"Thor" Plus Some More (Another Disappointing Blockbuster)
So, Sunday night, I went to probably the best, most spectacular concert of the summer. I had one of the best nights in a long time. Hung out for the morning at my sister's house and babysat my nephew for a couple of hours. Then, I headed into Boston, hung out at Boston Beer Works for a couple of hours and had some beer, before meeting up with another teacher and having a few more drinks.
Justin Timberlake and Jay Z at Fenway Park
Enough said.
Now that I'm done with Summer School, I'll have more time to stay focused and on top of my reviews. Sorry it's been a few days.
....................................................................
Film 224
"Thor"
starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Middleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings
directed by: Kenneth Branagh
For me, "Thor" was quite a disappointment, as a superhero/action/comic book movie. But it was to be expected, I suppose, given that the director is "serious" thespian, Kenneth Branagh, who is better known for his adaptations of Shakespeare plays. The trouble with bring on a "serious" director is that they have no idea how to film/direct action sequences- and comic book films have a lot of those- now, I can't exactly take credit for this revelation, because I realized it after having a discussion with my brother-in-law, who is much more educate in the comic book-to-film world. Hell, he even attended Comic Con in San Diego this summer. I value and respect his opinion when it comes to things of this nature. And I absolutely see his point, after having watched this and several other genre films.
The trouble with this film is that it's a failure on pretty much all basic levels, except for the special effects and the marketing, which I think could have almost been designed that way, because the people behind it knew it wasn't as good a film as everyone wanted. I'm not going to say, expected, because honestly the characters in the entire mythology/story involving "Thor" are very one-dimensional. They are not interesting characters at all. I mean, sure, they are gods, but gods are generally all brawn and not much brain. What you see is what you get with them. They are defined by their attributes and not their personalities, because let's face it, they don't really have much of a personality. Thor, in particular is very limited in the Norse god mythology. He wields a hammer (without it he's kind of useless). That's it. Oh, and as displayed by Chris Hemsworth, he is certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed. He comes off more like that idiot jock/high school athlete, with the same mentality.
And then there's the story, which I don't even want to discuss the background of the setting and such, because it's all rather pointless. The story seems very driven by the special effects, especially when they spend a lot of time in Asgard (the land in which Thor and his people are from). It's all very flashy and in your face. Honestly, I think it would have worked much better as an animated film for kids with a slight nod to anime. The dialogue is trite and never really substantial. It never really moves the story along and is almost mock-heroic. If only it was the type of film that didn't take itself seriously and knew enough to mock itself. Nothing exciting happens.
Natalie Portman's character is also rather pointless, even set up as the Earth-bound, love interest to Thor, who gets stuck on Earth, after his father Odin banishes him for being disrespectful and a disappointment to the "kingdom." It almost has a bit of a Prodigal Son story feel to it. And the villain in this story is really Loki (the black sheep, brother of Thor), as well as the Frost Giants and unfortunately, Loki (played by Tom Middleston) really steals the show and all of Thor's thunder, ironically.
Unfortunately for "Thor" there are a handful of way better comic book-to-film movies out there, that do everything much better. I'm looking at you, recent "Batman" trilogy.
.......................................................................
Film 225
"2 Days in New York"
starring: Julie Delpy and Chris Rock
written and directed by: Julie Delpy
I am convinced Julie Delpy is one of the most underrated movie "stars" of our generation. I am just look at the credits. Delpy wrote, directed and starred in it. And she is also one of the most charming, adorable actresses who plays rather complex characters. As an actress, Delpy has worked with some great writers/directors (re: Richard Linklater, Jarmusch, Godard, Tavernier, and Agnieszka Holland-- wherein Linklater is one of my favorites and gets some of the best performances our of her); but clearly with this film and its predecessor, "2 Days in Paris," as a director, Delpy has clearly been influenced heavily by Woody Allen. It's sort of a screwball comedy with a goofy, yet romantic tone to it.
This film is a sort-of sequel to her film "2 Days in Paris." In that film, we got to see her character, Marion, in a relationship with Adam Goldberg's character. It was revealed that she has quite a rap sheet when it comes to boyfriends/lovers. A fact that Goldberg's character ultimately couldn't handle, but not before Marion ended up pregnant.
In this film, we have fast-forwarded to a time that Marion has moved back to New York, she has a son (Goldberg's character's son), and she is in a seeming fun, happy relationship with Mingus (a stellar Chris Rock, holding on to his comedic side, but also reaching into a deeper, sane and stable guy). He is also a radio talk show host and he finds refuge in having one-sided conversations with a promotional life-size cardboard cutout of Barack Obama. Funny shit! Anyway, things are going well for the makeshift family of four in New York (Mingus also has a child), until Marion's family shows up in New York- to stay with Marion and Mingus et al. This is when the fun starts.
Marion's family here consists of her quirky, yet friendly father with well-meaning intentions. By the way, her real-life father plays the character in the film. Then, we have Marion's sister, Rose (played by Alexia Landeau, who also co-wrote the screenplay, which could explain why her role is perhaps the 2nd juiciest character in the film). Rose is jealous of Marion constantly, and perhaps for her entire life, following in Marion's footsteps. Rose is now, even, dating one of Marion's ex-boyfriends, Manu, who is a complete and total tool. A lot of the meat in the script comes in Marion and Rose's interactions. There is a clear rivalry between sisters. Rose initiates all of it. She is snippy and downright bitchy, even at the dinner table. Rose walks around naked, even in front of Mingus. She's a seducer, without too much success, which probably pisses her off. I absolutely loved seeing the family dynamic with Marion and her family. They are proud of her- Marion's an artist, trying hard to make a living in New York. Mingus (Chris Rock) is the outsider who sort of helps give Marion a bit more perspective on her family.
In the meantime, Marion is preparing for an art show of some of her pieces (photographs), but the centerpiece to her show is a bit intriguing: She is selling her soul/putting it up for auction. This is an interesting plot-piece that I would have liked to see Delpy dive into a little more, but perhaps she was scared to get too philosophical. I think she could have looked to Richard Linklater for some advice on how to do this right. Instead, she spends a little time with Marion and, get this, Vincent Gallo (who ended up buying her soul) in a diner, having a discussion. It's a bit reminiscent of Mephistopheles versus Faust, if you could imagine that. Being a philosophy junkie, I definitely enjoyed this scene, but thought it was a bit mishandled. Looking at Roger Ebert's review, I liked his suggestion of perhaps having scenes between Vincent Gallo and various people he'd bought souls from to help expand upon Marion's and his points.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Julie Delpy's film.
.......................................................................
Film 226
"Pacific Rim"
directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Giant Monsters versus Man-Made and Man-Controlled (from the inside) Robots.
This is the perfect film for fans of the old classic Japanese monster movies (re: Godzilla) and gladiator-type machine movies (re: Transformers). Coming from the mind of Guillermo del Toro, you know it's going to be smarter than just about all these genre films that have preceded it. But, I guess the surprising part for me was that it was also bigger, badder, and louder than these types of films, too, which is saying a lot coming up against Michael Bay's "Transformers" films. It's bigger because often times you had to crane your neck slightly to see the top of the monsters and machines, especially when they were on screen together. For the first twenty minutes and then several of the fight/action scenes, the film's tone is very dark, which makes it extremely hard to actually see these monsters, too. A lot of the action takes place in water, too, which clashed with the monsters and robots. Sure, the technical aspects of all the films action scenes are done masterfully, but they are also too dark at times for the audience to really appreciate. Too bad.
There's a breach, where these monsters are coming from that is discovered in the middle of a deep part of the ocean. These monsters are called Kaiju, which stays true to the Japanese tradition. And the robots that have been designed to fight and destroy these Kaiju have been dubbed Jaeger (which apparently means "Hunter"). The Jaegers are manned by a team of 2 pilots who must be "drift compatible." The story's hero, Raleigh Becket lost his brother while they were manning the same Jaeger in an intense opening sequence. This makes him want nothing to do with the fight against the Kaiju, that is, until he is called upon by the crippling government entity which helped create him. He and his brother, of course, had one of the best drift compatibilities. Raleigh finds himself intensely tied to another potential pilot, this one a woman played by Rinko Kikuchi. The fact that they drift together also adds a potential, and completely unnecessary love story to the mix.
For me, the film worked as an intense and in your face action film. It definitely moved the bar up quite a bit higher for these types of films. Would you expect anything less from del Toro, though? No!
When the film didn't work for me, though, was all the unnecessary bits and pieces, like the sexual tension and potential interest between Raleigh and his female co-pilot/drifter. I didn't want or need that. I went into this film to just be entertained. I also thought Charlie Day was great as the comic relief, as the scientist looking to mind meld with a Kaiju's brain (which actually helps save the day, in a way). The dialogue was a bit horrendous, though, perhaps intentional, I suppose, because let's face it, we all going into it what we are about to see is quite unrealistic, so perhaps the screenwriters decided to poke fun at themselves well writing. Do you think they laughed at some of their own dialogue?
This film is one of the best entertaining films and a perfect summer blockbuster that meets the expectations set out for it. It will certainly entertain you, if you can forget about some of the "ham" throughout it. Oh yeah, and Ron Perlman shows up, too, as a black-marketer of Kaiju body parts. Those scenes were funny and entertaining, as well.
.....................................................................
Film 227
"Doctor Zhivago" (miniseries 2002)
starring: Keira Knightley, Sam Neill, Bill Paterson, Celia Imrie, Hans Matheson
Maybe this should count as 2 films because it did take me 2 nights for completely watch it. The film clocks in at just under 4 hours and it can be intense at some points, especially with the war scenes, since it deals with a story that has a background of the Russian Revolution happening around it. It can also be rather slow moving at some points. I would say the first half of the film is the best half because that's where all the build-up and tension is, for the most part, until the final act (sort of) of the second half of the film, when things really come full-steam with the four main characters.
This is a remake of the 1965 original film, which was an adaptation of the classic novel of the same name. This version definitely had some large shoes to fill, as well, because the original has become a well-known classic starring Julie Christie.
It's a film that takes place during the Russian Revolution and the story revolves around 4 characters:
Yury Zhivago- when the film starts, Yury is a medical student who seems to tow the line of acceptable behavior and voicing his opinions. He becomes a doctor, hence the title. He is a bit of a dreamer, because he envisions a life for himself where he can be truly happy healing the sick and wounded (from the war), but also have time to write his poetry. He writes a lot for Lara. He goes through the most significant changes throughout the film because we get a look at his profound changes through the revolution.
Lara- played by Keira Knightley (for some reason she keeps getting chosen to play roles that involve a Russian history- re: "Anna Karenina"). Lara is in love with Yury, that is very clear. For a person that is supposed to be the central figure in two men's lives, the way Knightley plays her, you are left to wonder what is so magnificent about her that drives two men mad/crazy. She is the woman that breaks up Yury's marriage.
Komarovsky- played by Sam Neill- the guy who claims Lara as his "property" and he seems inexplicably obsessed with having Lara, for reasons that are never really explained, other than he carries pride within himself for being the older man to deflower her and for that reason he believes she belongs to him no matter what, throughout the years. He's the bad guy because he is the man that stands between Lara and Yury living a happy life with each other. He also represents everything evil within the Russian Empire that Yury (and Lara) do not care for at all. Sam Neill is a decent actor enough to make Komarovsky an ominous figure who has a darker side, that's quite obvious when it comes to his obsession with Lara, but as far as the bigger picture, the story never really fleshes him out as anyone to feel threatened by. He's been implicated in the death of Yury's father, early on, but again, we don't really get a deeper explanation as to his involvements. He is definitely the kind of man who's chosen sides during the Revolution; and he's chosen to fight alongside the party he believes will win. Is he evil for that? Can we blame him?
Tonya (Yury's wife)- Tonya is Yury's cousin, as well as his wife, but that sort of thing is common in other countries I suppose, so there's nothing "creepy" about the fact that they destined to be married early on. They have a child together as well. Tonya is the pawn piece in Yury's life, unfortunately. She's the most sympathetic character because she is a forgotten person in Yury's life.
With these 4 characters, "Doctor Zhivago" is about 2 interconnected stories: the personal lives and loves of its main characters, but also the effects of the Russian Revolution in and around 1917. And it is the historical aspect of the film that is much better crafted than the love stories. This version includes actual footage from that era. The history comes to life, which helps us realize, even almost 100 years later, that these seemingly long-ago struggles, sacrifices, loves, and losses happened to real people, people like us, just on a different continent. I'd love to see a film that depicts the American Revolution with such truancy as well, in which it brings to life those same aspects of people.
The film really puts most of its weight in the love story (between Yury and Lara), but the couples utter lack of chemistry sort of makes it fall a bit flat. Clearly Lara is not the better choice for Yury, but for whatever reason he is drawn to her and believes they belong together. I'm sure many of us can relate to that, but have also been able to see the terrible choices we've made following our hearts instead of our heads, sometimes.
True love: it can be mysterious, spontaneous, and illogical at times, or even at the same time. Overall, true love is extremely powerful to the devoted. But these two characters are a bad example of true love because they come off dry and I didn't believe that they really belonged together.
For me, the film failed and was long and too drawn out as a love story. I wanted and expected a bit more, especially from Keira Knightley, whom I've certainly grown to love as an actress who sometimes makes some poor choices, in terms of films. She's at her best when she's an endearing and lovable character (re: "Love Actually" and "Bend It Like Beckham") and here she's the reason why Yury is happy and unhappy at the same time.
Justin Timberlake and Jay Z at Fenway Park
Enough said.
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(The Jackson 5 cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Jay-Z & Kanye West cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Liza Minnelli cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
- Encore:
-
(Justin Timberlake cover)
-
(JAY Z cover)
-
Now that I'm done with Summer School, I'll have more time to stay focused and on top of my reviews. Sorry it's been a few days.
....................................................................
Film 224
"Thor"
starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Middleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings
directed by: Kenneth Branagh
For me, "Thor" was quite a disappointment, as a superhero/action/comic book movie. But it was to be expected, I suppose, given that the director is "serious" thespian, Kenneth Branagh, who is better known for his adaptations of Shakespeare plays. The trouble with bring on a "serious" director is that they have no idea how to film/direct action sequences- and comic book films have a lot of those- now, I can't exactly take credit for this revelation, because I realized it after having a discussion with my brother-in-law, who is much more educate in the comic book-to-film world. Hell, he even attended Comic Con in San Diego this summer. I value and respect his opinion when it comes to things of this nature. And I absolutely see his point, after having watched this and several other genre films.
The trouble with this film is that it's a failure on pretty much all basic levels, except for the special effects and the marketing, which I think could have almost been designed that way, because the people behind it knew it wasn't as good a film as everyone wanted. I'm not going to say, expected, because honestly the characters in the entire mythology/story involving "Thor" are very one-dimensional. They are not interesting characters at all. I mean, sure, they are gods, but gods are generally all brawn and not much brain. What you see is what you get with them. They are defined by their attributes and not their personalities, because let's face it, they don't really have much of a personality. Thor, in particular is very limited in the Norse god mythology. He wields a hammer (without it he's kind of useless). That's it. Oh, and as displayed by Chris Hemsworth, he is certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed. He comes off more like that idiot jock/high school athlete, with the same mentality.
And then there's the story, which I don't even want to discuss the background of the setting and such, because it's all rather pointless. The story seems very driven by the special effects, especially when they spend a lot of time in Asgard (the land in which Thor and his people are from). It's all very flashy and in your face. Honestly, I think it would have worked much better as an animated film for kids with a slight nod to anime. The dialogue is trite and never really substantial. It never really moves the story along and is almost mock-heroic. If only it was the type of film that didn't take itself seriously and knew enough to mock itself. Nothing exciting happens.
Natalie Portman's character is also rather pointless, even set up as the Earth-bound, love interest to Thor, who gets stuck on Earth, after his father Odin banishes him for being disrespectful and a disappointment to the "kingdom." It almost has a bit of a Prodigal Son story feel to it. And the villain in this story is really Loki (the black sheep, brother of Thor), as well as the Frost Giants and unfortunately, Loki (played by Tom Middleston) really steals the show and all of Thor's thunder, ironically.
Unfortunately for "Thor" there are a handful of way better comic book-to-film movies out there, that do everything much better. I'm looking at you, recent "Batman" trilogy.
.......................................................................
Film 225
"2 Days in New York"
starring: Julie Delpy and Chris Rock
written and directed by: Julie Delpy
I am convinced Julie Delpy is one of the most underrated movie "stars" of our generation. I am just look at the credits. Delpy wrote, directed and starred in it. And she is also one of the most charming, adorable actresses who plays rather complex characters. As an actress, Delpy has worked with some great writers/directors (re: Richard Linklater, Jarmusch, Godard, Tavernier, and Agnieszka Holland-- wherein Linklater is one of my favorites and gets some of the best performances our of her); but clearly with this film and its predecessor, "2 Days in Paris," as a director, Delpy has clearly been influenced heavily by Woody Allen. It's sort of a screwball comedy with a goofy, yet romantic tone to it.
This film is a sort-of sequel to her film "2 Days in Paris." In that film, we got to see her character, Marion, in a relationship with Adam Goldberg's character. It was revealed that she has quite a rap sheet when it comes to boyfriends/lovers. A fact that Goldberg's character ultimately couldn't handle, but not before Marion ended up pregnant.
In this film, we have fast-forwarded to a time that Marion has moved back to New York, she has a son (Goldberg's character's son), and she is in a seeming fun, happy relationship with Mingus (a stellar Chris Rock, holding on to his comedic side, but also reaching into a deeper, sane and stable guy). He is also a radio talk show host and he finds refuge in having one-sided conversations with a promotional life-size cardboard cutout of Barack Obama. Funny shit! Anyway, things are going well for the makeshift family of four in New York (Mingus also has a child), until Marion's family shows up in New York- to stay with Marion and Mingus et al. This is when the fun starts.
Marion's family here consists of her quirky, yet friendly father with well-meaning intentions. By the way, her real-life father plays the character in the film. Then, we have Marion's sister, Rose (played by Alexia Landeau, who also co-wrote the screenplay, which could explain why her role is perhaps the 2nd juiciest character in the film). Rose is jealous of Marion constantly, and perhaps for her entire life, following in Marion's footsteps. Rose is now, even, dating one of Marion's ex-boyfriends, Manu, who is a complete and total tool. A lot of the meat in the script comes in Marion and Rose's interactions. There is a clear rivalry between sisters. Rose initiates all of it. She is snippy and downright bitchy, even at the dinner table. Rose walks around naked, even in front of Mingus. She's a seducer, without too much success, which probably pisses her off. I absolutely loved seeing the family dynamic with Marion and her family. They are proud of her- Marion's an artist, trying hard to make a living in New York. Mingus (Chris Rock) is the outsider who sort of helps give Marion a bit more perspective on her family.
In the meantime, Marion is preparing for an art show of some of her pieces (photographs), but the centerpiece to her show is a bit intriguing: She is selling her soul/putting it up for auction. This is an interesting plot-piece that I would have liked to see Delpy dive into a little more, but perhaps she was scared to get too philosophical. I think she could have looked to Richard Linklater for some advice on how to do this right. Instead, she spends a little time with Marion and, get this, Vincent Gallo (who ended up buying her soul) in a diner, having a discussion. It's a bit reminiscent of Mephistopheles versus Faust, if you could imagine that. Being a philosophy junkie, I definitely enjoyed this scene, but thought it was a bit mishandled. Looking at Roger Ebert's review, I liked his suggestion of perhaps having scenes between Vincent Gallo and various people he'd bought souls from to help expand upon Marion's and his points.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Julie Delpy's film.
.......................................................................
Film 226
"Pacific Rim"
directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Giant Monsters versus Man-Made and Man-Controlled (from the inside) Robots.
This is the perfect film for fans of the old classic Japanese monster movies (re: Godzilla) and gladiator-type machine movies (re: Transformers). Coming from the mind of Guillermo del Toro, you know it's going to be smarter than just about all these genre films that have preceded it. But, I guess the surprising part for me was that it was also bigger, badder, and louder than these types of films, too, which is saying a lot coming up against Michael Bay's "Transformers" films. It's bigger because often times you had to crane your neck slightly to see the top of the monsters and machines, especially when they were on screen together. For the first twenty minutes and then several of the fight/action scenes, the film's tone is very dark, which makes it extremely hard to actually see these monsters, too. A lot of the action takes place in water, too, which clashed with the monsters and robots. Sure, the technical aspects of all the films action scenes are done masterfully, but they are also too dark at times for the audience to really appreciate. Too bad.
There's a breach, where these monsters are coming from that is discovered in the middle of a deep part of the ocean. These monsters are called Kaiju, which stays true to the Japanese tradition. And the robots that have been designed to fight and destroy these Kaiju have been dubbed Jaeger (which apparently means "Hunter"). The Jaegers are manned by a team of 2 pilots who must be "drift compatible." The story's hero, Raleigh Becket lost his brother while they were manning the same Jaeger in an intense opening sequence. This makes him want nothing to do with the fight against the Kaiju, that is, until he is called upon by the crippling government entity which helped create him. He and his brother, of course, had one of the best drift compatibilities. Raleigh finds himself intensely tied to another potential pilot, this one a woman played by Rinko Kikuchi. The fact that they drift together also adds a potential, and completely unnecessary love story to the mix.
For me, the film worked as an intense and in your face action film. It definitely moved the bar up quite a bit higher for these types of films. Would you expect anything less from del Toro, though? No!
When the film didn't work for me, though, was all the unnecessary bits and pieces, like the sexual tension and potential interest between Raleigh and his female co-pilot/drifter. I didn't want or need that. I went into this film to just be entertained. I also thought Charlie Day was great as the comic relief, as the scientist looking to mind meld with a Kaiju's brain (which actually helps save the day, in a way). The dialogue was a bit horrendous, though, perhaps intentional, I suppose, because let's face it, we all going into it what we are about to see is quite unrealistic, so perhaps the screenwriters decided to poke fun at themselves well writing. Do you think they laughed at some of their own dialogue?
This film is one of the best entertaining films and a perfect summer blockbuster that meets the expectations set out for it. It will certainly entertain you, if you can forget about some of the "ham" throughout it. Oh yeah, and Ron Perlman shows up, too, as a black-marketer of Kaiju body parts. Those scenes were funny and entertaining, as well.
.....................................................................
Film 227
"Doctor Zhivago" (miniseries 2002)
starring: Keira Knightley, Sam Neill, Bill Paterson, Celia Imrie, Hans Matheson
Maybe this should count as 2 films because it did take me 2 nights for completely watch it. The film clocks in at just under 4 hours and it can be intense at some points, especially with the war scenes, since it deals with a story that has a background of the Russian Revolution happening around it. It can also be rather slow moving at some points. I would say the first half of the film is the best half because that's where all the build-up and tension is, for the most part, until the final act (sort of) of the second half of the film, when things really come full-steam with the four main characters.
This is a remake of the 1965 original film, which was an adaptation of the classic novel of the same name. This version definitely had some large shoes to fill, as well, because the original has become a well-known classic starring Julie Christie.
It's a film that takes place during the Russian Revolution and the story revolves around 4 characters:
Yury Zhivago- when the film starts, Yury is a medical student who seems to tow the line of acceptable behavior and voicing his opinions. He becomes a doctor, hence the title. He is a bit of a dreamer, because he envisions a life for himself where he can be truly happy healing the sick and wounded (from the war), but also have time to write his poetry. He writes a lot for Lara. He goes through the most significant changes throughout the film because we get a look at his profound changes through the revolution.
Lara- played by Keira Knightley (for some reason she keeps getting chosen to play roles that involve a Russian history- re: "Anna Karenina"). Lara is in love with Yury, that is very clear. For a person that is supposed to be the central figure in two men's lives, the way Knightley plays her, you are left to wonder what is so magnificent about her that drives two men mad/crazy. She is the woman that breaks up Yury's marriage.
Komarovsky- played by Sam Neill- the guy who claims Lara as his "property" and he seems inexplicably obsessed with having Lara, for reasons that are never really explained, other than he carries pride within himself for being the older man to deflower her and for that reason he believes she belongs to him no matter what, throughout the years. He's the bad guy because he is the man that stands between Lara and Yury living a happy life with each other. He also represents everything evil within the Russian Empire that Yury (and Lara) do not care for at all. Sam Neill is a decent actor enough to make Komarovsky an ominous figure who has a darker side, that's quite obvious when it comes to his obsession with Lara, but as far as the bigger picture, the story never really fleshes him out as anyone to feel threatened by. He's been implicated in the death of Yury's father, early on, but again, we don't really get a deeper explanation as to his involvements. He is definitely the kind of man who's chosen sides during the Revolution; and he's chosen to fight alongside the party he believes will win. Is he evil for that? Can we blame him?
Tonya (Yury's wife)- Tonya is Yury's cousin, as well as his wife, but that sort of thing is common in other countries I suppose, so there's nothing "creepy" about the fact that they destined to be married early on. They have a child together as well. Tonya is the pawn piece in Yury's life, unfortunately. She's the most sympathetic character because she is a forgotten person in Yury's life.
With these 4 characters, "Doctor Zhivago" is about 2 interconnected stories: the personal lives and loves of its main characters, but also the effects of the Russian Revolution in and around 1917. And it is the historical aspect of the film that is much better crafted than the love stories. This version includes actual footage from that era. The history comes to life, which helps us realize, even almost 100 years later, that these seemingly long-ago struggles, sacrifices, loves, and losses happened to real people, people like us, just on a different continent. I'd love to see a film that depicts the American Revolution with such truancy as well, in which it brings to life those same aspects of people.
The film really puts most of its weight in the love story (between Yury and Lara), but the couples utter lack of chemistry sort of makes it fall a bit flat. Clearly Lara is not the better choice for Yury, but for whatever reason he is drawn to her and believes they belong together. I'm sure many of us can relate to that, but have also been able to see the terrible choices we've made following our hearts instead of our heads, sometimes.
True love: it can be mysterious, spontaneous, and illogical at times, or even at the same time. Overall, true love is extremely powerful to the devoted. But these two characters are a bad example of true love because they come off dry and I didn't believe that they really belonged together.
For me, the film failed and was long and too drawn out as a love story. I wanted and expected a bit more, especially from Keira Knightley, whom I've certainly grown to love as an actress who sometimes makes some poor choices, in terms of films. She's at her best when she's an endearing and lovable character (re: "Love Actually" and "Bend It Like Beckham") and here she's the reason why Yury is happy and unhappy at the same time.
Comments
Post a Comment