|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Dec 10, 2010 19:52:21 GMT
This UK reviewer agrees with you, Rueful, about it not being as bad as we were led to believe - in fact, it's a glowing review, and the film gets 5 stars! Verdict: Preposterous tosh, and hugely enjoyable
Rating: ***** Have you ever watched an old Hitchcock caper starring Cary Grant and murmured ‘they don’t make them like that any more’? If so, The Tourist is the picture for you.
It’s a glossy, sophisticated, gloriously improbable romp — escapist fun for these austere times.
A shy, unassuming American tourist on a train to Venice (Johnny Depp in the Cary Grant role) is lured by an absurdly glamorous Englishwoman (Angelina Jolie, never more sensually enigmatic) into a devilish web of dangerous intrigue.
First, the British police (under a grumpy Timothy Dalton and a fanatical Paul Bettany) and then Russian gangsters (led by a Bond-villainish Steven Berkoff) wrongly identify him as an elusive master-criminal.
He’s also being followed by a dark, handsome, mystery man (Rufus Sewell at his most laconic). Who on earth could that be?
The Tourist has been promoted as an Oscar contender, but it’s nothing of the sort. It is a luxurious trifle with nothing serious to say — a vastly superior version of the Tom Cruise-Cameron Diaz misfire, Knight And Day.
The good news is that there are twists and chases a-plenty, and it juggles its hoary old clichés with supreme confidence.
A remake of an abstruse 2005 French thriller called Anthony Zimmer (which starred Yvan Attal and Sophie Marceau), it’s written with tongues firmly in cheek by the director, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, who gave us the much more critically respectable The Lives Of Others, that consummate professional Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park) and Christopher McQuarrie, whose best work this is since The Usual Suspects.
At least three other scribes were involved — Jeffrey Nachmanoff, William Wheeler and Jerome Salle, but their names appear to have dropped off the credits, along with any mention of Anthony Zimmer.
The film’s had more than its share of production difficulties, with a couple of directors (Lasse Hallstrom and Bharat Nalluri), two male stars (Tom Cruise and Sam Worthington) and one leading lady (Charlize Theron) all falling by the wayside.
Fortunately, those problems aren’t visible onscreen. It may be significant that none of those who have dropped out has ever been noted for his or her sense of humour.
The end product is extremely silly, bordering on high camp — so much so that it might easily have been directed by Baz Luhrmann.
I guessed what it was up to from reel one, but that didn’t stop me from being thoroughly entertained all the way to its joyously barmy conclusion.
Not to be taken even half-way seriously, this is — if you’re on the right, ironic wavelength — the most nostalgic of escapist pleasures.www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1337308/The-Tourist-A-Jolie-adventure-Johnny.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Dec 10, 2010 20:35:38 GMT
Hmmm, well I wouldn't go as far as "hugely enjoyable." I'd stick with, "not unpleasant." It aspires to Hitchcock caper, and plotwise, it's probably no more ridiculous than any of those old movies, but as I mentioned, I didn't think the dialog was up to snuff. Think of the long, subtle conversations between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief or CG and Eve Marie Saint in North by Northwest, or Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn in Charade. In The Tourist, the witty exchanges between Depp and Jolie are very brief. Instead they mostly have fairly brief verbal exchanges, and then give each other a lot of long, meaningful stares. I really think the script--or maybe editorial cuts that focused a lot on action/motion rather than dialog--makes a lot of difference in how this turned out. In all of the old movies I mentioned above, Cary Grant was essentially playing Cary Grant, as the audience knew him or thought of him. However, the wit of the scripts gave him so much to play with, that you didn't really mind. And the women in those movies may have been archetypes, but they were types who were written to have distinct personalities. i might be courageous and go see it tonite. i hope its interstingly bad at least, its been a while since i have not written a mean review. i am in the MOOOOOOOOOOOD Hey, Tip! Great to see you again! You write great reviews, whether they're mean or nice, so I hope you bite the bullet and take on The Tourist.
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Dec 10, 2010 22:12:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kygal on Dec 11, 2010 0:02:17 GMT
Oh...I like that last statement. The family and I plan to see this Saturday. Glad my teen kids will be seen with their parents! I plan to go just for Rufus; my son for AJ ;my daughter for JD: and my non-movie lover hubby must be going because he wants something (golf trip). Will let ya know soon without spoiling to much.
Thanks Rueful...I am now looking forward to it!
|
|
|
Post by rumantic on Dec 11, 2010 4:36:46 GMT
Entertainment Weekly said very much the same thing....they also specifically made reference to To Catch A Thief, although they made no mention of Rufus at all, not even in the cast listing.
I love Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn...also Alfred Hitchcock. When I first saw Charade, I couldn't believe I'd never seen it before. It's one of my favorites. I especially love the scene where Cary Grant takes a shower in his 'wash-and-wear' suit....
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Dec 11, 2010 5:38:31 GMT
NOTICE TO NEW MEMBERS: I WRITE LOOOOONG AND PAINFUL REVIEWS, MY APOLOGIES! TO OLD MEMBERS: YOU KNOW ENOUGH NOT TO DIVE IN THE FOLLOWING, SO DON'T COME AND COMPLAIN!
Just got back from the movies. In fact, not exactly just, since I stopped on the way to get a delicious Whistle Dog (extra mustard), from A&W. About The Tourist, it is really not as bad as critics say, Rueful was right about that But that thing that one critic said, that Rufus appears in it for about 10 seconds, it's true. So, it means that I paid about 1,10$ Canadian dollars for each second I got to watch Rufus (his back included). If I include the Whistle Dog, and the tip, that makes it roughly 1,60$ per second. But I HAD to go, because Rufus is in it. I hope this lovely man understands the extremes to which our unconditional love for him may bring us. I do not know how I can review The Tourist, though, because there is not much I can say, usually, without giving away the punch of a movie – that is one big problem I have, and why I better not be a movie critic. So I will stick to superficial comments, and mix this “review” with a review of something else. I will not spoil the movie for you, and you might be interested by the twist of my “review”. Or not.
Superficial Comment #1: RUFUS. To say that Rufus is gorgeous is the biggest understatement of all times. OHMYGOD. Big screen, big rufus, big green eyes, big wry grins, OHMYGOD. Every second worth every 1,60$ (even his back).
Superficial Comment #2: THIS IS A SPY MOVIE. Well, that is not revealing too much, is it? But it is true. And so it reminded me of another “oeuvre” that recently caught my attention. I am in the middle of a “Spooks (MI-5)” marathon on Netflix (up to season 4 now), and this series is soooooooooooooooooo unbelievingly good. For those who do not know, it is a British series portraying the activities of an MI-5 anti-terrorist division. Hopefully, I will get back to The Tourist in a moment. Especially good are the first seasons, with Matthew Macfaddyen and his wife and the young black guy and the other guy whose penis was awarded the Oscar for Best Performance in a Supporting Role in Equus (almost did not recognize his face, I had not focused on it then); they are all so good (although I have to point out to salacious minds that the oscarized appendix does not make an appearance). Especially good is this episode when the team is prisoner to “the Grid” because of something that may or may not be an exercize about London being subjected to a terrorist attack, and Matthew Macfaddyen more or less becomes the King of World, and is faced with the fun and convivial prospect of shooting visitors in the face and … but I digress. I mean… you actually can accept the fact that Macfaddyen & Co. can blend in with normal, real people. They are cute, sure, but still you see people like that on the street every day. You buy it when Macfaddyen pretends to be a computer expert, a beggar, or a medieval monk, because... oups. Strike out that last one, wrong series.
Superficial Comment #3: JOHNNY. Depp could pull it off, at the limit. But he is not a spy here. Oups. He was so much better as a pirate or as Edward Scissorhands. Funnier too.
Superficial comment #4: ANGELINA. But Jolie? Never. In The Tourist she could as well be wearing a big neon sign over her head saying I AM A TOP MODEL / A MAJOR ACTRESS AND FEMALE ICON / A SPY / ALL OF THE ABOVE = PICK YOUR CHOICE. I doubt very much that someone like that, unbelievably gorgeous, and so fashionably and expensively dressed, standing out from the crowd (with our without a neon sign over her head), could ever pull it off as a spy. I am fed up with trying to defend Jolie as an actress. She has to do her part, and be one. I know she was good in her very first movies, now she sucks. She can do it! After all, we have seen George Clooney evolve from ACTOR-AS-A-CHRONIC-TORTICOLLIS-SUFFERER to POLYVALENT-DRAMA/COMEDY/ROMANCE-ACTOR-AND-SOCIAL-ACTIVIST. So certainly Jolie CAN go back to TROUBLED-BUT-DEEPLY-GIFTED-LOONEY-BIN-GODDESS from her current POUTING-SEXY-MOM-AND-SOCIAL-ACTIVIST act.YES SHE CAN!! Only, not in this movie. But she is gorgeous, though.
Superficial comment #5: HUMOR. There are jokes in The Tourist (inadvertent or not). It is not dark. That is something the movie has over Spooks. In Spooks, you have no jokes, except once in every 6 or 7 eps a character will say something meaningfully tongue-in-cheek, and another character might pull a tendon in the face by cracking a smile. Otherwise, you are more likely to get some deep thought on the Sorry State of Our World, Morals, Ethics, and so on and so forth. Its very dark. I mean, these are serious people, doing serious things. They are watch dogs for a balanced world order, for god's sake.
Superficial comment #6: RUFUS. And also Rufus has never been on Spooks. You can tell, can't you, that I am trying to be discreet about the plot?
Superficial comment #7: TRENDY LOCATIONS. In The Tourist, you get shiny Paris and gleaming Venice. In Spooks, you get cloudy London, ugly abandoned lots, lilliputian flats, or, if you are in luck, the English countryside (after sundown) passing for a Middle-Eastern Al Qaeda camp. Ok, “the Grid” looks like a funky place to work in, but it lacks proper lighting, it's cold and generally depressing, especially when all major characters keep being killed, deported or fired, and you end up with strangers filling in as if nothing happened.
Superficial comment #8: FIREGUNS. In Spooks, spooks do not necessarily carry guns, and when they do, they hate using it, at least not before they had a deep, thoughtful conversation about the Sorry State of Our World, Morals, Ethics, and so on and so forth. Ok, so, once in a while they get to shoot down a terrorist, a corrupt politician, or an irritating supervisor, but whenever they do, it's messy, ugly, dramatic, and events bring them deeper into their reflections upon the Sorry State of Our World, Morals, Ethics, and so on and so forth. In The Tourist, on the other hand, balistics costs are not a problem. Property is enthusiastically destroyed, blood does not stain the ancient and precious Venetian carpets, and no un-involved citizen is concerned by the noise.
Superficial comment #9: LA DOLCE VITA In Spooks, spooks have a purpose. It is explained to us how important their work is, and examples are shown. They save lives, if not the planet. They are shown having a job and working at it, sitting purposefully in front of a computer, in a meeting, being scolded by the irritating supervisor who had it coming whenever his second-in-command shoots him. When they walk on the street, when they drive a car (low profile, dark sedans) they have somewhere to go to. And, you guessed it, they are so much concerned about the Sorry State of Our World, Morals, Ethics, and so on and so forth. They even have money problems sometimes. Characters in The Tourist are not concerned by such trivial matters. They ride luxury trains and engage in mindless boat races in the Venetian canals. Paul Bettany's character does actually work, but he is about the only one, and he is not rewarded for his zeal.
Superficial comment #10: COOL THREADS. In Spooks, spooks dress casually. They dress homely. Lovely Keely Hawes was once spotted wearing knee-high socks with a shapeless 1978 skirt (she was undercover as a school teacher, you see). Matthew Macfaddyen basically wore the same jacket for 2 ½ seasons, an admittedly trendy one, but still. Beautiful Nicholas Walker borrows her clothes from her grandma, and rarely visits a hairdresser. The irritating boss who gets shots by underlings basically has worn the same overcoat from Season 1 to (for me) mid-Season 4. Since one attractive character was dismissed by being dipped into a deep fry cooker earlier on, the others have learnt their lesson, and since then annually compete as the Most Inadequate Dresser of the Season. No such silliness in The Tourist. Clothes are strictly designer, they appear out of nowhere, especially on Angelina, who never carries a bag larger than a panty liner, though her clothes magically change from one scene to the next, always impeccable and sexy.
ADVICE TO MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANIES #1. Do not hire music score composers who worked on The Tourist. Trying to get that specific Hitchcock feeling, they created a monster. At one point where you witness a conversation between Paul Bettany and his colleagues, you have the feeling that the score is a big bad creature that will jump out from the screen and devour the whole audience (we were 37 in the theater, and it would have been just one mouthfull).
ADVICE TO MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANIES #2. Do not hire the caterers who serviced this movie. Almost every actor involved looks either too thin, or about to be sick to his stomach.
There you go. Have fun at the movies!!!
|
|
|
Post by catdishy on Dec 11, 2010 10:40:47 GMT
Tipou, hilarious as ever, fun review. Looking forward to seeing it tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by judypatooty on Dec 11, 2010 12:31:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by VictoryGirl on Dec 11, 2010 12:43:45 GMT
And next weekend I'll go to the cinema with my mam!
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Dec 11, 2010 15:05:24 GMT
What a brilliant review, Tip. As usual, you are able to find comparisons that make everything clear!! To say that Rufus is gorgeous is the biggest understatement of all times. OHMYGOD. Big screen, big rufus, big green eyes, big wry grins, OHMYGOD. Every second worth every 1,60$ (even his back). You said it! I kept wishing I had a giant-screen DVR, so I could pause, rewind, and pause again. That is one pretty, pretty man. I am fed up with trying to defend Jolie as an actress. She has to do her part, and be one. I know she was good in her very first movies, now she sucks. This is where you and I will disagree a teeny, tiny bit. I don't think she came off as a real person, but I think that was by design (not necessarily hers). She had relatively few lines, considering she was ostensibly the co-lead. Sure, she could have projected more warmth, but I don't think that's how the director perceived the character, judging by the camera work. So I think she was directed to act like that. I probably shouldn't re-quote the reviewer I quoted on the last page, but I'm going to anyway: I think the director and writers viewed the character as some sort of goddess, and goddesses are distant. Maybe Jolie does suck as an actress, I haven't seen her in enough to know, but I'm not blaming her for this one.
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Dec 11, 2010 16:36:53 GMT
well, true, such was her role, still, i believe that a true actress, even then should diffuse something more. otherwise, its the equivalent of just showing up at the office. this being said, eva marie saint did not do any better in north by northwest - most of hitchcock's female characters were such cold icons. so lets settle with: angelina did an ok job. but, boy, was she gorgeous...
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Dec 11, 2010 17:04:40 GMT
Darn, Tipou, you used to be so much easier to pick a fight with!
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Dec 11, 2010 17:47:02 GMT
i will fight about chocolate or about a 100$ bill. today is satruday, i am still in pj's and i feel strangely pacifist.
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Dec 11, 2010 17:54:06 GMT
You are still basking in the glow of big-screen Rufus.
|
|
|
Post by judypatooty on Dec 11, 2010 19:37:58 GMT
Well, I'm seated at Cafe Adobe, enjoying a Saturday afternoon margarita and lunch while I try to come up with a few original words about The Tourist. Words are failing me, so I'll just go with Rueful's phrase "not unpleasant." . It was neither so awful (nor so enjoyable) as the professional reviewers have made it out to be. I would give it a solid 3 stars (out of 5). It really drags in places, the script sucks, and Tipou is 100% correct about the hideous music. But it is a gorgeous-to-look-at film It was well worth $7.75 for less than five minutes of big-screen Rufus, though. Definitely worth it! (A girl loses her big-screen Rufus virginity only once in her life, you know.) Also, like Rueful, I wished more than once that I had a remote control so I could pause the film and just enjoy the Rufus view. I did enjoy the ending, though. They really did fool me all the way through. I had no idea that Frank really was Alexander! Rufus was exactly right. His character was a MacGuffin!
|
|