Knight and Day

Knight and Day (Single-Disc Edition) I understand that "Roy" was birth-named Matthew Knight. It made sense. But Day? I have no idea where that comes from. Perhaps I simply wasn't paying enough attention, which is likely enough, because within just a few moments I knew this wasn't exactly a thinker.

This summer movie is just plain silly. Silly, silly, silly. I couldn't take it seriously for a moment. Although I enjoyed a few things, the stunts were all way over the top, the acting was good enough without being deep, and the plot itself moved quickly and relatively logically, the piece as a whole simply didn't have the capacity to hold anything more than the shallowest of entertainment.

For what it was, it was well-done, but I can't help wishing it were at least one thing of the many things it wasn't.

Comments

  1. LisaMay 19, 2011 at 9:10 PM

    The day didn't come from anything, at least as far as I know and I watched it twice. I liked it but I went in knowing that it wasn't going to be 'deep' or 'intense'. It was fun and silly without being ridiculous. And I felt that Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz were excellent in it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nancy RocheMay 19, 2011 at 10:09 PM

    It was fun, but sometimes fun just leaves me feeling empty. This film was one of those times. I wouldn't watch it again for less than fifty bucks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lost in Austen

Image
My co-worker warned me about Lost in Austen . She said it was cheesy, and from the few clips forced on me by a very fanatically-inclined little sister, I would have completely agreed. In context, though, I think it all sort of fit, although it's not exactly Emmy material. I really liked what they did to this story, but my reasoning is a bit complex. I have read Pride and Prejudice perhaps seven times. The only books I have read more often are Heart of Darkness (8) and The Book of Mormon (?). That doesn't mean that I like the work, just that my professors did. I admit, I liked the book very well the first three times. The romance was classic and endearing, and the language was fluid and fun. Then came Austenmania, and I jumped ship. Jane Austen wrote some enjoyable stories, but I wouldn't rank her any higher than Georgette Heyer (this coming from the same person who ranks Shakespeare with Steven Spielberg). And at this point, having seen every version of P&P ever fil
Read more

The Fountain

Image
This film should only be watched once. As a second-time viewer, I knew approximately how it ended, and how the three epic stories tied together, but it wasn't pleasant to watch. It wasn't pleasant the first time, but at least the images were striking, and felt like some kind of voyage of discovery. Watching this again was a bit like watching The Sixth Sense for the fourth time. The impact had disappeared. For most of the film, the camera moved toward those truly frustrating close-up, poser shots that so irritated me about Master and Commander . I understand that these are pretty people, and they earn the money, and so they get close-ups, but when it doesn't enhance the plot or the artistic composition as a whole - when it doesn't create unity, then it has no place. Actors should understand that, and have a serious heart-to-heart with their directors about it. I usually enjoy watching Rachel Weisz, but in this film she seemed flat, passive, and enervated. To be fa
Read more

Salt

Image
This film had all the elements of a classic cold-war spy thriller in much the same way State of Play reprised journalism drama. Both Liev Schreiber and Angelina Jolie played very well, especially off each-other, and although this film must essentially showcase stunts and physical effects, the plot and ending work quite well too, without becoming too belabored or falling into too many cliche traps. Salt is ultimately exciting and fun, but don't try to wrangle a classic out of it.
Read more