I'm a huge fan of Robert Zemeckis, or, at least I was until he started doing all of the 3D animation work in the 2000's. I've never cared for that type of animation, and the stories were all kid's tales, so my love affair with Zemeckis took a hiatus. I still left a light on for the man, mind you. How can you not, when you're talking about the man who made the movie that got you interested in making movies? (Forest Gump, for those who haven't read it here before). I'm glad I did leave that candle burning, because he finally came back from the dark side, so to speak, with Flight, his first live action film in close to a decade.
Flight tells the story of commercial airline pilot Whip Whitaker, an alcoholic, drug using, out of control divorcee. In fact, we meet Whip in the opening scene of Flight in a dirty hotel room, a naked woman at his side, empty beer and liquor bottles everywhere, as well as drug paraphernalia. Whip goes from this, to flying a plane in a matter of a few hours, a job which he is OBVIOUSLY not in good enough physical or mental shape to take on. The plane takes a dive, and Whip, somehow, manages to crash land it successfully, with a very minimal loss of life. He's praised as a hero, until the evidence starts stacking up against him.
Flight isn't perfect, but I enjoyed it immensely, and, for a director who hasn't been in the live action arena for a long time, I thought Zemeckis's come back was as much as I could have hoped for. The cinematography didn't feel as clean as most Zemeckis films do, but I liked it a lot. Washington is always great when he's put into a great role, and Don Cheadle was awesome, as well, as Whitaker's lawyer. My only two complaints would be the subplot where Whitaker falls in love with a recovering junkie he meets in the hospital, which feels like it was never taken to its necessary conclusion, and, really, could have just been stripped away completely, and John Goodman's drug dealer character. I love John Goodman, don't get me wrong, but this dude just seemed way to over the top, especially for his age. His flamboyance just came off as fake to me.
Two very minor things, though, in a comeback film that leaves me wanting a lot more from a filmmaker that I can't seem to get enough of.
Comments on watching and making films.
Showing posts with label Kelly Reilly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kelly Reilly. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sherlock Holmes
There's two classic stories that I've been in love with since I was a kid - Harry Houdini and Sherlock Holmes. I think both of them appeal to young kids, especially boys, because of the sense of adventure and magic. Looking back on it, I can't think of any adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (at least live action, non-parody ones), nor movies about Harry Houdini. So, when I first saw a trailer for a hip new Sherlock Holmes film, I was intrigued. Guy Ritchie has had his moments, so I figured it has to be, at least, halfway decent, right? I mean, Robert Downey Jr., Rachel McAdams, and the wide variety of story to pull from had to have given them a lot to work with.
Sherlock Holmes concerns the relationship of Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law), as Watson is moving on in his life and getting ready to marry a young woman and move into full time medical practice. Holmes is left feeling abandoned, but doesn't have long to think about it because Lord Blackwood, a once dead nemesis, appears to have resurrected himself from the grave and be causing havoc in London. Holmes teams up with a reluctant Watson, and an old flame, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) in order to fight the dark powers of Blackwood.
Sherlock Holmes is one of those movies that you can see all the ways that it could have been better. Too long, with characters that are not always explored well enough, and one too many needless speed ramping shots, Holmes can come off as bloated and boring. While all of the actors do a good job, it's impossible to really enjoy a movie experience that feels like your having to tread through mud. that being said, the ending sets up an obvious sequel, and I will say that maybe, just maybe, the film suffers from Ritchie having not directed anything for a while, and problems in his personal life. Should there be a sequel, I would consider seeing it, to see if they could pull together all of the things that feel so loose in this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)