Paul Haggis has a reputation as a director, I do not think he deserves. I think it's a good writer and his works grow much when they fall into the hands of class filmmakers (Clint Estwood used Million Dollar Baby and Flags of Our Fathers , in addition to his argument for the master Letters from Iwo Jima ) or when you move familiar characters (His is the script for the reinvention of James Bond in Casino Royale ). But when he directs his scripts, he can not hold back. He handed in to me sobrevaloradísima Crash (who snatched a 2006 Academy Award for best film at the much more complex and underestimated Munich). I happened again in the somewhat failed In the Valley of Elah . And it happens again in the next three days . The story has great ideas, but the most interesting are quite poorly developed and those that do is the final dismount on a complacent and absurdity that reveals the work of a director much more able than it denotes the good direction of actors. Thankfully, we'll always have Russell Crowe, a monster of interpretation.
-
Count argument The next three days, reaching almost implies the anger that leaves its final flojísimo, so I will refrain from giving many details. The theme of the film is the limit of human ethics, what would you be willing to do for the person you love in a real world where the boundaries of decency. That is what Paul Haggis explained in more than two hours of film. Or, it would be more correct to say, which seeks to expose. And all those good intentions just shattered in the last fifteen minutes, where the author of this film is formed to close the intrigues of the simplest way possible and settle moral debates raised with a simplicity almost insulting. It is an end, pardon the expression, for dummies, where everything has to be thoroughly explained and where everything has to satisfy a weak and cowardly moralizing, far away from the approaches that had been planted in some moments of the film, especially during the first hour, the slowest but also the most interesting of the film.
-
is actually a movie that can be divided into four parts. The first consists the first two scenes and is brilliant. A magnificent scene of dialogue and then laying the foundations of history. Both have the force and engage the viewer (I repeat, give details would ruin it). The second part, the slower it is also the longest. It works largely because it is required to file the characters wear, a development and all the moral dilemmas posed by the extraordinary situation they are living. But all these dilemmas are presented, and very few are developed. The third part, which in any other movie would have been the climax takes on a frantic pace ... and somehow still works seen separately. And it gives impression that is part of a completely different film, because it has no interest in developing the issues raised, only to settle the conflict. And fourth, the conclusions, is what ends up ruining the approach. Is that a good director, the script would have fallen, or at least rewritten. But here it is, surely, as it was conceived by Haggis and does not work.
-
Best of The next three days is certainly Russell Crowe. I think there are very few players like him in the film contemporary. Has such a range of records that gives the same paper, always be able to cope with a category immense. It's amazing to see human misery and suffering its inner conflict experienced by the face that gave life, for example, Maximus in Gladiator . Here is a hero of a piece, but a tortured man. Determined, but suffering. Unpayable the two scenes by the phone from prison, in isolation and together as a sign of his character development suffers. Notable is also the short paper, almost a cameo, Liam Neeson, but the force that has diluted his speech the Haggis at the end. Elizabeth Banks suffer the character that best reflects the indecision of Haggis. Here are some of the brightest ideas of the film, but all are diluted in a moment or another of the film. It also gives some regret that the character of Olivia Wilde not give for more than an excuse to end the screenwriter and director. Brian Dennehy (what a pleasure it is to see this man after so many films of him in the 80!) Itself takes his minutes on the screen.
-
The feeling that makes the next three days is disappointment, even contradictory. On the one hand, is an effective thirller that plays relatively well with temporal ellipses and takes some advantage of its protagonists. The other is a film that leaves a final message complacent and cheat their distribution not known well how to sell. When you see the announcement of this movie on TV, just find pictures of the final section, the highest rate, and Liam Neeson scene that ultimately discredited Haggis with resolution of his story. And that's not the movie at hand. There is a fast-paced thriller, but its final section then you get closer to their borders. Nor is a story reflective epicenter characters, because their final away that feeling and that Haggis does not know where to take us in that reflection. So the next three days remains in a failed attempt to make a great movie, it could have been quite transgrersora and devastating if it had opted for other ways, with some pros but with too many arguments against it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment