tcarnam
Joined Mar 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews4
tcarnam's rating
Total groaner.
As noted in subject line, full of empty, easy characters. Dialogue was rarely better than stilted, and often not even that. Acting was mostly atrocious. A wan, sickly, etiolated cousin of Unforgiven, which was a fantastic, fantastic, fantastic movie, and which, I don't know, Eastwood must have wanted to remake with some kind of Catholic and/or redemptive (ethnically speaking) theme. (Is this what happens when you get old? You start to wrap things up and think about redemptive things? God, Clint, just write a memoir.)
Eesh; stay away if you care about Clint Eastwood's legacy.
As noted in subject line, full of empty, easy characters. Dialogue was rarely better than stilted, and often not even that. Acting was mostly atrocious. A wan, sickly, etiolated cousin of Unforgiven, which was a fantastic, fantastic, fantastic movie, and which, I don't know, Eastwood must have wanted to remake with some kind of Catholic and/or redemptive (ethnically speaking) theme. (Is this what happens when you get old? You start to wrap things up and think about redemptive things? God, Clint, just write a memoir.)
Eesh; stay away if you care about Clint Eastwood's legacy.
Not gonna get too much into it, will just say that it was pretty good, though with a little work to the script (dialogue, yes, but also how it evoked Crockett's and Tubbs's lives and identities outside of their lives/identities undercover), it could have neared excellent.
Visually, it was beautiful, though this should come as no surprise given who directed it. I was also satisfied stylistically; an updated remake, yes, but for the most part it held true (to the original series) in terms of pattern and theme (i.e., cars, boats, guns, clothes, clubs).
The acting was, given the limitations of a script that didn't really demand all too much of players, pretty good.
The script was, as I wrote above, adequate, but not something I would lavish with any significant praise. There were two scenes where the dialogue ventured well into the territory of trite, but only two scenes, and, more problematically, I wanted to be made more aware of the lines that were being blurred (by their going deep, deep undercover).
On the whole, though, this was good entertainment. The music was good, the action sequences were well-wrought, the tension was kept in-line with a narrative arc that did basically had no missteps. And like I said, it's a beautiful movie.
Visually, it was beautiful, though this should come as no surprise given who directed it. I was also satisfied stylistically; an updated remake, yes, but for the most part it held true (to the original series) in terms of pattern and theme (i.e., cars, boats, guns, clothes, clubs).
The acting was, given the limitations of a script that didn't really demand all too much of players, pretty good.
The script was, as I wrote above, adequate, but not something I would lavish with any significant praise. There were two scenes where the dialogue ventured well into the territory of trite, but only two scenes, and, more problematically, I wanted to be made more aware of the lines that were being blurred (by their going deep, deep undercover).
On the whole, though, this was good entertainment. The music was good, the action sequences were well-wrought, the tension was kept in-line with a narrative arc that did basically had no missteps. And like I said, it's a beautiful movie.
The movie is basically a 6, maybe even a 5, but the acting really helps. Don Cheadle does a striking job, but of course we don't expect much less from him at this point. Also measuring up to expectations were Matt Dillon, Keith David and Tony Danza, though his part was small. Surprisingly good were Michael Pena, Ryan Philippe, and Ludicrous, who, looking back on all of this, might even be the sleeper of the cast.
Unfortunately, outside of the acting this was just an obvious, unimaginative, clunky movie. It's late, I don't really feel like getting into it, so I'll let it suffice to say that if you're the kind of person who likes ambiguous fiction, if you prefer art that asks you questions, leaves you with frayed and stringy ends for you to decide what to do with, then this movie is not for you. It gives you all the answers loud and clear, sometimes in the form of a cell phone ringer and the text that accompanies it.
But like I said, the acting is pretty great at times. Certainly it's worth a video rental just to see Cheadle, and if you combine Ludicrous and Matt Dillon, you might even find it worthwhile to see a matinée.
Unfortunately, outside of the acting this was just an obvious, unimaginative, clunky movie. It's late, I don't really feel like getting into it, so I'll let it suffice to say that if you're the kind of person who likes ambiguous fiction, if you prefer art that asks you questions, leaves you with frayed and stringy ends for you to decide what to do with, then this movie is not for you. It gives you all the answers loud and clear, sometimes in the form of a cell phone ringer and the text that accompanies it.
But like I said, the acting is pretty great at times. Certainly it's worth a video rental just to see Cheadle, and if you combine Ludicrous and Matt Dillon, you might even find it worthwhile to see a matinée.