from being a casualty; the moment of Avner crying when he hears his baby's voice; seeing his friend the bomb-maker in the shop window. Even the scene reuniting with his wife was nicely done. I guess it was just the other bits that didn't work on me quite the way I thought they were supposed to.
Or rather-- not as well as they could have. They worked, and the film was extremely good. I just finished it with the feeling that it could have been amazing, "if only."
*When I say "over the top," keep in mind some perspective. This is one of the better Stephen Spielberg films, and I hold him to a much stricter scale than I do most films. Price of being talented is that you get critized more.
All that aside, there is NAKED ERIC BANA. WITH ASS. And pretty hair. God, he's good-looking in this movie. In a very approachable way. Not in a way that's like a glamorous movie star, but in a way that's like the really, really attractive normal guy you pass in a bookstore or a gas station. You just want to stare for a while as it dawns on you, slowly, how attractive he really is.
Acting-wise, Bana is fantastic and thoroughly carries the film. For someone who doesn't move his face all that much and kind of looks like a wall most of the time, he did a fine job of conveying emotions. I think it's his eyes. I think they're magic, and he sends you his emotions from his eyes directly into your brain instead of using facial expressions like normal people.
He and Geoffrey Rush play off each other very well, too.
P.S. Eric Bana: pretty when wet.
I'll get into spoilers in a minute, but I want to say that whoever did the text overlay in final shot is an idiot.
You out there, text graphics guy? Text graphics woman? You're an idiot. You remind me of the same sort of idiot that designed my senior high school year book cover. Hell, for all I know, you ARE the idiot that designed my senior high school year book cover.
The text at the end was barely readable. I had to squint and pause and squint again. Don't they teach you somewhere along the way that whenever you put text on something you have to have it contrast enough with the background that its readable? White text with a light half-outline and a faint shadow in thin-lined print overlaid over a multi-hued and multi-shaded city backdrop creates a lot of confusing light/dark lines that are really hard to read. Even I know that, and all I do is make livejournal icons. Hell, I knew that even before I ever made icons. But that's because I'm not an idiot.
Okay, maybe that sounds harsh. I don't mean to sound really upset, because I don't honestly care. I'm not upset at all. I'm dismissive. Here I was watching a really lushly produced, highly visual, very symbolic-imagery-heavy film, and it concludes with bad text choices. That's just... that's lame. Lame-o.
Before anything, a question: What happened to the bomb-maker? Did he commit suicide, or was it a hit, or was it an accident? That confused me.
Okay, now onto the review.
As often happens with very hyped films of high quality that almost but not quite satisfy me, my first inclination after watching is to break it down and find that little kernel of why, precisely, it failed to totally satisfy me.
This film was very, very good. Excellently made, with fine dialogue, fine acting, and a moving message of confusion and pain that boils down to "killing=bad." I felt for the characters and was still compelled by the ones I didn't feel for. I think, if it had been done with a sliver--only a sliver!--more restraint that it would have been a fucking amazing film.
First, it was too long. I'd have shaved off about 15 minutes. Not much, but a little. Some of the stuff with the French family, probably, and cut down on the scene of murdering the Dutch assassin.
Secondly, the ending. Not his freak-out with the baby, I get that. And not the final scene, because that was awesome and that dialogue was emotional gold. GOLD. Also, Geoffery Rush hasn't creeped me out this much since Elizabeth, which is a win for everyone. No, what I had a problem with was the sex contrasted with the hostage flashback. That was excessive, and didn't hit the right emotional chord with me. Actually, it pulled me out of the emotional place I was in and tried to put me in another, but failed in doing so. The same feelings that scene intended to evoke could have been evoked with more resonance with a more restrained scene. I'm not asking for total subtlety; heck, sex=violence and sex=healing is hardly a subtle metaphor. But I am asking for more restraint. It was over the top.*
Actually, I disliked the use of the flashback in that sense at all. The previous use made sense, because he was having a nightmare while in the middle of an emotional and mental breakdown. That worked thematically. This did not; I would have cut it out entirely, or, if necessary, I would have moved it to some other point in the film. The end, perhaps? Then at least the structure would have made more sense: the hostage situation opens, cuts in the middle, and concludes the film in a nice frame. Having it near the end but not at the end mucked up its purpose as a story framing device. However, having it at the end would mean not having the final scene be what it was, and I loved the final scene. So, dilemma.
In total, this film was just over the line of the right emotional power. For most of the film I was right with them, but the resolution didn't feel as strong as the rest of it. I was kind left wavering, wondering why they paced the climax and falling resolution to the pace they did. A little more restraint, a little less aggrandized and blatantly emotional, and I would have adored it.
That being said, a lot of the emotional scenes worked perfectly for me: the race to save the innocent little girl from being a casualty; the moment of Avner crying when he hears his baby's voice; seeing his friend the bomb-maker in the shop window. Even the scene reuniting with his wife was nicely done. I guess it was just the other bits that didn't work on me quite the way I thought they were supposed to.
Or rather-- not as well as they could have. They worked, and the film was extremely good. I just finished it with the feeling that it could have been amazing, "if only."
*When I say "over the top," keep in mind some perspective. This is one of the better Stephen Spielberg films, and I hold him to a much stricter scale than I do most films. Price of being talented is that you get critized more.
All that aside, there is NAKED ERIC BANA. WITH ASS. And pretty hair. God, he's good-looking in this movie. In a very approachable way. Not in a way that's like a glamorous movie star, but in a way that's like the really, really attractive normal guy you pass in a bookstore or a gas station. You just want to stare for a while as it dawns on you, slowly, how attractive he really is.
Acting-wise, Bana is fantastic and thoroughly carries the film. For someone who doesn't move his face all that much and kind of looks like a wall most of the time, he did a fine job of conveying emotions. I think it's his eyes. I think they're magic, and he sends you his emotions from his eyes directly into your brain instead of using facial expressions like normal people.
He and Geoffrey Rush play off each other very well, too.
P.S. Eric Bana: pretty when wet.
no subject