2 posts tagged “movie review”

Sean opines...

The legal thriller is something that has always intrigued us as movie goers. Since the 1970s legal thrillers have since added the threat of something larger than just an unknown killer after our villain. The villain now is the multi-national corporation, the government, or a criminal/lawyer network.  George Clooney's thriller places morally neutral lawyer Michael Clayton in a position where he has to look into his soul for a solution. One of his dear friends (an incredible and Oscar-nominated Tom Wilkinson) is going crazy so he can feel his own humanity. Clayton (Clooney) is realizing that his safety net of a side business and his victory over his own addiction to gambling are lost or being lost. His relationship with his son is deteriorating because of his own disinterest. It is this moment in time that fate has given him the choice to make it all go right. However, he is an anti-hero because his own self-preservation is what motivates him finally to take on the windmill and attempt to slay his dragons. But is this an original film worthy of celebration or a repeat of similar plots and situations?

Although a quality production technically, the story suffers again from deja vu. Haven't we seen this film in say The Firm and other screen adaptations of John Grisham novels?  Isn't this The Parallax View, The Star Chamber, and most recently A Civil Action? The film does not make the villain everyone around him or at least culpable accomplices like in most thrillers. The symbolic villain in Tilda Swinton's character is a flawed one to say the least, unworthy of past corporate villains.  In the end the film is quite predictable and not as suspenseful as others.

Worthy of a view, but one for the ages.

Sean says...

In honor of the release of 300 on dvd this week, I thought I would post this review originally sent out by me via email after the film was released in March 2007. It got quite a reaction from my parents so here we go again!

If any film were made to satisfy the blood thirsty nature of the 18-25 male demographic 300 is it! A visual wonder of a film, it spirals images at us furiously to excite and tantalize us with how violence can be lyrical in movement. However, 300 collapses under the weight of these visual splendors because its script plagiarizes from greater films like Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator, Zulu, Braveheart, and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

Kudos though first to the cinematography and visual effects team who worked on 300. If any film is a moving piece of art, this is it! Brilliant is the only word that I can say to express the wonderment of its images. Others have commented on their annoyance with the slow motion action; I contend that some of these are the films ultimate brilliance. The flowing of the red capes, the movement of the horse hair in the helmets, the motion of the spears and swords, the rippling of the Spartans muscles - it all just an orgy of images that pleases immensely. And did I mention the rippling abs and chests in the film? Wow - a homo-erotic dream! But then there are stolen images - did anyone wonder when Russell Crowe was going to walk into frame in the Spartan wheat fields?

Why does the film ultimately fail though? You can have only so many visual images until 300's poorly written script just starts dragging. I felt a lot of repetition in the dialogue and even in battle scenes. Did we really need to hear the cheer about freedom one more time in a long speech? Did we need to hear about the Spartan creed again and again? Did we really need the Persian freak show fight scenes? Was it me or did one of the actors look a lot like Keanu Reeves? Did we need to hear quotes blatantly stolen from much better films? I heard "No Prisoners!" shouted at one point and could only groan as my favorite battle cry from Lawrence of Arabia was cheapened. I kept seeing Braveheart's Mel Gibson in the shouting of orders from Gerard Butler. I found myself looking around for Russell Crowe and checking the credits for a Ridley Scott shout out for all the Gladiator rip offs that were added in. I also saw better siege battle scene film-making in the film Zulu . So I asked myself, is this film beyond the visuals worth anything in the lineage of war films? The answer is sadly no.

300 is a visual treat that tries to skate by on its style. It takes what the 18 - 25 demographic wants and gives it to them. The homo-erotic nature of the visuals is counteracted by the homophobic taunts of its characters as they stand in little but a leather speedo. I haven't seen so much rippling muscle even in a single gay porn video then I did in this film. Yet 300 assails brotherhood as a male bonding exercise despite its costuming. Glory of the legacy is more important than the glory of the mind here. But doesn't Gerard Butler have a fine posterior?

As for the underlying theme of the film in the context of our times, 300 is a cheer-leading film for those supporting the current strategy U.S. War on Terror. The word strategy is important to remember here, because many support the cause just not the Bush road-map. "We will take the enemy on and even though we will fall, it will rally the others to the cause," is what this film says to us. It made me weary in its need to glorify war and shake off calls to follow the Oracle's warnings as basically weakness. Instead, the Oracle's managing priests were made corrupt and those against Leonidas were seen as old men or corrupt politicians with only ambition for themselves in mind. Consideration of options was out and unilateral action in here. Sound familiar? I don't think the makers of the film contended for this to be a jingoistic support of the war, but in these times that is definitely the interpretation as its laid against our current time-line. Unfortunately, its a bad lesson. Of course glory is supposed to be much more exciting than peace in the minds of men, I guess.

All and all 300 is just beautiful cartooning of a underdog's fight. Frankly, I would rather watch Zulu and see a better film. 

300 - 2 1/2 stars out of 5

300 visuals - 5 stars out of 5