The Good Shepherd
The Good Shepherd. Thumbs down.
I thought I could ignore my better judgment and go to a Matt Damon movie. Certainly there were enough others stars and a story about the CIA to distract me from him.
Unfortunately, I couldn't ignore him in this movie any more than I could ignore Tom Cruise in a Tom Cruise movie. The movie was very confusing...switching back and forth from one era to another--and since Matt Damon didn't change much between the decades except for wearing different glasses, it was hard to follow.
I failed to see why Angelina Jolie took a small part in this movie (heck, any movie!) And why the heck wouldn't a man fall in love with a wife like Angelina even if he wasn't particularly thrilled to get married? That makes no sense.
What I did see was Matt Damon's character getting more and more stoic and withdrawn from life and displaying little to no emotion until the end he was like a rock...nothing...no feelings.
I failed to see the point of the whole movie--oh sure the history of the CIA, but why focus on that one character then? And through in a bunch of other characters that didn't seem to have much to do with the story?
There were characters and small diversions in the movie that had nothing to do with the forward movement of the plot. For the screenplay writer that gave us movies like The Postman, Forest Gump, and The Horse Whisperer, I was surprised to see such a hacked-up story line. Then again it might have been the editor's fault, not the writer. Sorry.
Oh well. I suggest you skip this movie unless you know someone who worked on the movie and want to do them a favor by going. Or watch it when it comes on network TV when nothing better is on and they cut out the really creepy parts and you just want to fill up with popcorn and diet coke (or beer.)
And what the heck was the significance of the title? Were they trying to compare the "sacrifice" the "leader" of the CIA to the REAL Good Shepherd and his sacrifice?
I think somebody is going to hell.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Notes on a Scandal
Notes on Notes on a Scandal....I went to the movies last week prepared to be entertained...no, amazed...by the acting if nothing more. Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett are the cream of the crop in both British and American movieland.
And while I was not disappointed with the excellent performance by both actresses, I was a bit disappointed with the movie. I am not sure it was the script, it was perhaps the forward movement of the story...I felt as if it were more of a horror movie unfolding and the uncomfortable suspense was not pleasant...sort of like "In the Bedroom" was--you watch and watch and hope the events take a turn for the better and everything will come out fine...and ultimately it doesn't. It just ends, still all unsatisfactorily.
I never once "forgot" it was a movie, never got lost in it. I didn't lost in the movie except having a good a bit of anxiety over where the movie was going to go next. (American Beauty had this effect on me, but ended up to be rewarding and almost metaphysical in its resolution.)
This movie could well have been entitled "Abusers and Users" if not "Users and Losers." All the main characters were either abusive, manipulative, or downright domineering. And not one character was "improved" by the events in the stsory...like it's supposed to do in proper story-telling and screenwriting. If anything they continued their unsatisfactory behavior--not learning from it (though they appeared to be punished for it.)
The secondary characters seemed to be put in the story to bounce the two stars off of--i.e. to react emotionally to their behavior(s.) They did an exceptional job but were just not important to the story. What a waste. Bill Nighty's skill was to play an ordinary man which he did wonderfully. (You might not recognize him from having been Davey Jones in Johnny Dep's most recent pirate movie.)
It was a scandal and all the characters behaved scandalously, even though they were all lost in their own little worlds, interacting but not relating somehow.
I realize that "foreign" movies are different than American movies, mostly British movies don't explain things, they let the viewer try to figure out what is going on by themselves. I feel that most foreign movies/dramas seem to be from a "dark" side (except for the one that are downright silly humor, which this was NOT.) There is an undercurrent of disturbing suspense, as I already mentioned. I assume it was supposed to be a "literary" story where the events just unfold andleave it up to the viewer to determine the "message"--no message seemed to be written into the movie, actually.
Only really good thing about this movie was that the two star actresses did good a job, the day I went to see it was free popcorn day, and all the abusers and users seemed to get what was coming to them.
SPOILER:
I felt that Judi Dench's character was especially pathetic and sinister. She was just not an honest person. She used manipulation and trickery to try to obtain what she wanted. In our 21st Century western society, I believe we are able to get closer to what we desire in life, I would home, if we are honest about what we want with ourselves and with others. And are more open about it. Having to trick someone into a "relationship" with a deceitful method of false friendship and support, is particularly distasteful and immoral. Her "crimes" were no less immoral than the woman who was caught and had to do time.
And Cate's character and her student--well, they exploited each other if you ask me.
Enough said. See the movie for the acting. But be warned...it's not a great movie. Have some popcorn, it's always good.
No comments:
Post a Comment