It's weird, I saw it here in Spain before it came out in the US and my friend and I agreed it was goodish but not great, that maybe it hadn't lived up to its potential or something. Now it came out in the US and the critics are basically giving it lapdances of adoration, and I'm like, what, did I miss something? And I wonder if I had seen it after I had read good reviews that I would have liked it more... isn't that weird?
I just thought it was really, really well made. The long, continuous shots (like the car chase away from the safe house and that long, like, nine minute scene where he goes into the hospital, and leaves with all the soldiers staring and all that), the exposition through commercials and background images and newspaper articles and pictures rather than characters giving it (which is almost always clunky and annoying), the set and costumes and everything, the camera angles, etc.
It's not without flaws, of course. Things could've been explained better, and maybe a few more plot twists would've been interesting (I mean, you know exactly what's going to happen basically from seeing the previews), but overall I still think it was really, really well done, from a sheer cinema perspective.
yeah, true enough. But like, remember near the end when blood splatters on the camera? I thought that was SO COOL but then the shot just kept going and going and I was like, well, it would have been cool
I hadn't seen any previews... I loved that Julianne Moore dying took me totally by surprise, but other plot twists (The Fishes betraying, e.g.) I totally saw coming... and also I just felt like the pacing/plot arc was weird. lots of things felt kind of anticlimactic.
Gah I hate when people do this, point out all the flaws in something! No, in general I liked it, especially Clive Owen. It was visually pretty great, if sometimes a little heavy-handed-- oops there I go again ;) But I don't mean to sound like I didn't like it. Just that I have better taste than the NY Times. lol... jk.
and hahaha it had one of my favorite moments of cinema ever... the weird guard saying "Sad faces. Fugee faces" or however it went... my friend and I laughed forever.
Comments 3
Reply
It's not without flaws, of course. Things could've been explained better, and maybe a few more plot twists would've been interesting (I mean, you know exactly what's going to happen basically from seeing the previews), but overall I still think it was really, really well done, from a sheer cinema perspective.
Reply
I hadn't seen any previews... I loved that Julianne Moore dying took me totally by surprise, but other plot twists (The Fishes betraying, e.g.) I totally saw coming... and also I just felt like the pacing/plot arc was weird. lots of things felt kind of anticlimactic.
Gah I hate when people do this, point out all the flaws in something! No, in general I liked it, especially Clive Owen. It was visually pretty great, if sometimes a little heavy-handed-- oops there I go again ;) But I don't mean to sound like I didn't like it. Just that I have better taste than the NY Times. lol... jk.
and hahaha it had one of my favorite moments of cinema ever... the weird guard saying "Sad faces. Fugee faces" or however it went... my friend and I laughed forever.
Reply
Leave a comment