, I’ll try to tell you a bit of what I thought about “Water for Elephants”, without spoiling anything. I have not read the novel (even though I plan to do it now) so I’m only offering my views on the movie.
First of all: It’s amazingly beautiful. The costumes and sets are gorgeous, the cinematography is exquisite, the animals are cute (especially Rosie the elephant) and the three leads are very easy on the eyes as well.
Robert Pattinson was actually quite good. This was a surprise to me, since I didn’t really think he was anything special in any of the Twilight movies or “Remember Me”. He looked very appropriate for the time the movie was set in, and even though I love Emile Hirsch (who auditioned for Jacob too) I’m confident that Robert was the best choice there was for this role, it was perfect for him. Hal Holbrook was also very fitting for the role of older Jacob. The two actors really made me believe that they were the same person in different stages of his life.
Reese Witherspoon was okay. She looked beautiful, was charming and cute but it felt like something was missing – however, I can’t think of any other actress I would have liked better in the role, so I came to the conclusion that it was probably the character Marlena that was a little bland, not Reese.
But the true star of this movie was Christoph Waltz. I may be a bit biased since I loved him in “Inglorious Basterds”, but he was even more perfect in this movie. His portrayal of August was amazing, he made him likable and interesting and I was always compelled by his scenes. The character reminded me a lot of Miles in “King Kong” (played by Jack Black), a character that also wanted fame and success more than anything and used questionable and even cruel methods to get it. He was terrifying in some scenes too, but always believable. Also, in the beginning of the movie i really felt the chemistry between August and Marlena, which made the character even more interesting; however, I did feel like Jacob and Marlena had chemistry too, and in my opinion this way it was more realistic (both men loved her and she also cared about both of them).
I loved the movie, and I really recommend it to everyone. I would sincerely give it 10/10 stars. Of course there was some parts of the movie I didn’t like (particularly towards the end of it), but overall it was a magical, spectacular and epic period movie, and I can’t wait to see it again!
There has been a series of bombings and assassinations across Europe and if these activities continue, war will erupt and Europe will become a field of casualties and devastation. And our favorite detective Sherlock Holmes suspects Professor James Moriarty as the mastermind behind all these events.
The train the couple boarded was filled with Moriarty’s henchmen and a loud, explosive battle ensues eliminating any hopes of an upcoming honeymoon. Even though Watson had been planning to retire from adventuring with Holmes after his wedding, he reluctantly becomes Holmes’s partner one more time while his wife is taken care of by Holmes’s brother, Mycroft. And the duo will receive an additional member to form a trio: the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza. Together, they try to stop Moriarty from continuing his cruel schemes and Holmes learns about Moriarty’s plan to start a war in which he will personally benefit from.
There are lots of action scenes that keep the film exciting and keep the film running in a constant, fast pace. The action sequences are louder, much more explosive, and much more energetic than the ones present in the predecessor. They are very loud, operatic, and exuberant. But some of the battle sequences are surprisingly quiet, such as a simple chess game held between Holmes and Moriarty. While you think a chess game would be boring, Guy Ritchie filmed it as if it was a grand battle. The sounds, the atmosphere, and the dialog adds another layer of tension and makes the chess game scene more atmospheric.
Not only the action scenes, but the humor here is outstanding. Most of the jokes and humor come from the titular character himself. His bizarre behavior, regardless of his intelligence add a layer of comedy to the film. His trademark hobby, disguising into several unexpected people is just purely entertaining. If it weren’t for Robert Downey Jr., the humor here would have collapsed and become a disaster.
And of course, the acting and performances by the cast were brilliant and outstanding. Robert Downey Jr. is just brilliant in portraying the titular detective. He is admirable and he is really a man of talent. Don’t worry, Jude Law also plays the role of Dr. John Watson perfectly. Together, they form an excellent chemistry. Also worth mentioning is Noomi Rapace as the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza, who not too long ago played the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original version of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. Stephen Fry plays the role of Mycroft Holmes to perfection.
I’d like to take some time discussing the character of Professor James Moriarty. He is a very compelling villain. His professional life as a criminal mastermind is hidden beneath his profession as a professor in the University of Cambridge. He is much more intelligent, much more cunning, and much deadlier than Lord Blackwood of the previous film. While Holmes seems to be a detective that can do no wrong in the previous film, here, he will make mistakes. Here, he will feel pain. Moriarty is just a very powerful villain and a very suitable opponent for Holmes. (And remember the slow-motion scenes where Holmes elaborates his fighting strategies in his mind, Moriarty can do it too.) And to further compliment this is the performance of Jared Harris. While he may not look suitable as an antagonist, he actually makes a perfect choice.
However, the film uses too much slow-mo effects. This is largely noticeable in one particular scene which has an extensive use of slow-motion. I know the effect is mainly used to make it look more stylish but there is certainly too much of them. Running at a duration of 129 minutes, it could have been shortened if some of the slow-mo effects have been removed.
Not only the slow-mo effects, but this film seems to have lost its trademark element of mystery that is present in the first film. Even though there are some mystery present here, they are not as mind- boggling as the ones present in the first film. In the first film, there are just so many questions that popped up and Holmes really has something to work on. But here, it’s not mysterious. You know the full details immediately.
Nevertheless, “A Game of Shadows” is a pleasant experience and a whole lot more fun than the original film. Its operatic action scenes will entertain the audience and its comedic scenes will add a layer of laughter. With powerful performances from the cast, this film is one not to be missed in this movie season.
Final Verdict: “A Game of Shadows” is a stylish, fast-paced, yet comedic adventure which improves upon its predecessor in several aspects, and surely a highly recommended film.
“Little Fockers” was always going to be the inevitable three-quel, seeing as how the US$55mil original “Meet the Parents” made a surprisingly sweet US$330mil worldwide and its US$80mil sequel “Meet the Fockers” amassed even more. So here we are, six years after the events of the last film, with Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and Pam (Teri Polo) settled down with twins, their children’s fifth birthday party the excuse for a reunion between old foes.
The contest of wills between the distrustful and intimidating ex-CIA agent Jack Brynes (Robert De Niro) and his hapless son-in-law cum male nurse Greg (Ben Stiller) has always been the cornerstone of the “Meet the Parents” movies; and despite some distractions with Greg’s hedonistic and particularly libidinous parents (played by Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand) in the sequel, the focus is now squarely back to the simmering tension between father and son-in-law.
That tension starts all over again when Jack begins to suspect that Greg isn’t up to the task of being “the Godfocker”, the one entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the Brynes family line. The complications in between are both old- the return of Pam’s wealthy ex- lover Kevin (Owen Wilson) whom Jack openly favours- and new- the pharmaceutical rep (Jessica Alba) with the hots for Greg and whom Jack suspects Greg is having an affair with, culminating in a mano-a-mano fight between Jack and Greg in a ball pool at the party.
Though their rivalry has just about lost its novelty, De Niro and Stiller still go at each other like pros, and the result if not as fresh is just as amusing. Pity then that the script by John Hamburg and Larry Stuckey resorts too conveniently to cheap sexual gags revolving around some erectile dysfunctional drug Alba’s drug rep is selling, including a genuinely low-brow sequence where Greg has to inject Jack in the privates after Jack’s overdose on the Viagra-like pills. Both De Niro and Stiller play along gamely, and their fearlessness is the main reason these physical gags are still hilarious to watch.
Ditto the rest of the ensemble cast- Teri as the sweet supportive wife Pam, Blythe Danner as Jack’s wife- who return dutifully to fill out their previous roles but are even more under-utilised than before. Worse still, Dustin and Barbra have been reduced to mere cameos who appear at the start and the end of the movie; and even newcomer Harvey Keitel only gets a brief scene with De Niro in a wink-wink reunion of the two actors whose movies together include classics like “Mean Streets” and “Taxi Driver”.
Such a gathering of talents should definitely have accounted for more, but unfortunately the material doesn’t quite match up to their comedic abilities. Director Paul Weitz (“American Pie”, “About A Boy”)- taking over the reins from Jay Roach- relies ever too easily on broad slapstick of the “Gaylord Focker” kind, eschewing the more sophisticated laughs in discomfort, awkwardness and humiliation that were a hallmark of its predecessors. Yet if the film still remains a pleasurable delight, it is thanks to the obvious familiarity amongst members of the returning cast with their roles, clearly evident in the outstanding on screen dynamics between their respective characters.
And despite its title, “Little Fockers” really isn’t about the five- year-old twins (played by Daisy Tahan and Colin Baiocchi), but rather the adults around them that we’ve come to know through the earlier two movies. Rather than coming up with something new, the film throws up more of the same-old and familiar from its predecessors- Pam’s ex-flame Kevin, the sexually open Focker parents and of course, the continuous tension between Jack and Greg. But thanks to the excellent cast, this third instalment, while no longer fresh or inventive, remains amusing and even hilarious at times.