Showing posts with label Guy Pearce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guy Pearce. Show all posts

Sunday, June 7, 2026

The Road

So let me get this straight: the world shattering event wiped out all the…bicycles? I have to imagine that this story worked better on the page than on the screen, as the depiction here simply shows too many internal story contradictions to truly give the viewer a worthwhile experience. By the tale’s own internal logic, these characters should have starved to death long before the narrative ever begins. More problematic is the movie’s core concept: things are awful, then they’re awful some more, and then, finally, they’re still awful—with perhaps the suggestion that things might get better, but maybe not. One has to wonder, what exactly is the redeeming value of telling such a story? It comes across as a simple exercise in misanthropic speculation, as virtually no one in the tale comes across very well. Even the worst curmudgeon among us must believe that, even in such dire circumstances, more people than not would choose to do right by others, rather than resort to, among other things, cannibalism. Really, this story seems like a work that pretends to offer wisdom and a deep understanding of humanity, but in fact it just indulges in an unrelentingly bleak outlook simply for the sake of bleakness. And, finally, I am biased against people who say “papa” instead of “dad”; just a quirk of mine. No amount of emotional heavy lifting from Viggo Mortenson is enough to overcome this film’s fatal, fundamental flaws. I suggest skipping this trip—and if you do find yourself forced onto this journey, maybe be sure to use that one bullet you have left sooner rather than later. 

Tuesday, February 17, 2026

The Time Machine (2002)

This movie starts off highly unpromising. The immediate impression is one of TV movie production value, if not even lower depths of cheesiness. And the initial setup scenes—including a hastily arranged romantic subplot that ends with an inciting incident—have little in the way of entertainment value. But then, once the plot really kicks into gear, with Guy Pearce making ever further forays along the timeline, the whole story really starts to hum and grows quite engaging, if perhaps not truly engrossing. The future world is actually well conceived, with appropriately stepped up production values and effects to go with. I can’t speak to the physics of the thing—the story’s justifications may ultimately be full of holes—and there’s at least one piece of the future puzzle that comes across as unaddressed, at the very least, if not actually impossible, but as a light work of movie making, this one does its job to an adequate degree. And it clocks in at under two hours, so you won’t feel oppressed by the passage of time as you view. That makes it time mostly well spent. 


Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Iron Man 3

There isn’t much new here, which makes sense as it’s the third in a series. Naturally, there’s a pretty good amount of popcorn fun in this tentpole production, and the principals have lost little of their charm in the course of the years. But some of the magic, the spark that made the original so enjoyable, is lacking here. Still, given the nature of the film, you have to say it achieves its goals, and ultimately that works to the audience’s advantage.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Prometheus

There’s a lot of stuff that’s very intriguing here. And there’s a lot of stuff that’s very stupid here, too. Which one wins out? Frankly, I’m not sure. Certainly, the visual presentation is impressive. But you can’t help but think that the creativity, at least as far as the storytelling goes, got way out ahead of itself. A lot of story elements don’t make much sense, at least at first glance, and the predictability of the plot is off the charts. The sum of all those parts leaves much to be desired.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The Hurt Locker

I need to be cautious here. This is a good movie. A good movie. But this is not a Best Picture movie. I suspect that award had much more to do with the politics of the award-givers, and what they wanted to say, versus the actual quality of this film. The performances ring true, the direction is well done, and the scenes look for all the world like they really were filmed in Iraq in 2004. But again, this film is less a narrative plot than a series of scenes/vignettes on the subject of war and what it does to people (a.k.a. the Saving Private Ryan effect). I'm starting to think that this represents a trend in moviemaking on the subject of war; why the reluctance to show a real war story, instead of just a pastiche representing feelings about the conflict? Is there something there that filmmakers are trying to hide? Avoid? What's going on here? Answering those questions might eventually yield some real Best Picture war movie material.

Saturday, July 5, 2003

Memento

The moral of this story: sometimes you can't even trust yourself. That's not a bad thing to keep in mind, even if your short term memory is not on the fritz. Besides that, this one is clever enough; you almost certainly will get lost in the rewind narrative at least once, but don't sweat it. And Guy Pearce once more makes the case that he's the Aussie with the heavy-duty acting chops.