bad movie
Added 7/20/2009
My biggest problem with this movie involves the script, which has too many characters who appear and disappear, and is far too long.
Secondly, the characters do not relate to one another in any meaningful way.
Jude Law and his wife are not connected. Jude Law and the boy's mother are equally unconnected. Jude Law, who appears to be a successful architect, never works, never has emotions, and is as drab as his boring wardrobe.
Only the minor characters actually show some humanity and distinction but they are too few and far between in a dismal movie.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Unbelievable Coupling
Added 8/13/2008
My and and I just didn't buy Jude Law and Robin Wright-Penn as a couple. Nor the supposed attraction and sexual tension between Law and Binoche. Of the three I think Wright-Penn stands out the most, followed by the girl who plays her daughter Bea. The other interesting part was the antics of the young man playing the agile monkey boy. I wouldn't watch this film again.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Didn't do it for me
Added 12/29/2007
It takes the first 45 minutes before some things starts to happen and then still it feels very stiffled. What came to mind watching this was the book "Unholy Hunger", as it displays very well the feeding happening in human relating on planet Earth. Everyone is feeding on somebody else; sometimes it is mutual feeding and at other times it is distinctly predatorial. Not a pretty sight.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Great idea....poor execution
Added 12/28/2007
Just because it's Anthony Minghella does not mean we forget what good film-making is all about.
The positives: I loved the shots of King's Cross, and I fondly remember the times I spent their in my student days (and all-nighters!) at The Scala Cinema. I liked the way the regeneration of this area was woven into the plot as a contrast to the crumbling relationship of Will and Liv. Binoche is great, and I loved the cameo by Juliet Stevenson who seemed very believable and low-key. The Kafka joke was a great line.
The negatives: Jude law was poor; he needs acting lessons to drag out of him what little acting talent he has. OK, he's a fashionable name but his acting is poor and he was simply not believable in this role. I know a fashionable name gets you investors which you need to make this kind of film, but it ultimately undermines the whole film if they seriously under-perform. There was no real depth. The plot held together shakily and was so full of cliches my groaning woke the neighbours: the tart with a heart; Serbian refugees as organized criminals; ice-cold (American) Swedish hottie etc etc.
The ending was just plain sad and unconvincing.
Shame really, the idea was great.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
An over ambitious movie that falls flat.
Added 12/17/2007
Breaking and Entering, starring Jude Law, contains a meandering morass of a plot that involves the love of his life played by an emaciated Robin Wright-Penn, her slightly autistic daughter, a young Serbian boy who involves himself in thieving from Law's business, and the young boys mother-played by Binoche. Oh and a immigrant prostitute from Russia also makes an appearance for good measure.
If that sounds like a hodgepodge quagmire of characters- it's because it is. All of them tangle together quite nicely over Law, however, and the plot does make a bit of sense, I'll give it that- But never enough to make this a truly good film.
The movie starts with a ring of thieves that break into Will's (Law) architecture office set up in the slums of King's Cross, London. Will is into revitalizing the lesser parts of London, but, naturally all the locals see is an opportunity to make some illicit money.
The lynch pin of the ring is a young Serbian boy who's acrobatic skills enable him to launch himself into the building and turn off the security system- a system subverted by a delivery service who has the codes- so that the rest of the gang, headed up by his dubious uncle, can get in and ransack the place.
After this happens twice, Will and his business partner decide to stake out the place, until one night Will spots the boy then follows him home. For some unknown reason, Will holds off on officially reporting him to the law, and decides to check out the boys home under the guise of getting the boy's mom, Amira (Binoche), to do some work for him. (He met Amira once before by accident, but that's too much to explain right now.)
While in the apartment, Will sees evidence of the boy's misdeeds, but finds himself hopelessly drawn to Amira, despite the fact he's already in a long term relationship with Liv,(Wright-Penn).
But Will and Liv are having problems- she's shutting him out over the pressure of raising a child with special needs and he's desperate for "connection". A connection that he senses he can have with Amira.
Although initially ignorant of her son's connection to Will, the deception comes to light, as it naturally has too. But by that time, Amira's already falling for Will. When she decides to approach him on his deception, she instead takes him up on what he previously offered- the forgetfulness of sex. But she's got her own reasons for accepting the deal and I liked that twist quit a lot!
But here's the rub, what promises to be a steamy sexual encounter falls flat, even after the first hot and sticky kisses. And then ...Will goes back to Liv.
That's the other rub. Although I normally like to see redemption of a relationship in peril, the chemistry between Law & Binoche far outshines the on screen chemistry between him and Wright-Penn.
I was bothered by Wright-Penn's role too. Liv was depressed and frozen- which is really the part she was to play- but I just couldn't find much sympathy for her.
Unfortunately, this film felt more like Law's way to make up for his very public infidelities in real life rather than a look at the complexities of human relationships it was supposed to be.
In the end, the film just comes off as lifeless. Shame, considering the stellar cast and director.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Excellent exciting DVD
Added 10/16/2009
Enjoyed the DVD from start to exciting finish. It came on time and in condition shown.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Henry VIII, Hollywood Style
Added 9/24/2009
I saw this only about a week after having seen Ann of a Thousand Days so, of course, my mind was busy making comparisons. I'm not a student of English history but from what I've read here, "Ann" was much closer to actuality. It seems to me that if you're going to make a historical drama, tell the real story--otherwise why bother?
As far as casting is concerned, Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold were head and shoulders better than this group, with the exception of Kristin Scott-Thomas, who is always good. Apparently these were chosen for box office appeal. Scarlett Johannsen is a gifted "personality" (don't know if I'd really call her an actress.)
She is physically gorgeous and has a strong screen presence, which suits her very well for some roles. However here she was given the role of the shy, mousy sister--what a waste of glam-power. She played "dumb" a lot, often by looking blank and breathing through her mouth---not attractive.
Natalie Portman is very pretty and she can act a lot better than Scarlett, but neither one of them had the substance that one looks for in a drama of this sort. Let them stick to what they can do. The fellow who played Henry was certainly hunky and handsome which gave credence to the fact that both sisters fell for him so quickly-but he lacked the power and authority that made Burton so convincing in the role.
The script of Ann of a Thousand Days was much more flattering to Ann. She was shown as an innocent for most of the film and Bujold shone bright and clear in that role, which captured the sympathy of the viewer. I wept at the final scene, when she asked the executioner "if it would hurt" and declared that she had "a tiny neck." In this film, Ann was shown to be a calculating, duplicitous girl from the beginning so that I really didn't care what happened to her.
I am not always a stickler for historical accuracy but in this case I think some pretty big liberties were taken with the facts. Having Henry rape Ann was certainly a violation. Also the question of Ann and her brother having sex--did this happen or not? Was he gay? These are not minor issues--they are important to the plot and should have been shown truthfully.
If you really don't care about what really happened, then you can watch this film and enjoy the pretty people and lush costumes. Although those pretty people are prettier in other films.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Great film if taken as a work of fiction
Added 9/13/2009
I was a history major in college and was surprised by this storyline, or more surprised by people who believed it to be true. I haven't read the book but I took the movie as entertainment and a work of fiction and if judged by those standards you will love this beautiful, cunning tale.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
