An Australian science fiction thriller directed by Michael and Peter Spierig, starring Ethan Hawke.
A writer walks into a bar and tells their life story to the bartender. The bartender then produces a time travel device and the plot gets strange.
This was pretty interesting for a few reasons. The hour and a half duration seemed too short to me because it left me wanting more. Pacing was relatively quick, but probably slower for the time period. The plot held my interest throughout, but the ending was inconclusive. Hence, why I wanted it to be longer. There was some ambiguity in characters, but that made it more interesting and ending more frustratingly inconclusive. I cared what happened to the people/person in the film and their story was developed. The dialogue and acting seemed natural and there was some narration in scenes when the story was being told which benefited the plot. Sets and costumes fit the varying times depicted, but mostly by being generic. Those that were more stylized almost looked out of place in contrast. I really liked the camera-work. There was good focus and exposure, but the compositions tended to be more centralized than I would have liked. Color correction/grading was done artfully and most of the scenes had a warmer color balance. The special effects were minimal and only happened at time jumps. Audio was of the time, but had a relatively good mix. Although the music and sound effects were louder than dialogue, I could hear what everyone was saying. This won 11 awards out of 30 nominations. IMDB rates it 7.5/10, Rotten Tomatoes has 84% tomatometer with 75% audience score and Metacritic has a 69% metascore for an average of 75.75% C grade. I disagree, arguing that it deserves a B+ at least. The interesting plot, good camera-work and artful color grading lead me to rate it awesome despite the inconclusive ending. Watch it!
An American science fiction directed by Andrew Niccol, starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Alan Arkin, Jude Law and Ernest Borgnine.
In the future, qualification for a job is based upon genetics. A genetically inferior man wants to be an astronaut and assumes the identity of a man with crippled legs. When there is a murder at the space center, he must protect his false identity.
Not bad. The slowish pacing made an hour 43 seem like longer than it was. The plot started off really good with heavy narration, but got bogged down in the police investigation section (most of the film). The main character living with the man who he is supposed to be was interesting. Dialogue was very dry and the acting was all serious poker face. I liked the space center sets because they looked truly futuristic. Camera-work and editing were pretty seamless. There was a good overhead shot of the beach and a low angle of the main character reading a book at the dinner table in the beginning. When the main character removes his contacts and tries to cross the road, it looked psychedelic. The audio was mixed well with dialogue being more important than music. The whole thing just seemed very serious and sterile to me, which I think was intentional. Other critics have basically given this a C average, which I think is correct. I rate it adequate because it's alright, but nothing special.
An American romantic drama directed by Richard Linklater, starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy.
The same couple from the previous films is living in Europe and have twin daughters. However, the man's son from his previous marriage is living in the U.S.A. with his mother. The couple drive to their friend's house and go to stay at a hotel.
Why is this so interesting to me? I don't even like romance flicks. Anyway, this time the couple are arguing more. A sign of the times. The characters are accompanied by a group at dinner and have a very deep discussion about life, love and relationships. They get along really well while walking to the hotel, but once there, they start arguing. The video was similar to the previous films in that it featured long double shots of the couple talking. It differed by cutting more frequently and featuring other people more than the second film and much more than the first. In the first, it was almost all them. The second introduced some other scenes and this one prominently featured other people. The editing is the same. From the first to the last, we see an increased frequency of scene cuts. This film featured a good few minutes of visibility on the female lead's breasts. Female anatomy points there. Overall, I would rate the series as good, but this film falls in with the second as adequate. It was not as good as the first, but still plenty watchable.
An American romance directed by Richard Linklater, starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy.
The couple from Before Sunrise (1995) meet nine years later in Paris. The man is the author of a book detailing the events of the first film and the woman is an environmental activist. They meet at his book signing and try to spend time together before he has to catch an airplane flight.
I was disappointed. The first one was so good that anything else is a let-down. The plot took place over a shorter period of time and had lost it's magic. The characters were the same, but they were trying to rekindle old sparks of romance and catch up on lost time. It seemed sad. The video featured lots of moving shots with the actors walking and talking. They did a good job on that. The audio blended seamlessly as the original and featured a song played by the female lead on guitar and vocals. Actually played live with no faking, a rarity. Overall, not as good as the first one, but still as well-made and "soundly" designed. I rate it adequate.
A Swiss Austrian American romance directed by Richard Linklater, starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy.
A young man meets a young woman on a train across Europe. They become interested in each other and at the man's stop, he asks the woman to wander through the city with him all night before he leaves on a plane and she leaves on the train. She agrees and they fall in love.
Pretty well made. For such a simple plot, it held my attention quite well. This is one of those films where two people talking can be interesting. The two main characters reminded me of Wesley and Buttercup from The Princess Bride (1987), but more modern. The video was planned and executed flawlessly. It all seemed to be one long conversation as the pair walk through scene after scene. The audio featured audible dialogue and a soundtrack that I didn't even notice was there. The music was so appropriate that it just blended into the plot and video seamlessly. Now that I'm through singing it's technical praises, there are only two points on which I disagree. Romance is not my favorite genre and the woman was begging for sex beginning around 1:14 without receiving any positive feedback until around 1:20. It started with a "let's see if the glass slipper fits" remark atop a stone stairway and was not resolved until 2 or 3 scenes later in the park. As a side-note, this couple was featured in Waking Life (2001) in bed, having a conversation about dreams. Overall, a technical masterpiece that was fun to watch, but not my favorite genre. I'm rating it good for these exact reasons.
An American drama directed by Richard Linklater, starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman.
A man lures an old friend to his hotel room to get him to admit to raping a woman 10 years ago. Then the woman shows up.
This took too long to say too little. That would be a plot problem. The characters were believable and well acted, but I think the dialogue was too verbose. The video was all fast cuts and quick editing. It didn't let me become comfortable with any scene before moving on. The audio was not the best. The actors whispered most of the time. Overall, not a very pleasant viewing experience. I rate this poor.
An American drama written and directed by Richard Linklater, starring Ethan Hawke.
A boy has a sister and lives with his mother, who has divorced the father. The kids spend weekends with the father. The mother marries an older man with anger and drinking problems.
This was TERRIBLE! The first thing that irked me was the music selection. It was all of the worst pop music from the past few years. Then came the sparse plot, with time filled in by mundane activities in daily life. Kids being annoying is just such great fun to watch. The only thing I liked was the angry, drunken check writing scene. The asshole scribbled on the check like he didn't care in a most comical fashion. I turned it off at 1:15 out of 2:45. Just couldn't take the mediocrity anymore. It was very well produced. Everything looks and sounds top quality. It was missing style. That spark that makes you want to watch it? None. I rate this shit because I turned it off and am glad I did.
An American crime comedy directed by Richard Linklater, starring Matthew McCoonaughey, Ethan Hawke and Vincent D'Onofrio.
A team of brothers rob banks. They get a list of banks with a certain kind of safe that is easy to open from a banker. One of them starts a relationship with a woman who attends the counter at a newspaper stand.
This was not too shabby. The plot was relatively simple, but played out quite well. I liked the interviews with the real Newton brothers during the end credits to wrap things up nicely. The characters were all acted very well and the dialogue seemed natural. There were a few montage scenes and songs that broke things up a little. All of the video was made very well. I could tell that they were thinking how to get good shots and creative camera angles all the way through. The audio was not the best. It was standard issue "too wide a dynamic range" with characters whispering and then loud music. Overall, a decent flick with pretty good production. I rate this adequate. You might want to check it out.
A disaster film directed by Frank marshall, starring Ethan Hawke.A plane carrying a South American rugby team crashes in the Andes mountains. The survivors of the crash try to stay living.The plot was good and the pacing and style were right. The characters were a little bland, but decent. My main concern is South Americans with Spanish names speaking English for 2 hours. I know that it was based on a true story, but come on! I know it was done to sell tickets and videos, but it seems as fake as a terrace attack. The question of cannibalism comes up here. I would like to state that I would eat human meat. I would cook it (unlike these dumb asses) and probably enjoy it. If your "god" lets you eat pigs, cows, fish and birds, then I doubt he would care about adding another species to the list of "food animals". When they began eating the butt-meat of their dead friends, I expected the camera to zoom out and show a row of corpses without asses. It would have gotten a good review, but Carlitos and Nando were speaking fluent English to each other. I'm rating it adequate.
