For a Steven Spielberg film starring Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks... Boring.
Fun movie, with great acting from a superb cast. So what if the plot is a little lame? It's a teenage secret agent movie, there's only so much one should expect from it. The characters were ok and the story was cute enough. The references to classic teen movies got me quite nostalgic, and the overall movie reminded me of those after-school hours movies that used to be on TV in the 90's. Overall, I found it quite pleasant.
Confusing plot - it doesn't seem to have consistency to what it wants to achieve. The ending seems supposed to be a cliffhanger but didn't leave viewers with anything to be wondering for. Some scenes are wasted with talks that gives neither character development nor plot progression. The acting and visuals were good, though it doesn't save the movie from its flaws.
It's been more than 5 years since I read the book, but I don't remember it being this bad!
The whole movie was so awkward and cringey. The dialogue was weird and stilted, the transitions between scenes were abrupt and made no sense at all, and the overall movie felt like badly written fanfiction (so many things were left unexplained!).
I know the novel wasn't a masterpiece, but this adaptation was absolute garbage. Whoever the screenwriters were, they have no business adapting novels into screenplays. So, so bad.
The actress playing Luce could never have passed for a 17 year old. And both her interactions with Cam and Daniel were so forced and in your face. The scenes where her face was mere inches from one of the guys' faces and they just stared at each other for a full minute without saying anything were so uncomfortable. Like, stop trying so hard to convince us she has chemistry with them. The relationships were overdone to the point that they felt painfully fake and plastic.
Because the screenplay and dialogue were so bad, it made it seem like the actors were terrible. But since I've seen a few of them on other stuff and know for a fact they can, actually, act, I won't criticize that aspect of the movie.
Judging by how bad this movie was, I don't think we'll be getting any more movies from the Fallen saga.
Usually I dislike this kind of romantic dramatic movies, but this one, even with a lot of cliches and predictable scenes was amazing.
the ending is not that much of a cliches, and all together is a really good movie
Glenn Close single-handedly keeps this ship above water. It's worth sitting through one of Disney's original live-action rehashings of an animated classic just to watch her Devil Wears Prada scene-chewing.
I feel this film was more heartwarming and sweet than the first. Great cast, great special effects that don't even feel like effects,
Contains major spoilers !!!!!
Huge and utterly dissapointing. After TFA I said this movie would make or break the story. For me it broke.
Where to begin? Let´s start with my biggest problem.
After that rebel cruisers bridge was hit and Leia was thrown into space we saw her drifting in the cold empty vacuum of space. This was a powerful scene and I had tears welling up in my eyes thinking that would be a great ending for the character dying how she always lived. Fighting. I did not realise, or care, that it would have been a huge coincidence had they written this scene at that point not knowing Carrie would pass away. But as I said powerful scene. And then she opens her eyes and floated back into the ship still beeing alive. At that point I was seriously considering leaving the cinema. It´s scifi but, please, without as much as a hint of an explanation that is just awful writing. It is Disney all over it. Anyway I stayed and watched the rest but in general I was done with the movie.
There are tons of other things I didn´t like.
way to much unnessesary and stupid humor. Most of the time it does not fit and just destroys scenes. Holding for General Hux - that might have been OK once but two or three times it just becomes goofy. And there is more of this througout the movie.
the writing was all over the place. So much things going on that do little to nothing for the general plot and just add playtime. Like that whole thing with the codebreaker, going to the casino. Just sugarcoating CGI.
and speaking of playtime - way too long. About five times towards the end I thought it was over. It could have ended when the reached the rebel base- no let´s add another battle. When they realised they where trapped. With Luke going out to face Kylo. At some point I would have been OK with the movie ending with the First Order defeating the rebels, everyone dying, and the franchise done with. But of course that is not happening and the movie ends.....no, just show us a kid with a broom looking at the stars and indicate he could be the hero of a future movie.
in many ways the continuation of storylines is not satisfiying. They introduce Snoke in the first movie without an explanation who he is, where he comes from and how he got there. Would have been OK, could have done later. So now he´s dead without so much as a fight and there are questions left to be answered.
what about Rey ? Are we really to believe her parents were some drunk and drifting scavengers that sold her for money like Ren said ? That would be very stupid because how in the universe could she master the Force in ways even the best Jedis or Sith couldn´t without as much as years of training. Another void in the storytelling.
too many, shall I call them, homage scenes ? A lot of times I felt I had already seen this movie. The scene in the throne room f.e. Snoke = Emperor, Rey = Luke, Ben = Vader, the destruction of the rebel fleet playing in the background and the Ben killing Snoke is like Vader killing the Emperor. I know that was said about TFA as well but I feel it´s much worse here. The Battle of Hoth reviseted would be another thing where they re-did some scenes to a T. All that was left was tow cables.
Those are just some examples of the things I disliked and maybe there could be satisfactory explanation later. There is a lot more but it would take too much time to write it down. But I doubt I will go to the cinema for the next one.
To be fair there where some positives in this movie.
I liked the scenes with Rey and Luke althought they did not really lead anywhere. But some nice insights into Lukes story after ROTJ.
The conversations between Kylo and Rey where very interesting and I thought there was really potential to steer the story to something new and exciting. Not happening.
So overall I was not satisfied. I really like TFA, it built some expectations that where all crushed with this. As far as I am concerned I am done with this new story. I am not not very eager to find out what else the canibalise and how they try to write themselves out of this. There is nothing left.
This is my view of the movie. If you liked it I´m happy for you.
May the Force be with us. Always.
This movie tries very hard to bring the same feelgood vibe as the first Mummy, but it fails throughout. I can't really nail it down, because it's got everything it needs: ancient villain, interesting backstory, over the top action and chases,cheesy dialogue and oneliners, unrealistic storyline, pretty nice special effects and romantic interests.
The only thing I guess is missing is some soul. I didn't really laugh once, I didn't care who won the end battle, I didn't worry if the main character would get hurt, I didn't feel any romance/chemistry between any of the characters. I just missed the fun.
Even the badass looking yeti's/dragons/hellhounds/zombies (I could go on..) couldn't make this right. This whole film just felt too formulaic and empty.
The Mummy is an action adventure movie that does exactly what it set out to do. The CGI hasn't aged well but the action still works. The characters don't get a lot of attention and the acting is nothing special but the film is still very fun to watch.
Over 30 years since its release, this is still the high watermark of the series and, indeed pretty much any adventure film. Ford is the lynchpin of the series, and unlike James Bond, it is difficult to imagine anyone else taking on this role in the future. What makes Indiana Jones works so well as a character and instantly connect with an audience (apart from being Han Solo in disguise) is his world-weariness and that he does indeed seem to be "making it up as he goes along." He makes mistakes and gets himself into trouble more often than not. The sheer pace, the reliance on practical stunts and Ford's performance here sets this film apart from some of the more ridiculous elements that mar the sequels and Karen Allen is a great foil. Every film of course has a great score from Williams, but the theme created for the Ark of the Covenant elevates the music to another level. But it is Ford that embodies Indiana Jones - the looks of relief, panic and determination that cross his face, sometimes all in one shot, is often priceless and he is the key to making this character work so well.
i think of it like this: if youre going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew no one had fucked it.
Very interesting cinematography and entirely too long, but a good story.
Just got back from seeing the new Tomb Raider. Not bad. Solid action albeit nothing too original going on here. Alicia Vikander was a pretty good Lara Croft, and I actually liked the way she developed in this one from the newbie that constantly gets 'owned' to the badass dual-gun tottin' lady at the end. As for the movie itself, there is fun action, some ancient "riddles", and a little bit of the "supernatural" thrown in. It was basically an update on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (like almost verbatim with the formula minus Nazis), plus some National Treasure bits thrown in. A tried and true plot line, but not groundbreaking.
While I wasn't the biggest fan of the "bad guy" played by Goggins in terms of his intimidation factor, I thought that they did a real good job on making his motivations quite real and believable. He's not out to destroy the world or conquer everything. He just wants to get this thing over with, find/give the weapon to his evil organization, and go back home to his family. Not bad. You could really feel his desperation in everyone of his scenes. As for the other characters, I didn't really like the incorporation of the twist, but it is what it is. Can't really go into it much more without spoiling things.
I'm not too confident with the way that they setup the sequel/s to come. I didn't really get the whole "the evil Trinity organization is everywhere" vibe that they really wanted to emphasize in the end. Plus, the movies to come will have quite a different feel since we now have a relatively "proven" Lara rather than the girl making all these rookie mistakes and learning from them. Kind of like how Casino Royale was for the Bond reboot, with Quantum of Solace being a big let down. Anyway, solid action and adventuring. Nothing too original here, but some decent character development along the way for this reboot. I give it a good 6/10.
Sorry Angelina, you're in the past now.
Alicia Vikander is phenomenal in this movie, and I appreciate the italian version of the movie for not dubbing her "screams" and "moans" because they are fantastic and add to an already adrenaline pumping movie.
The movie is the same as the first reboot game on the "next" gen, personally I did not play it, but I did play the second one and if they are going to make the next movie the same as the game, it's gonna be even greater!
This cinematic reboot is a rollercoaster. Lara's ability to come out of situation is always a bittersweet taste of disbelief that makes you love it even more. But, in this movie they took a nice step back to her and so we get to see a more inexperienced Lara. Because of this, every failed step doesn't look... "fake" as it did (in my opinion) with the original Jolie movies where she was a badass from starters, feared and known by everyone and still went on about and made stupid mistakes which didn't make sense really.
I gotta say that if you let yourself be immersed, the suspense in some of the scenes is thick and palpable. The line between mythos and reality is thin, but it develops perfectly near the end without resulting boring or monotonous.
Regarding every other aspect of cinematography: I have to say, some of the CGI felt a bit cheap, but usually is surmounted by the amount of action the movie delivers, sound editing and engineering was on point, note that there aren't really big, romatic or thought-provoking photografical shots, but it's to be expected in an action movie.
Alicia Vikander is perfect for the role. I absolutely loved her for the entire runtime and she honestly kept my interest up entirely on her own.
I don't know if Square Enix is to be thanked for the level of quality and "textuality" of who Lara Croft is and what Tomb Raider is about, but I think it's a safe bet and I hope it stays this way.
Please if you have the choice, watch the movie in english, it might sound creepy or weird, but Alicia's screams are fuckin fire in this movie, it gives depth and dignity to the struggle of a character that is supposed to be strong.
What is the line between insanity and brilliance? Is it broad or thin? Does the one bleed into the other? The Aviator, Martin Scorcese's epic look at the life and times of Hoard Hughes, suggests that the two are intertwined, at least in this one man. The film follows him from his first crazy moviemaking schemes in the California desert to his great aviation triumph at a time when his psychoses have started to overwhelm his senses.
It's a "Great Man" biopic, so it hits some the expected beats. There's casual "cameos" by celebrities and notable figures of the time, a "nobody believed in me" set of obstacles, and wild but flawed individual at the center of it, figuring out his path from neophyte to bigwig. But Scorsese has the right touch to bring out the best of the form, balancing the big moments in Hughes's life with quieter scenes to explicate his fears and neuroses.
At the center of it all is Leonardo DiCaprio's crackerjack performance as Hughes. I have to admit, I'm not always a big fan of DiCaprio's performances, which I tend to find technically sound but rarely unique or moving. But here, he is a man on fire, playing the noted eccentric with an almost rabid charm and head full of dreams, but also conveying the man's vulnerabilities, and the way his mental deterioration eats at him as he tries to barrel past it. Short of his turn in Wolf of Wall Street, this is the most I've seen DiCaprio truly inhabit a character, and he gives many different shades and layers to the man in both his grand successes and utter failures.
Fortunately, DiCaprio has an equal to play off of in Cate Blanchett's stunning turn as Katharine Hepburn. Going into the film, I'd heard Blanchett's performance derided as a mere impression, but nothing could be further from the truth. While Blanchett certainly does well to capture the distinctive tone and rhythms of Hepburn, she imbues the character with such life, with a zest for the thrills of the world, a fear that she'll be exposed as a "freak," and a supreme insecurity that her days in the spotlight are over.
Hepburn's patter in the film is reminiscent of the real life actress's exchanges on the screen, but Blacnhett gives new dimension to it with her subtle change of expression when Hughes shows her how to fly, when she warns Howard not to let the press eat him up, and most notably, when she tells him that if he looses his mind, she'll be there to "take the wheel." Theirs is the most multi-faceted and engrossing relationship in the film, and that makes it all the more heartbreaking when it dissolves. Hepburn's nervous, affected laugh when Howard accuses her of always being on is stunning, and Howard's anger, and his bonkers response to burn all his clothes, everything that he'd worn while being with her, is another stepping stone toward his insanity.
The film engages in strong symbolism when it comes to signposting Hughes's growing neurosis. The opening scene features his mother bathing him, quarantining him, instilling in him a fear of sickness and germs and the creepy crawlies he can't see. She washes him with a special bar of soap, and in that cleansing bath, he's surrounded by lights.
As the film goes on, it shows the effect this seminal moment had on him. It dramatizes his germophobia well, depicting him as unable to so much as take one bite of his steak after Errol Flynn steals a pea off of his plate, heightening his perspective as he looks at a what appears to him to be a diseased roast at the Hepburn estate, and most strikingly in the film, refusing to hand a disabled man a wash cloth because it would require him to sully his hands.
That what makes it so powerful in the few times when he overcomes his phobia. The film doesn't have to tell you that Hughes and Hepburn have reached an important level of intimacy, it shows you, by depicting Howard offering Katharine a sip from his milk bottle, and then having a drink of it himself. In the same way, his commitment to his company and well-being are palpable in his meeting with Senator Brewster, who serves him a fish that stares back at him, and a water glass with a smudge, meant to unnerve Hughes, but Howard soldiers on.
The Aviator does well to show these neuroses growing. He slowly but surely feels the need to use his own soap more and more, to where he's washing his own shirt in the sink and waiting in the restroom like a prisoner rather than put his hand on a filthy doorknob to let himself out. He finds himself repeating things, a problem that becomes more pronounced as the film wears on, and culminates at the end of the film. Then there's the flashbulbs of all those press cameras, bringing back the flashes of those spherical lights that surrounded him in that quarantine cleanse, reminding him where he came from and what he's afraid of.
Apart from the brilliant performances and symbolism in the film, it's a complete visual treat as well. Scorsese and his collaborators color-correct the film to a tee, giving it a sepia-tinge that communicates the lost time of the film's setting. But they also give it these beautiful splashes of color, turning the film into toothpaste -- a wash of muted reds and seafoam greens. Scorsese's camera cuts across the joyous tumult of a Hollywood party, or follows a flurry of planes swarming in the air as Hughes fills the sky for his Hell's Angels picture, or shoots his great men, be they protagonist or antagonist, from behind, leaving them imposing but featureless.
The Aviator depicts its protagonist as constantly pushing, constantly thinking and dreaming bigger than those around him can imagine, or at least would advise. It also shows him paying a cost for this, suggesting that there is a price for this kind of thinking that is extracted from one's mental well-being. Even Hughes's final triumph in the film -- his rebuke of Brewster at the Senate hearings, his defeat of the slimy Juan Trippe in his scheme to take out his competitor, and the flight of his Hercules, an embodiment of the scope and audacity of his ideas forged in rubber and steel, are tinged with the unavoidable onslaught of his verbal tic. In Scorsese's film, Howard Hughes is very much the way of the future, but that thought, and all the good that this mentality brings, eventually overtakes him, and tells us that even the titans of old can have feet of clay.
Wonderfully animated, funny take on the Batman universe with characters you expect to see and many you don't, hello Jaws! A lot of the jokes will fly over kids heads but the constant bombardment of wisecracks means this doesn't matter. It seems the Lego movies will run and run (on tiny blocky legs) if they match the quality of this film, where everything is indeed awesome.*
Music in the movie is brilliant, I can't wait for the soundtrack to come out. The movie in itself is very good. Artsy, but you'd expect that from Jarmusch. It's still worth the watch. It's not a typical, trashy vampyre movie, and I love that. I like the story, the way it's told, and the acting is superb (Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston are perfect for their roles). The only downside is it's very slow-paced.
This is quite the calm film that's much more about humanity, rather than anything else.
I put this film off for some time due to the fact that I'm allergic to vampire flicks. Hence, I did something wrong.
This is, mainly, a Jim Jarmusch film. If you haven't seen his stuff, do. This is a great addition to his little canon.
Swinton and Hiddleston play two vampires, 3000 and 500 years old, respectively, who live in our current day. This does not mean they'll start sprouting a lot of awe-inspiring Shakespearian words, and their history is surprisingly left to its own devices, i.e. letting the viewer think rather than have everything served on a platter.
You get to do a lot of thinking on your own in this film. Not that you have to. The film flows and drowses through time, radially, even from the very first scenes.
It's more an experience than a film. The music's great. It's almost existential, this one.
This movie was excellent. Director Spike Jonze has done some amazing work in the past with other writers being in charge of the story like Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, so with him being the sole writer and director of the film I was surprised to see something this great. both the writing and the presentation flow so perfectly together in this movie that I am glad he has the directing skills to pull this off and bring his vision to life. I liked that this movie didn’t endlessly lecture you on the rules of this universe, and while that can work for some futuristic movies, this movie is more focused on the characters. The future like setting is merely a vehicle for the characters story. He made sure his universe’s rules did not conflict with itself. Without a consistent universe, its not a believable universe. Spike was able to add more legitimacy to his universe through his presentation, rather than have characters explain things like the prevalence of technology in their lives or the smog in the atmosphere etc. The movie subtly showed these things so that we could pick it up for ourselves. And because of that, it implies to our brain that there is a universe bigger than the one we are seeing on screen and thus adds to the believability. Making the futuristic and surreal, feel real. The film also pays attention to humans behave psychologically. Even nowadays, we are seeing technology having more of a presence in our romantic lives. This is shown in a quick scene at the beginning. Joaquin phoenix, again, does a phenomenal job of playing his character. The soundtrack from arcade fire was perfect. The made sure not to use cheesy futuristic music and went for a more acoustic feel to mix the familiar with the unfamiliar. I loved EVERYTHING! Even the characters. And when a certain character appears in a scene, in the context, it makes so much sense. This is easily one of the best movies to come out in 2013.
Very sweet and finely made. Interviews with great musicians. Wish we'd heard from James Murphy. Otherwise, a stellar document.
So this movie premiered in Poland today and I just got home from the theater. I have two things to say: this is hands down the best installment in the Thor trilogy and it also definitely ranks somewhere in the top 5 MCU movies for me.
This movie was a wild ride from start to finish. The story was a ton of fun and so many things happened along the way, keeping you engaged at all times. While I do love slow movies that allow their scenes to breathe, the crazy pace of this one worked in its favor. There wasn't as much action as I had expected, but we did get some cool fights and general destruction. In the typical Marvel fashion, there were a lot of jokes and most of them were really, really hilarious. Some of the MCU movies try way too hard to be funny and I end up feeling annoyed at how many quips they cram in there, but in Ragnarok, the humor definitely worked. My personal favorites were the "Get help" scene, Thor's story about Loki turning into a snake and Bruce falling onto the Rainbow Bridge (especially Fenrir's reaction). Those had me laughing uncontrollably. And on the other end of the spectrum, there was quite a lot of emotional weight to both Odin's demise and the fall of Asgard. The movie struck a good balance between the two, keeping things exciting and light-hearted most of the time, but not being afraid to go a little deeper when the situation called for it.
As for the acting, Chris Hemsworth seemed to be really enjoying himself and while I'd often found Thor to be the blandest Avenger in the past, he had a lot more personality and charisma to him here. He was extremely likable and funny, but he was also the hero you rooted for throughout the movie. Cate Blanchett didn't get to do much as Hela, to my disappointment. She looked incredible and she did the best she could with what she was given, but in the end, the Goddess of Death didn't do much in terms of breaking the tradition of one-dimensional, evil-for-the-sake-of-it MCU villains. But she did at least seem to relish and enjoy her evilness. Tessa Thompson stole the movie for me. She was amazing as Valkyrie. She had wonderful chemistry with Thor and I like the idea of the two of them together, she's a much better love interest for him than Jane, but she was by no means reduced to that role here (thankfully!). She was a fully-fledged character with her own arc and personality. She was brash, badass and absolutely deadly in a fight while still having a more vulnerable, softer side and dealing with horrible trauma. She reminded me of Jessica Jones in that way. Watching her go from a drunken scavenger back to a mighty warrior ready to fight for her home and her king was a pleasure. I absolutely loved her and I hope to see more of her in the future MCU movies. Tom Hiddleston delivered as always, Mark Ruffalo was a great addition and Bruce's partnership with Thor was fantastic, and the supporting cast was also very good.
The soundtrack. Man, the soundtrack. 11/10, totally buying it. One of the best I've heard in a while.
The cinematography was gorgeous. So many colors, so many beautiful shots (the one with the Valkyries bathed in light riding towards Hela who was surrounded by darker colors? Holy shit, that looked like a baroque painting. Absolutely stunning). It was a pleasure to watch. The special effects were simply outstanding as well. Fenris/Fenrir was magnificent and let's just say I want ten angry, giant wolves immediately.
I had high hopes for this movie. The first Thor was pretty good, the second was meh (perfectly adequate, but painfully forgettable), but there was a lot of hype around this one and I really wanted it to be great. And it was! I had a blast watching it and I'd definitely see it again. Every standalone hero trilogy in the MCU so far has had at least one fantastic installment. Iron Man had the first one. Captain America had The Winter Soldier. Now, Ragnarok joins the circle. I'm very happy that it turned out as well as it did.
Wow. The reviews of this are ridiculous. I'm so tired of the armchair "critics" out there today, and the nonsense they whine about. Sure, there's nothing all that noteworthy here, but it's a pretty good weepy with some good performances. If you're in that kind of mood or dig these actors give it a go.
8.2/10. Almost every story about robots ends up being about humanity and personhood. The most unadventurous among them only confront the luddite question of whether an android could ever be sentient, could ever be a person, even though they’re made from circuits and gears rather than flesh and blood. (It’s a question that many great works, most notably Star Trek: The Next Generation have convincingly answered in the affirmative.)
But the best works don’t just interrogate the question of whether a robot can be a human, but rather use the idea of the mechanical man to try to answer the question of what makes us human. Films like A.I.--and make no mistake, it’s a quality film—ask deeper questions about what defines humanity, what qualities, practices, traits do we possess as a species that makes us unique, and uses an outsider and imitator to do so, in the same way that learning a foreign language can help us to better understand our native tongue.
Thus A.I. tells us the story of a young “mecha” child who wants to be a real boy. The film wears its Pinocchio influences on its sleeve, and to that end, offers an updated, sci-fi-infused version of that story. In it, David, an android child, wonders what it takes for him to become real, for him to become human.
The answer offered is an intriguing one – love. What distinguishes David from his mecha counterparts is the fact that he can “imprint” on his mother, that he can have an innate attachment to her beyond his own control. But it’s not the trite Hallmark Holiday version of love. The film presents something far more melancholy, far more heartrending, in its conception of “love” as an essential ingredient in humanity.
In essence, the film posits that what makes us human, our distinguishing feature, is our ability to love something so much that we yearn for the unobtainable, that we reach for simulacra and last gasps of things we can no longer have. The kind of love that makes us human is the one that makes our attachments run so deep that they survive the people we were attached to, that they drive us to try to recapture things we know are lost and can never be recovered.
That is the crux of this film. It repeatedly shows us individuals who reveal their humanity through attempts to revive their loved ones, to find something to fill the holes in their hearts left when they lost those closest to them. Monica, David’s would-be mother, accepted David as a fill-in for her own son who is in suspended animation after some disease or accident that ripped him from her. She is reluctant at first, but soon finds that David is a means to ease her pain, to make this inevitably misguided attempt to bring her child back in a fashion.
That motif is repeated when David finally makes it to his creator’s workshop, and discovers that he himself was made in the likeness of Professor Hobby’s dead son. He too is living monument to the attempt to hold onto something lost, because the love imbued in that person is too much for to allow his maker to let go.
Of course, A.I. is also interested in the morality of creating something that can love, that must love, and which we may not love back. The film’s opening act--which centers on the process of the Swinton family learning to love David, having their flesh and blood son come back to life, and then slowly but surely coming to the decision that David, for manipulated but understandable reasons of safety, no longer has a place in their family—is the tightest of the film. It tells a heartbreaking story of a young man becoming a fixture, becoming a part of a home of love, and then being put out when he no longer makes sense there. In particular, the scene where Monica abandons him in the woods, and he offers impassioned pleas and promises that he’ll be better, than he’ll be realer, to no avail, is utterly devastating.
But it incites the middle act of David’s Pinocchio-like adventures, which prove to be the weakest part of the film. There’s thematic meat in the “Flesh Fare” portions of the film, which communicate the fears of a human population concerned that they’re being replaced by technology in a way that feels terribly prescient now. It also explores the way in which children are uniquely situated to earn our sympathies, that they speak to an innate sense of protection and preservation that manage to cut through even the chauvinistic prejudices of a bloodthirsty crowd desperate for mecha torture.
For the most part, however, these scenes feel like simple ways to fill in struggles between David being kicked out of his home, and him becoming a real boy. His adventures with Gigolo Joe and Teddy (who work as his companions in the vein of Jiminy Cricket) make gestures toward the larger themes of the film, and offer some red meat to science fiction fans both in terms of world building and gorgeous, otherworldly set pieces and sequences that still look superb despite being a decade and a half old, but mostly feel like less compelling detours to the larger story being told. Flesh Fare, Rouge City, and the sunken bones of Old New York are entertaining enough as standalone pieces, but don’t have the thematic coherence of the rest of the film.
That coherence comes in the film’s much maligned end game. While a 2,000 year wait and the presence of aliens may have been off-putting at first, they work as the true equivalents to the blue fairy that David is so desperate to find – the effectively supernatural force that can intervene and grant David’s wish.
And they do. What David wishes for more than anything in the world is to return to his mother, so the aliens revive her for one more day. It is in that final montage, where David gets to celebrate his birthday, to tell his mother his life’s story, to share in the joys and the pains of love and loss, that he truly becomes a real boy. What makes him so is the way that he shares in the efforts of Monica Swinton, and of Professor Hobby – his desire to recapture something lost, because he loves someone, and he can’t turn that off just because they’re gone.
His revival of Monica, his desperation to enjoy one last day with her, one last simulacra of where his love led him, shows that David has a soul, however you’d like to define that term. As the similarly precocious Lisa Simpsons once put it (via writer Greg Daniels) some philosophers believe that a soul is not something we are born with, but rather something we earn, through suffering, struggle, and acts that reveal our humanity. David has done all that and more, coming close to death, traveling great distances, showing his devotion and futile hope for millennia, in the hopes of being able to return to his mother.
So when he does, when he gets to spend that one last glorious day with her, it’s not just the culmination of the story, it’s his reward for his steadfastness, and the confirmation that he is a human being, in every meaningful sense of the term. It is moving when he hears the words he so desperately wanted to hear ‘lo those many years – that his mother loves him, that she’s always loved him. It is then that he not only becomes “real” but becomes whole, the gaping hole inside of him is filled. In the end, David wants without reason, he wants beyond reason, and like the little wooden boy who inspires him and those telling his story, eventually, his wish is granted, and he knows the profound pain and immense joy that comes with being a human being. The boy who was treated as much like a child as a person, turns out to be the last bastion of humanity, the legacy of our sins and our aspirations, at the end of the world.
If rock is not your choice of music, skip this movie... but if you grew up in the 80s, you should appreciate the music, fun and experience portrayed in this movie.
This movie rocked!
This movie is weird. It's not great but it's not as bad as the rep suggests. It's kind of nuts. Like...crazy. As in, in the first five minutes we almost see boobs and....the back of Will Smith's sack? How weird was that?! Plus I don't even know where to begin with how this movie "has fun" with the race issue. Odd choices.
Watched this for We Hate Movies. really hoping they shed some light on the weird amount of near nudity in the first five.
I loved the cast but the film is a bit of a jumble for me. I understand the approach and why it was made to appeal to Gen Y, but it all felt a bit cliche and try-hard. Strangely throughout the film I saw glipses of An American Tale - Fivel Goes West and Life. Don't even get me started on the mechanical tarantula.
Why the hate?
Is the source material so sacred that everybody is pissed because this is too American or something?
I liked it. There are remakes of Japanese movies that are much worse.
It isn't that bad, on a premises of completely forgetting the original manga/anime and instead thinking of this as an american spin-off.
The cinematography was very pleasant.
Story a bit shallow, maybe because we're so used to western pictures. This was turned from something very dark and profound to a want-to-be smart romance supernatural story.
It is although worth a watch.
In this adaptation, Light screams like a girl. That's all I can say.
