Midnight in Paris Review

Midnight in Paris is a strange movie, but somehow, it works. In fact, it works so well, I believe it is one of the best films of 2011. It combines awkward situations and funny moments to create something that only Woody Allen could accomplish. The story is simple. A couple goes to Paris for business, and both of them have their lives changed. The man of the couple, Gil, hopes to stay in Paris for the rest of their lives, while the woman want's to go back to the U.S.A after they're done. The character interaction is set up very well, and the lines are equally as amazing. The main character, Gil, is a very intelligent man, but he's very awkward, so he doesn't seem as if he's smart to the other characters, as they're more annoyed with him than intrigued. The story itself is just easy to follow, like I said above, and yet, it really does show how much it can accomplish. Now, even though I really adore this movie for it's story, cinematography, and just overall charm, it does have a few flaws, and the perfect way to express that is with the characters. Yes, I do admit to liking Gil a lot, especially with an excellent performance be Owen Wilson and dialogue by Woody Allen, the rest of the characters are a mixed bag. Inez is likable at times, but most of the time, she seems like she completely hates Gil, and disagree's with everything he says, which is annoying because Gil is a very likable character. Sure, when Gil says he met Pablo Picasso, her reaction is understandable, but when he corrects her friend on a historical inaccuracy, she basically throws a fit, which can really be annoying throughout the movie. Also, the rest of the supporting characters can be unlikable as well. However, the flaws in the characters can really be made up with the acting. Everyone did a great job acting, even if their characters were mediocre at best. They make the characters seem almost lifelike, no matter how unlikable they become. Now, because it's a recurring trend in my reviews, it's time for "The Best and Worst of Midnight in Paris". The best HAS to be the cinematography. It's basically like watching a "Best of Paris" video made by a pro photographer, with a great story intertwined with it. It really does leave you speechless, and to see these characters even interact with such great monuments is a joy. The worst thing about this movie... Even though I'm tempted to say the characters, the actors that played them did well, so I'll have to say the filler. Sure, the filler isn't horrible, but it leaves you bored, just watching two or three characters have overlong conversations about a novel or something. Sure, there's some good filler in the film, but for the most part, it feels boring. Now, this film isn't perfect, it has it's flaws, but the impression it leaves on you seems almost... magical. It's very memorable and very enjoyable, minus a few flaws. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and besides the few flaws, it's perfectly watchable. Recommended to everyone who enjoys a good romantic comedy.

5/5

Cleopatra (1934 Film) Review

Oh boy, another movie people love that I hate. Actually, I'd put it up there with Rear Window and Gladiator as the most overrated film. Look, I do admit, Claudette Colbert did OK, the special effects were great for the time, and Cecil B. DeMille did good for one of his earlier projects, but this is just a bland history lesson I really didn't care about. It barely even has a plot! It's just flashy special effect with about 4 major plot points, and you don't even care about the characters, so why would the major events matter if you don't even care about what happens to these characters? I think the worst part about these characters is they lack any real emotion, and even if they do have an emotion, it doesn't last long. It's just a bland special effects movie, that's it. Sure, the special effects are good, but you got to have a movie to go with it, and this isn't a movie. It's a mess. The story is basically a biography of, who else, Cleopatra. Nothing wrong with that, except it was executed horribly. They didn't develop the characters, they didn't make them likable, and they didn't make them realistic. Also, the editing was all over the place, and the filmmakers obviously thought special effects top story, which is quite false. The acting is just the same. Sure, Colbert did OK as Cleopatra, but everyone else was just boring and uninteresting. Finally, the characters are also not executed well. Nobody had any good lines, nobody had anything interesting to say or do, and that's a real disappointment, because the history of Cleopatra herself is very interesting and worth a read, but when it was translated to film... Oh boy. The first Cleopatra movie is now lost, only about 5 seconds of the film even exist as we now know. The second film, this one, is, like I said, a boring bland mess. The final major Cleopatra movie to host the one word name was the 1963 version, said to be the most expensive movie ever made, well, up until the third Pirates of the Caribbean, but that's beside the point. Even though it was very expensive and starred several big name actors like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the film flopped at the box office, and critics loathed the film. As for me, I just watched the most beloved movie of the 3, and I thought it sucked. Now what hope do I have for this story? Now, it's time for "The Best and Worst of Cleopatra". The best, obviously, is the special effects. Now, I shall give credit where credit is due, these special effects are outstanding. They must have spent a lot of time and money on them, and Cecil B. DeMille helped make the special effects come alive in the environment. The worst has to be the dialogue. I know, there's a lot of things I hate about this film, but when one of the main character says that "He's to manly to hiccup", you can tell the dialogue sucks. Overall, I really do hate this film. It put's special effects before story, without even giving us a unique story to begin with. Not recommended.

1/5