Two for four.

Watched on September 13…

I wasn’t crazy about Your Highness. It looks great on paper (fantasy/adventure/comedy movie from some of the Pineapple Express guys), but the tone seems off for most of the movie. And some of the actors seem to be doing less acting and more just goofing off.


Watched on September 16…

I think everybody with a blog likes Drive. Everybody but me. There are chunks of Drive that are brilliant, but there are even bigger chunks that go nowhere. The movie also manages to mostly waste Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks. Bummer.

Watched on September 17…

Contagion. In IMAX. It’s great, kind of like a zombie movie without the zombies. And it’s scarier than any zombie movie I’ve ever seen. Not recommended for hypochondriacs.

Watched on September 18…

On the recommendations of several people (most recently James), I finally watched Ronin. And it’s good. It also features some Mamet-y writing from an uncredited (for some reason) David Mamet.


4 Comments on “Two for four.”

  1. Kangas says:

    Agree with you on Drive–if they cut out 10 minutes of it, it’s a very good movie. But for all of those people who have said mistakenly, out of ignorance of what it is, that a movie has “pacing” issues…you may use it correctly here.

    But I thought Brooks was pretty good. Liked Contagion.

    Disagree on Ronin. That movie sucks, but has some good action pieces.

  2. Chance says:

    I coud see how some would complain that “Drive” has pacing issues. But the pacing is pretty perfect in the scenes that work–like the first scene in the movie, which is so great. I just felt a lot of scenes didn’t work.

    And Brooks is great when they give him something to do. But too much of his stuff was under-written.

    Maybe I’ll watch “Drive” again at some point and appreciate it more. It’s definitely a movie worth discussing.

    • Kangas says:

      Yes, Pacing was great in that scene. In other scenes where Woman stares at Gosling, Gosling stares back…Woman stares back…Gosling stares back…for fuck’s sake, do it once and I’ll live with it, but they do it a couple of times…

      …and there are other moments of WAY prolonged nothingness…the Gosling-staring at dead people in hotel room shot that lasts about 7 hours, then he moves back into the darkness. Would have been cool if it had been like 10 seconds long…

      I think the guy’s just in love with contrast between no-action and hyper-action, and he thinks the contrast will increase if he REALLY goes slow for long periods of time. It worked in limited quantities, like the elevator, but not so much at other times.

      I really thought the movie was over 2 hours when we left, then I saw it was more like 90 minutes. However, I LOVE the soundtrack and have preordered the CD on Amazon. (I’d buy the digital, but the CD has songs you can’t pay to download…)

  3. Chance says:

    > I think the guy’s just in love with contrast between no-action and hyper-action, and he thinks the contrast will increase…

    Interesting and plausible theory.

    You might also want to check this out:

    That link contains several little making-of anecdotes about “Drive.” After reading it, I think I like the movie even less. The director talks about several decisions he made, but not *why* he made the decisions. It just seems like he did a lot of random shit, and whatever works in the movie is due more to happenstance than anything else.

    Which, again, is particularly frustrating, as the things that *do* work in the movie work like gangbusters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s