Lucky Number Slevin starts out with Bruce Willis explaining to someone what a Kansas City Shuffle is. The movie tells you up front what it is and even if it didn't you would be able to figure it out. As long as you have an iota of intelligence and also didn't doze off in the middle, not one element of this movie is surprising. Despite all that, it is still quite entertaining.
This movie has a lot of fun in the telling. In fact it has more fun in the telling that anything else. It has good actors having fun with enjoyable dialogue and an absurd plot hazy script. Most of the charm is oozed by Josh Hartnett as the unlucky Slevin. He wise cracks even when his situation seems rather dire, which really lets one know that despite it all, he is in control. The key point of these sort of bait and switch movies is not knowing what is happening and the genuine belief that what is happening to the lead guy is serious.
Here we have neither. This film is all about that sometimes optional sixth question of enquiry that we all learned in grade school. We know who, what, where, when and even why the events are taking place. We are not sure of the how it will go down and amazingly there is surprising entertainment in watching something so elaborate and absurd go down. There isn't really anyone in this movie who isn't chewing scenery like it was breakfast but I was still smiling throughout the film. This is just the kind of film you can watch, and probably re-watch again and again because it's just fun.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Inside Man
Heist movies have been done to death. We all know the basic idea behind them. Someone gets a brilliant plan, something goes wrong and the robber and a negotiator talk for time on end until a conclusion is reached. In Inside Man Lee doesn't actually move far away from this template. There are occasional moments of alteration and decent performances all around by the cast, but even then it often returns to an embarrassing cliche. In the end I found the movie still watchable but a great disappointment of my expectations.
There are some serious questions of morality and ethics brought up, but not a whole lot in the way of satisfactorily answering them. This movie is really about Clive Owen and Denzel Washington so much so that there isn't actually any reason that Willem Dafoe, Jodie Foster, and Chiwetel Ejiofer (an amazing new face in cinema) are in the movie. In as much as the chemistry of Owen and Washington, it is fun to watch but beyond it the movie is missing something. I can't be sure what.
There are some serious questions of morality and ethics brought up, but not a whole lot in the way of satisfactorily answering them. This movie is really about Clive Owen and Denzel Washington so much so that there isn't actually any reason that Willem Dafoe, Jodie Foster, and Chiwetel Ejiofer (an amazing new face in cinema) are in the movie. In as much as the chemistry of Owen and Washington, it is fun to watch but beyond it the movie is missing something. I can't be sure what.
Libertine
Johnny Depp is easily one of the best actors in cinema today and he always does an amazing job, but sometimes he picks roles because he feels they defy convention or the present interesting challenges for him as an actor. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the role is any good. The Libertine is one of those roles it seems like. Depp is crude and sexually overheated and a complete son of a bitch and for me utterly boring.
The point seems to be in this movie to utterly shock you with the actions of the sexually depraved 2nd Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. He was a real life 17th century earl who wrote raucous poetry. Plus is wholly uninteresting, at least as he is represented here. He has an affair with an actress played by the always delightful Samantha Morton and there is even a nice performance by Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife. None of the performances are bad, in fact all of them seem very technically proficient. But the story is so uninteresting that I didn't care. Wilmot states at the beginning that you will not like him and he is write I didn't like him. But I didn't hate him either. I was utterly nothing by him. The complete disinterest that he put in me made me disinterested in his story and everything else. And when it ended, I thought a good two hours of my life were gone and I would never get it back.
The point seems to be in this movie to utterly shock you with the actions of the sexually depraved 2nd Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. He was a real life 17th century earl who wrote raucous poetry. Plus is wholly uninteresting, at least as he is represented here. He has an affair with an actress played by the always delightful Samantha Morton and there is even a nice performance by Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife. None of the performances are bad, in fact all of them seem very technically proficient. But the story is so uninteresting that I didn't care. Wilmot states at the beginning that you will not like him and he is write I didn't like him. But I didn't hate him either. I was utterly nothing by him. The complete disinterest that he put in me made me disinterested in his story and everything else. And when it ended, I thought a good two hours of my life were gone and I would never get it back.
Failure To Be Good
As I've stated several times, I can sit down and enjoy a romantic comedy. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are completely obvious and cliched but usually the chemistry between the stars is interesting and of course the whole business is lighthearted. Sometimes, the filmmakers manage to make awful a fairly easy template to follow. Failure To Launch is on such case. It is a terribly uninteresting and unfunny romantic comedy. It isn't even terribly romantic. There is also a rather stupid inane allusion that if you aren't at peace with yourself, nature isn't at peace with you. This results in several unfunny scenes where an animal attacks Matthew McConaughey.
The story is a disaster of bad movie ideas, so we come to the actors, the only thing that could save this film. McConaughey is still playing that petulant, I don't want to grow up adult, that I've seen him play a thousand times now, or at least it feels that way. Sarah Jessica Parker is boring just like she was in last year's The Family Stone (2005). It seems clear that she shined most and brightest as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex And The City. Zooey Deschanel again plays her standard semi misanthropic Goth type which still has a strange allure for me, but doesn't save a film.
So, bad story: strike one. Unimpressive acting: strike two. Oh and the gratuitous and disturbing scene with a naked Terry Bradshaw. Well if that isn't strike three, what is?
The story is a disaster of bad movie ideas, so we come to the actors, the only thing that could save this film. McConaughey is still playing that petulant, I don't want to grow up adult, that I've seen him play a thousand times now, or at least it feels that way. Sarah Jessica Parker is boring just like she was in last year's The Family Stone (2005). It seems clear that she shined most and brightest as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex And The City. Zooey Deschanel again plays her standard semi misanthropic Goth type which still has a strange allure for me, but doesn't save a film.
So, bad story: strike one. Unimpressive acting: strike two. Oh and the gratuitous and disturbing scene with a naked Terry Bradshaw. Well if that isn't strike three, what is?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Oscar Aftermath
I never predicted winners for the Academy Awards. I never do, because it's not really about the best performance of the year, it's a popularity contest. I picked the people I thought should win, based on that standard that the Academy claims to use: Excellence. I thought Terrence Howard by far had the best performance of the nominated men, but I'm not terribly upset that Philip Seymour Hoffman won. He is talented and was very good in Capote (2005). Clooney's win was clearly not for his performance in Syriana (2005) but for his work on Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), which they decided not to honor unfortunately. Matt Dillon or Paul Giamatti probably should have won, but my own favorite William Hurt was phenomenal for the ten minutes he was on screen.
With regard to actresses, Reese Witherspoon won and I'm happy that it happened, I on a coin flip picked Keira Knightley but after much thought think, Reese Witherspoon had the better performance. It was not, however, better than Felicity Huffman's role in Transamerica (2005). I didn't see all of the female supporting acting noms, so I'll just hope that the Academy was right to give it to Rachel Weisz, but she must have been something to beat out Amy Adams who was the one great thing about Junebug (2005). I'll conclude with the belief that Crash (2005) won more out of white liberal guilt than any actual quality.
With regard to actresses, Reese Witherspoon won and I'm happy that it happened, I on a coin flip picked Keira Knightley but after much thought think, Reese Witherspoon had the better performance. It was not, however, better than Felicity Huffman's role in Transamerica (2005). I didn't see all of the female supporting acting noms, so I'll just hope that the Academy was right to give it to Rachel Weisz, but she must have been something to beat out Amy Adams who was the one great thing about Junebug (2005). I'll conclude with the belief that Crash (2005) won more out of white liberal guilt than any actual quality.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Vamps in the Future?!!?
I confess that when I saw the trailer for Ultraviolet I said to myself, "wow, that looks so bad I have to see it". I had no idea what it was about, in fact based on the early part of the trailer I was almost sure it was Resident Evil 3, but then I remembered that Milla Jovovich's name in Resident Evil was Alice not Violet. As it turns out Ultraviolet is about supernatural creatures, but not zombies, vampires.
As I watched the opening scene, one of the characters calls some recently killed men, "hemophages" and being the Classics dork that I am, I said to myself "blood eaters? so, they are vampires?" And sure enough not much later someone calls them vampires. Now these aren't your typical vampires, these are vampires that are caused by a virus and who can run around in daylight. What is the deal in cinema today that all the supernatural creatures have to be explained by a virus? Zombies are a virus (ala Resident Evil (2002)) and even Vampires are a virus (ala Blade (1998)).
I guess in a futuristic sci-fi film, you can't have ultimate evil. Still the film does combine two genres that I wasn't expecting, vampires and science fiction. Oh and did I mention it combines them badly. This movie is awful. It's so bad that it almost transcends it being terrible and becomes good, but it doesn't. There is technology in this world that is never explained, nor is the chronology of when this is taking place firmly set down. In some ways, mostly the bad ones, it reminded me of last year's Aeon Flux (2005).
That movie too was a ridiculous action fest centered around a disease and an oppressive dictatorial regime. To the credit of Ultraviolet it was actually more entertaining and less annoyingly pseudo-philosophic than Aeon Flux. It provided plenty of fight scenes and gun duels and neat special effects. Some of the special effects however, were horribly bad giving the impression of a mid 90s video game with block figures and all.
In the end all the bad acting, bad f/x, bad storyline and just general awfulness add up to a real winner of a film. It's like a comic book/supernatural/sci-fi geeks wet dream. Which is to say if you aren't all three of those to an extreme, you'll find this movie boring and indulgent.
As I watched the opening scene, one of the characters calls some recently killed men, "hemophages" and being the Classics dork that I am, I said to myself "blood eaters? so, they are vampires?" And sure enough not much later someone calls them vampires. Now these aren't your typical vampires, these are vampires that are caused by a virus and who can run around in daylight. What is the deal in cinema today that all the supernatural creatures have to be explained by a virus? Zombies are a virus (ala Resident Evil (2002)) and even Vampires are a virus (ala Blade (1998)).
I guess in a futuristic sci-fi film, you can't have ultimate evil. Still the film does combine two genres that I wasn't expecting, vampires and science fiction. Oh and did I mention it combines them badly. This movie is awful. It's so bad that it almost transcends it being terrible and becomes good, but it doesn't. There is technology in this world that is never explained, nor is the chronology of when this is taking place firmly set down. In some ways, mostly the bad ones, it reminded me of last year's Aeon Flux (2005).
That movie too was a ridiculous action fest centered around a disease and an oppressive dictatorial regime. To the credit of Ultraviolet it was actually more entertaining and less annoyingly pseudo-philosophic than Aeon Flux. It provided plenty of fight scenes and gun duels and neat special effects. Some of the special effects however, were horribly bad giving the impression of a mid 90s video game with block figures and all.
In the end all the bad acting, bad f/x, bad storyline and just general awfulness add up to a real winner of a film. It's like a comic book/supernatural/sci-fi geeks wet dream. Which is to say if you aren't all three of those to an extreme, you'll find this movie boring and indulgent.
Vamps in Russia
At first I was shocked that the most successful movie in Russian film history is so mediocre. But considering both Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace (1999) and Star Wars: Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith (2005) are in the top ten domestic box office, I guess Americans aren't too savvy either. To its credit, Night Watch (2004) tries hard and sometimes succeeds.
It provides a fantastic dark, dirty atmosphere of a Russian city that is powerful. I felt the desperation that the Warriors of Light were facing in a world that finds it "easier to kill the light within, than it is to overcome the darkness without." However, the story is a bit erratic and the acting wooden. It is a movie that is desperately trying to be more than a big budget action flick which I applaud, but it fails. It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialogue, which didn't make sense anyway because the writer was trying to create his own cosmology.
Most peculiarly, was the head bad guy's playing some bizarre Playstation type game that was apparently predicting the future. I found it a bit odd that the lord of all evil on earth was apparently addicted to video games. There is a reveal near the end of the film which is fully telegraphed from almost the beginning of the movie. There was an interesting dynamic between the main character Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov). The antagonism between them boils over mid film and no doubt will play in the later two films.
The film is open ended due to the fact that the film was conceived in three parts and the sequel is soon on the way. It had a decently put together ending if not entirely original that made me at least curious to see what happens next. Hopefully freed from all the necessary first film expository dialogue it will flow better than this film.
It provides a fantastic dark, dirty atmosphere of a Russian city that is powerful. I felt the desperation that the Warriors of Light were facing in a world that finds it "easier to kill the light within, than it is to overcome the darkness without." However, the story is a bit erratic and the acting wooden. It is a movie that is desperately trying to be more than a big budget action flick which I applaud, but it fails. It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialogue, which didn't make sense anyway because the writer was trying to create his own cosmology.
Most peculiarly, was the head bad guy's playing some bizarre Playstation type game that was apparently predicting the future. I found it a bit odd that the lord of all evil on earth was apparently addicted to video games. There is a reveal near the end of the film which is fully telegraphed from almost the beginning of the movie. There was an interesting dynamic between the main character Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov). The antagonism between them boils over mid film and no doubt will play in the later two films.
The film is open ended due to the fact that the film was conceived in three parts and the sequel is soon on the way. It had a decently put together ending if not entirely original that made me at least curious to see what happens next. Hopefully freed from all the necessary first film expository dialogue it will flow better than this film.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Three Burials
The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada (2005) tells an interesting story of friendship. The film starts with the discovery of a dead body that happens to be the titular character. From there events unfold while occasionally filling in back story with flashbacks. In these flashbacks, that could have been more filled out, we learn how Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones) met Melquiades (Julio Cedillo) and how they became friends. Meanwhile in the present time it becomes obvious that the sheriff isn't going to do anything although he knows who Melquiades' killer is.
Pete decides to take matters into his own hands and kidnaps the murderer Mike Norton(Barry Pepper). A unique journey begins at this point, as Pete feels required to keep a promise he made to bury Melquiades in Mexico in a place called Jiminez. This route rather than a traditional revenge motif was an interesting direction to go and also brought about the most bizarre of all motifs in a film like this, a sort of buddy travel movie for Pete and Mike.
The movie gets most interesting in the journey to Mexico and when it becomes clear that Pete only wants Mike to recognize what he has done and isn't going to kill him. There is also a bizarre moment when we find out that Melquiades wasn't completely honest with Pete. I'm not sure what its point was other than to provide a moment of doubt and hopelessness for Pete but it is effective and resolved in a very neat way.
There are problems with the movie but most are dismissable. There is a pointless subplot with a bored diner waitress and the wife of Norton, who inexplicably meets up with Melquiades at one point to no importance. The jumping back and forth from present to past at times was confusing because unless Melquiades himself was in the scene it was hard to determine if it was past or present. Still, the movie was very well done work for a big screen directorial debut for Tommy Lee Jones.
Pete decides to take matters into his own hands and kidnaps the murderer Mike Norton(Barry Pepper). A unique journey begins at this point, as Pete feels required to keep a promise he made to bury Melquiades in Mexico in a place called Jiminez. This route rather than a traditional revenge motif was an interesting direction to go and also brought about the most bizarre of all motifs in a film like this, a sort of buddy travel movie for Pete and Mike.
The movie gets most interesting in the journey to Mexico and when it becomes clear that Pete only wants Mike to recognize what he has done and isn't going to kill him. There is also a bizarre moment when we find out that Melquiades wasn't completely honest with Pete. I'm not sure what its point was other than to provide a moment of doubt and hopelessness for Pete but it is effective and resolved in a very neat way.
There are problems with the movie but most are dismissable. There is a pointless subplot with a bored diner waitress and the wife of Norton, who inexplicably meets up with Melquiades at one point to no importance. The jumping back and forth from present to past at times was confusing because unless Melquiades himself was in the scene it was hard to determine if it was past or present. Still, the movie was very well done work for a big screen directorial debut for Tommy Lee Jones.
Capote
Capote (2005) was very well made. We get to follow Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) throughout his writing of his book "In Cold Blood." It is an interesting look into the mind of a very profound writer. It also leaves you with the distinct feeling that he was a complete and utter asshole. The most interesting scenes are the ones that Capote shares with one of the killers, who has mesmerized Capote with his gentleness.
The film doesn't paint a completely perfect image of the killer as innocent, which was not probably the goal of the writer and director but it makes the reveal of the events of the murder narrated by the killer a bit less shocking. A reveal like that would have been one hell of a show. I can still remember when Edward Norton uttered the lines "there never was an Aaron, counselor" at the end of Primal Fear (1996).
In the end, I wasn't entirely sure I knew who Capote was. There isn't a satisfying arc in the film. He's kind of an asshole, but he kind of cares. Maybe that is what the real Capote was like, but it was underwhelming. A final text scrawl tells us he died of alcoholism complicatiosn some twenty years after the book was published. I probably would have been more interested in how the events of this movie affected his later life.
The film doesn't paint a completely perfect image of the killer as innocent, which was not probably the goal of the writer and director but it makes the reveal of the events of the murder narrated by the killer a bit less shocking. A reveal like that would have been one hell of a show. I can still remember when Edward Norton uttered the lines "there never was an Aaron, counselor" at the end of Primal Fear (1996).
In the end, I wasn't entirely sure I knew who Capote was. There isn't a satisfying arc in the film. He's kind of an asshole, but he kind of cares. Maybe that is what the real Capote was like, but it was underwhelming. A final text scrawl tells us he died of alcoholism complicatiosn some twenty years after the book was published. I probably would have been more interested in how the events of this movie affected his later life.
Dumb Movie
I saw on a tv ad that Date Movie (2006) was by two of the six writers of Scary Movie (2000). I guess that should have warned me, but Scary Movie had its moments. If truth in advertising were required, the ad probably would have said "by the two writers of Scary Movie who are neither funny and actually wrote all the unfunny stuff in that film." This movie is not even funny for a second. I don't even want to waste my time thinking about it anymore. Worst movie of the year so far, and yes, I'm including Bloodrayne in my accounting.
Petronius Eat Your Heart Out
What can one say about Fellini's Satyricon (1969). It's crazy. Which I think is what one would expect from something that is "freely" adapted from Petronius' Satyrica (an ancient Latin work composed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero). Having recently read the work, I think made it easier to follow, but one doesn't have to read it to enjoy it. The film is delightfully colorful and imaginative. One might get lost in the plot, but it isn't really about the plot so much as about a colorful, rich complex depiction of the world of the Satyricon. This movie has everything from a gladiatorial duel with a man dressed as a Minotaur to the eating of a man as his last will and testament. All the while being inundated with images that are fascinating to see.
Mean Creek
Mean Creek (2004) seems like its going to be a movie about bullies and it is to an extent. When a group of kids decide to play a prank on a bully they invite him to go on a boat ride down a creek. At first you begin to feel sorrow for this kid. You get a sense that his bullying is not intentionally hurtful, but that he is playing a role. You start to sympathize with him. But while he may not be as bad as he seems, there is still an underlying nastiness about him that makes him deplorable. You shift back and forth between wanting to like him and hating him.
When the climatic scene comes, I'm not sure anyone would say he deserved it, but one doesn't find oneself terribly sympathetic. The story pretty much degenerates from there. There are some semi interesting questions of whether retaliating against a bully is worth the effort, and some exploration of why a bully is, but nothing that satisfactorily answers the question. In the end I'm not sure what one is supposed to get out of Mean Creek. There are some decent performances by the young actors who make up the cast but the film misses its mark on the tragedy aspect.
When the climatic scene comes, I'm not sure anyone would say he deserved it, but one doesn't find oneself terribly sympathetic. The story pretty much degenerates from there. There are some semi interesting questions of whether retaliating against a bully is worth the effort, and some exploration of why a bully is, but nothing that satisfactorily answers the question. In the end I'm not sure what one is supposed to get out of Mean Creek. There are some decent performances by the young actors who make up the cast but the film misses its mark on the tragedy aspect.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Just Like Heaven
One of my many guilty pleasures is romantic comedies. They are frivolous and always end on the upbeat of love. No matter what happens you always know what will happen in the end. Two quirky lovable characters are going to be together. Its the kind of romance one imagines will last forever, although when you let reality creep in you realize probably won't last more than a couple of months. In particular since inevitably in every romantic comedy there is some misunderstanding that tears the two young lovers apart. And lets face it, if some insignificant misunderstanding can do it, I'm guessing more serious revelations will doom it.
But that is just my pessimism sneaking in. At movies end, you always have a happy end. So every once in a while, its relaxing to see a romantic comedy that will no doubt be mindless but enjoyable. That does not mean, however, that every romantic comedy is good. Some are downright horrific. Judging from the trailer, I figured that Just Like Heaven (2005) would be in this latter category. In truth the plot does take the "meet cute" to a whole new level of sappy stupidty.
It does have a saving grace in its two stars. Both Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are extremely likeable actors. Whatever there camera presence is it translates to every character they play. So as always the two are fun to watch here. They maneuver their way through a fairly routine, if a bit otherworldly, plot. I'm pretty sure that "Ghost: The Romantic Comedy" didn't need to be made, but it seems that it was and Witherspoon and Ruffalo make it work as best they can.
But that is just my pessimism sneaking in. At movies end, you always have a happy end. So every once in a while, its relaxing to see a romantic comedy that will no doubt be mindless but enjoyable. That does not mean, however, that every romantic comedy is good. Some are downright horrific. Judging from the trailer, I figured that Just Like Heaven (2005) would be in this latter category. In truth the plot does take the "meet cute" to a whole new level of sappy stupidty.
It does have a saving grace in its two stars. Both Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are extremely likeable actors. Whatever there camera presence is it translates to every character they play. So as always the two are fun to watch here. They maneuver their way through a fairly routine, if a bit otherworldly, plot. I'm pretty sure that "Ghost: The Romantic Comedy" didn't need to be made, but it seems that it was and Witherspoon and Ruffalo make it work as best they can.
In Her Shoes
I don't have sisters nor am I a woman. So from the start I'm at a disadvantage in understanding the premise of In Her Shoes (2005). Of course the title is a bit of a misnomer for me, since I'm not quite sure either character Rose (Toni Collette) or Maggie (Cameron Diaz) actually experienced what the other's life was like, which is what the title would suggest to me. Hence the old adage "walk a mile in his/her shoes". But maybe that isn't what this title is supposed to suggest.
It seems that Maggie's early actions are pretty reprehensible. I felt sure that she needed a world class smack upside the head. In fact the only sympathy one might have for Maggie is when you discover she has dyslexia, but even then she doesn't gain much ground. And the sleeping with the boyfriend of your sibling thing, seems like a big no, on so many levels, and she actually has the gall to wonder why her sister kicks her out?
All that being said, there were some particularly poignant reconciliations near the end of the film that were quite touching. Maggie getting her life on track is quite rewarding, particularly in the scenes in the hospital where she becomes a candystripper. Toni Collette also puts in an admirable performance as someone who is also trying to figure out her life, but it doesn't seem to get quite enough treatment. For the most part it was a pleasant movie but was clearly not aimed at me as its intended audience and therefore I probably didn't pick up on some of the more moving aspects of the film
It seems that Maggie's early actions are pretty reprehensible. I felt sure that she needed a world class smack upside the head. In fact the only sympathy one might have for Maggie is when you discover she has dyslexia, but even then she doesn't gain much ground. And the sleeping with the boyfriend of your sibling thing, seems like a big no, on so many levels, and she actually has the gall to wonder why her sister kicks her out?
All that being said, there were some particularly poignant reconciliations near the end of the film that were quite touching. Maggie getting her life on track is quite rewarding, particularly in the scenes in the hospital where she becomes a candystripper. Toni Collette also puts in an admirable performance as someone who is also trying to figure out her life, but it doesn't seem to get quite enough treatment. For the most part it was a pleasant movie but was clearly not aimed at me as its intended audience and therefore I probably didn't pick up on some of the more moving aspects of the film
Junebug
Junebug (2005) is pleasant. Amy Adams carries every scene she is in and lights up the screen. She is amazing to watch as the perky, pregnant Ashley. Otherwise it is a pretty conventional uninspiring story. A sophisticated outsider upsetting the balance of a conservative Southern family is not terribly interesting. There is a focus on Embeth Davidtz' Madeleine as the out of place character, who has to decide between work and family.
Only she doesn't. What boggled my mind, was what lesson did she learn? At an important moment for the film, she is off securing a deal with an artist. A point of contention for her and her husband George (Alessandro Nivola). In point of fact, George is much more interesting. He left North Carolina and fell in love and married the city woman Madeleine in a short time. He is the one, who places emphasis on his family, but at the same time seems to have strain with them. I wanted to know why the brothers are on the outs. Why he connects so well with Ashley. Why at the end of the film does he express relief that they are returning to Chicago.
Although the movie was pleasant enough, it bothered me that the central theme seems to have gotten lost and the ending was so unrewarding. There is definitely an interesting story to tell in this family unit, but I'm not convinced it was told in this film.
Only she doesn't. What boggled my mind, was what lesson did she learn? At an important moment for the film, she is off securing a deal with an artist. A point of contention for her and her husband George (Alessandro Nivola). In point of fact, George is much more interesting. He left North Carolina and fell in love and married the city woman Madeleine in a short time. He is the one, who places emphasis on his family, but at the same time seems to have strain with them. I wanted to know why the brothers are on the outs. Why he connects so well with Ashley. Why at the end of the film does he express relief that they are returning to Chicago.
Although the movie was pleasant enough, it bothered me that the central theme seems to have gotten lost and the ending was so unrewarding. There is definitely an interesting story to tell in this family unit, but I'm not convinced it was told in this film.
Chumbscrubber
What can one say about The Chumbscrubber (2005)? It is a bizarre film dependent on a premise of the suburbs are not perfect. There is a whole lot of not right in the head going on there. Every character in the film, is in some way or the other just not quite right or normal. Some characters are down right crazy or psychotic. Throw into the mix a suicide, a plot to obtain drugs and mayor who's had a strange epiphany and you have this film. Well, kind of.
It was interesting to view the different levels of sanity in each of the characters, but again it hangs on a premise that you have to actually believe to be truly interesting. The suburbs are in fact not perfect, I'm not sure anyone in their right mind actually believes that they are. This movie seems like it was made by a guy who lives in the city proper and looks at a suburb, almost disdainfully as a crazy place.
This film was about as infuriating to me as American Beauty (1999), another film that wanted to expose the suburbs. There seems to be such a disconnect between what reality really is when represented by these auteurs of film. Despite decent performers by all the actors, the young ones like Jamie Bell and Camilla Belle especially, this movie was unsatisfying and at times a little to oblique for me.
It was interesting to view the different levels of sanity in each of the characters, but again it hangs on a premise that you have to actually believe to be truly interesting. The suburbs are in fact not perfect, I'm not sure anyone in their right mind actually believes that they are. This movie seems like it was made by a guy who lives in the city proper and looks at a suburb, almost disdainfully as a crazy place.
This film was about as infuriating to me as American Beauty (1999), another film that wanted to expose the suburbs. There seems to be such a disconnect between what reality really is when represented by these auteurs of film. Despite decent performers by all the actors, the young ones like Jamie Bell and Camilla Belle especially, this movie was unsatisfying and at times a little to oblique for me.
Transamerica
Transamerica (2005) was not the movie I expected it to be. I'm not sure what I expected it to be, but certainly not the movie I saw. The title actually becomes a clever play on words, because not only is it about a person who lives a transgender lifestyle, but its also a road movie. Thus Trans (Latin for across) America. I presume this play was intentional.
It is a very interesting story of two people getting to know each other as they travel from New York to Los Angeles. In this respect its very conventional, but done very well. The catch is in that the travelers are parent and child, although the child doesn't know it and certainly doesn't know the parent's other secret. There is an inevitable discovery of the latter fact that brings some tension mid film, but is quickly overcome. The other secret comes to play in the climax of the film.
Both Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers play amazingly rich roles as the parent and child respectively. Huffman as the transgender pre-op who resists having a son but comes to accept it and Zegers as a confused youth, who is grasping at what he considers his last hope, an absent father. By film's end, both characters have changed quite a bit and one is deeply interested in their lives. The final scene, the first stage of a reconciliation between parent and child, is quite moving.
It is a very interesting story of two people getting to know each other as they travel from New York to Los Angeles. In this respect its very conventional, but done very well. The catch is in that the travelers are parent and child, although the child doesn't know it and certainly doesn't know the parent's other secret. There is an inevitable discovery of the latter fact that brings some tension mid film, but is quickly overcome. The other secret comes to play in the climax of the film.
Both Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers play amazingly rich roles as the parent and child respectively. Huffman as the transgender pre-op who resists having a son but comes to accept it and Zegers as a confused youth, who is grasping at what he considers his last hope, an absent father. By film's end, both characters have changed quite a bit and one is deeply interested in their lives. The final scene, the first stage of a reconciliation between parent and child, is quite moving.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005) was mostly charming with strong (as usual) performances by both Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench. It was frivolous although it seems to attempt a message, particularly when World War 2 breaks out mid film, but I felt it was a weak one. I didn't laugh aloud very much, but enjoyed the banter between Dench and Hoskins. In the end it was a bit forgettable.
Where Was Tony Todd?
When it comes to the movies in the Final Destination franchise one expects three things:
1) A spectacular opening death sequence
2) Interesting ways of killing off the main characters
3) Tony Todd
What boggles my mind, is how the film makers could leave out the third and for me the most crucial aspect of these three necessities. Tony Todd does provide a voice for the film, but is absent as a character. Let's face it, it isn't as if Mr. Todd had better offers on the table. This leads me to think he realized what a total piece of crap this film would be and didn't even want his face associated with the third installment. A bold statement since he already stared in the second film, without any qualms.
Beyond my disgruntlement that Tony Todd was absent from the film, this movie was....awful. I actually found myself wondering why they even bothered with plot or dialogue. This movie might have actually improved if it had been a film with no dialogue. Either the writer wasn't trying or he is really just a horrible, horrible writer. He also directed and produced the movie, which makes me think its the latter option.
The deaths are completely obvious and ludicrous such that you actually get bored waiting for them to happen. I found myself laughing again and again at how absurdly elaborate death seemed to be getting. Death apparently has a lot of time on his hands, maybe he's afraid of a lawsuit. On top of all this, the characters know what happened to the characters from the first film and yet still think all they have to do is survive one death attempt and all will be well. What part about the fact that all the survivors of the plane flight are now dead, did they not understand? To the second film's credit, the characters at least tried to find away to cheat death. This movie is just a badly made rehash of the first film.
The quality of this movie would have gone exponentially up if Tony Todd had made even the briefest of appearances. I should finally note that to the best of my knowledge, this film also has the first nudity of the three. It was a gratuitous scene as nudity often is in horror films.
1) A spectacular opening death sequence
2) Interesting ways of killing off the main characters
3) Tony Todd
What boggles my mind, is how the film makers could leave out the third and for me the most crucial aspect of these three necessities. Tony Todd does provide a voice for the film, but is absent as a character. Let's face it, it isn't as if Mr. Todd had better offers on the table. This leads me to think he realized what a total piece of crap this film would be and didn't even want his face associated with the third installment. A bold statement since he already stared in the second film, without any qualms.
Beyond my disgruntlement that Tony Todd was absent from the film, this movie was....awful. I actually found myself wondering why they even bothered with plot or dialogue. This movie might have actually improved if it had been a film with no dialogue. Either the writer wasn't trying or he is really just a horrible, horrible writer. He also directed and produced the movie, which makes me think its the latter option.
The deaths are completely obvious and ludicrous such that you actually get bored waiting for them to happen. I found myself laughing again and again at how absurdly elaborate death seemed to be getting. Death apparently has a lot of time on his hands, maybe he's afraid of a lawsuit. On top of all this, the characters know what happened to the characters from the first film and yet still think all they have to do is survive one death attempt and all will be well. What part about the fact that all the survivors of the plane flight are now dead, did they not understand? To the second film's credit, the characters at least tried to find away to cheat death. This movie is just a badly made rehash of the first film.
The quality of this movie would have gone exponentially up if Tony Todd had made even the briefest of appearances. I should finally note that to the best of my knowledge, this film also has the first nudity of the three. It was a gratuitous scene as nudity often is in horror films.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Freaked
It can be hard to objectively review a film you have seen many times and liked. Freaked (1993) is to put it lightly a very bizarre movie. Fortunately, I like bizarre. Its plot exists as a setup of some bizarre jokes and bizarre freaks. It has fun performances from Randy Quaid to William Sadler. In fact it may have the best performance of Keanu Reeves ever. I can't recommend it for anyone, but if you enjoy bizarre humor, ala Cabin Boy (1994) or other such films, there may be something here for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)