Change Your Image
he_who_leads
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Place Beyond the Pines (2012)
Pine = Fresh
As soon as I saw the trailer for 'The Place Beyond the Pines', I knew I wanted to see it. It looked like a sweeping, muscular, foreboding thriller. The arty kind rather than the cheap Hollywood kind with cheesy one liners. The film delivers on this promise. It's moving, visionary and extremely suspenseful. Unfortunately, it loses its focus in the final third but it's still definitely worth watching.
Circus performer Luke (Ryan Gosling) finds out he has a son with fling Romina (Eva Mendes). In order to step up and provide for his family, he turns to crime. His actions have repercussions which echo for many years to come. If we were to divide the film into three chapters, the first chapter belongs to Ryan Gosling. The strong, silent type, covered in ink, whose emotions rise to the surface when he finds out he has a son. Gosling trying to repair the mistakes of the past succeeds in involving us in the story emotionally. The struggle for grace and redemption in the face of grim circumstances and practicality sets the tone for the movie, and the bursts of choral music and cinematography are very effective.
The middle act belongs to Bradley Cooper, as a cop, Avery, who becomes involved in Luke's criminal exploits. The middle is my favourite part of the movie. The plot thickens and the suspense level is extremely high. Ray Liotta is very memorable, sleazing his way under our skin. Both Luke and Avery, respectively, find the waters choppy and unforgiving as they try and navigate by their internal moral compass. Luke thinks crime is the answer, while Avery learns politics has to be played.
Up until the movie's final chapter, director, Derek Cianfrance, has done a great job in crafting a tale of high drama and consequences. A criticism would be that his storytelling style can feel claustrophobic. Like following the thread of an overly-linear choose-your-own-adventure tale, where a sense of context is lost. The final third jumps forward in time. It's not necessarily bad – in fact it's still interesting, but it could have been a lot better. The choice to shunt to the side so many of the established characters makes the film lose momentum, so in the moments where they are on screen, its hard to connect with them. There's a feeling of too much unresolved business, not helped by the film peaking in the middle. However, there's no denying the film's vision and power. I was still left shaken and slightly breathless, feeling that I had been taken on a ride. The cast has pedigree and everyone commits themselves well. And the director is to be commended for reaching for the stars instead of trying to play it safe.
Comedy Central Roasts: Comedy Central Roast of Charlie Sheen (2011)
Roast the Warlock!
Overall - just 'good enough'. Sheen provides a wealth of material and they skewer him well.
First of all - the dais is pretty disappointing. For a guaranteed ratings winner (it was CC's highest rated roast) a lot of the old, big names like Lisa Lampanelli, Gilbert Gottfried, Nick DiPaolo and others weren't there. And Jon Lovitz and Steve O are not worthy replacements. Not to mention no people from Charlie's world. I guess that says something about the guy right? Or maybe the producers are just getting lazy.
Speaking of which, they have to stop getting Seth MacFarlane to MC these things. He's gotten boring and doesn't bring anything special to the shows.
WINNING!!!: Jeff Ross owned the night - he's been roasting Charlie on their comedy tour and brings out the A material. Amy Schumer is also nice and nasty.
MIDDLE GROUND: Anthony Jeselnik has some good one-liners but his delivery is kinda annoying. I believe Patrice O'Neal when he said he had to throw out some of his prepared material. He seemed to be winging it a bit, but I like how he tried to describe the roasters (Anthony as a Medieval Restaurant waiter lol). William Shatner did well. Jon Lovitz...
TIGER DUD: Kate Walsh was pretty bland, Steve O was terrible, Mike Tyson was all over the place. Get rid of MacFarlane.
Overally it was funny and enjoyable - you have to be pretty lame to screw up a Charlie Sheen roast, but a bit more effort next time Comedy Central.
Horrible Bosses (2011)
As Homer Simpson once said, "Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream?"
3 nice guys have horrible bosses - lets call them sleazebag, slutty and heartless bastard. Pushed to the edge, they decide to rid the world of their evil masters for the good of mankind.
Which is a great premise. But its actually a pretty hard needle for the film to thread. Firstly, the three nice guy leads aren't very engaging. They're too nice and not well fleshed out at all. It seemed totally out of character for them to want to commit murder. Sure, sleazebag and heartless bastard are assholes, but they're actually funnier (especially Colin Farrell) and more entertaining than the nice guys. And, there's no way I want Jennifer Anitson's deliciously kinky slutbag dentist knocked off. As two of the nice guys say to the third - 'your situation will never get any sympathy out of us.' She's actually the best thing in the movie.
Its funny in parts, and becomes more interesting later on, as the plot starts to twist and turn. But the constant hysterical dude chatter is kind of tiring. Like 'The Other Guys' although that film was better.
Sleeping Beauty (2011)
5/10
This movie's trailer got people talking because of its very Kubrick vibe. And, in fact, the movie explores territory very similar to 'Eyes Wide Shut'. How sex has become more liberal and extreme, yet also sterile and disconnected.
The lead character, Lucy, (Emily Browning - a long way from Lemony Snicket) exhibits this. She'll sleep with people at the drop of a hat, yet with little evidence of desire. In fact, there's hardly any evidence that she processes strong emotions at all. She just goes about her business. Things happen to her, and she's too reticent to shrug them off.
To solve financial worries, Lucy gets a job at a posh, exclusive establishment where she is willingly placed naked and unconscious in a bedroom for a client, to do with her as he wishes (except penetration).
Through Lucy and the various clients, we see how we need vulnerability in others to relax the masks that we wear. Otherwise, we are so preoccupied with maintaining an image that we don't even try and connect with others. Emily Browning does well at rounding out the expressionless Lucy, and the voyeuristic nature of the material makes the movie entertaining. Unfortunately, the ending, though a pretty logical conclusion, also feel anti-climatic, a tad obvious and leaves us feeling short-changed.
The film is an interesting, respectful, non-gratuitous effort, yet many will ultimately find it like the leading lady - pretty impenetrable.
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
The Year of the Peacock Begins Now!!!
Po has settled into his role as the Dragon Warrior (although, lets face it - Tigress could destroy this guy in her sleep), and things are peaceful. Until a villainous peacock named Shen (Gary Oldman) pops up with a machine that can destroy kung-fu and plans to conquer all of China with it.
I loved the first film and this is a worthy sequel. It was always going to be hard (impossible?) to recapture the constant wonder of the first film, when we all had no idea how the hell tubby fanboy Po would ever defeat Tai Lung and fulfill his destiny. But kudos to the filmmakers for not restingon their laurels and coming up with a moving story, where Po has to confront buried childhood demons.
The good news is that the film is funny, entertaining, and moving. A scene or two really tug at the heartstrings. There are some cool new characters voiced impeccably by Gary Oldman, Michelle Yeoh and others. And the old favourites do well too. And, like the first, the film is respectful of Asian culture and martial arts.
The downsides are pretty minor. Shen's WMD (actually many of them) is a bit goofy, but provides a nice set piece at the end. The action scenes are more generic and don't match the first films ones (the bridge, the training, Tai Lung's great escape, Po vs Tai Lung). But overall fans of the original will be very satisfied with this. Bring on the third!!!
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Surprisingly Good
Other Potter reviews
Golbet of Fire: 8/10 Order of the Phoenix: 4/10
For Order of the Phoenix, I complained that in the quest to fit everything in, the film was hard to enjoy. It was simply racing through everything with nothing to savour. I swore I wouldn't watch any more Potter films but I watched this, and was pleasantly surprised.
First, the negatives. By the sixth film, you would expect the three leads to share better chemistry, but they often seem uncomfortable around each other rather than best friends. Their acting is still wooden in some places, but it's not a huge deal. And they still have to work on laying out the exposition a bit better so all movie goers can keep up. Would it kill them to explain to people how Dumbledore found the cave? It's a one line fix.
The positive. Scenes are still cut excessively, but this movie shows director, David Yates, putting his own stamp on the Potter world and making smart choices. The changes in plot and tone are often very effective. For instance, The finale, with the death eaters, is far less frantic and loud than the book, but is just as effective in a different way by being quiet and menacing. Overall, the new low-key and sombre tone is enjoyable because it fits so well. The film is also pretty funny in some places, something that the previous films have struggled with. The fact that the filmmakers are exhibiting confidence in their adaptation of the book bodes well for future installments. Kudos, also, to the splitting of The Deathly Hallows, which will hopefully give the Potter movies a proper, solid send-off.
Drag Me to Hell (2009)
Great Title
Christine (Alison Lohman) rejects a creepy old gypsy woman for an extension on her payments for her house, thus evicting her. The gypsy woman magically retaliates and Christine must find a way to avoid being dragged to...
I don't watch much horror, but the great title got me and the word was the Sam Raimi had left behind the stodginess of Spiderman3. In terms of plot it's all pretty straight-forward stuff, but the film was spoilt for me by Alison Lohman's patchy performance. She's fine in non-horror sequences, and even does scared well sometimes, but often her reactions just don't seem convincing. If you were trapped under a dead body with embalming fluid being vomited down your throat, you might seem a bit more distraught when you finally escaped, But Christine's hair is more ruffled than she is.
The horror isn't bad, but is isn't until near the end that the movie starts to become a lot more fun.
Yes Man (2008)
Average movie? ... YES MAN! YES MAN!
Carrey is Carl Allen, a man, who says 'no' to everything after breaking up with his gf (or fiancée? I can't remember). He stumbles upon a growing group of peoplee, who live their lives by not saying YES to EVERYTHING. Carl decides to become a Yes! man.
Carrey has consistently made me laugh over the years, but I'm sorry to say, through the whole movie he just looked bored. He just gave off the vibe that he'd rather be somewhere else. While Carrey and many of the scenes are still funny, a lot of the fun is drained out as you realise the script simply exists to throw up as many random slapstick moments as possible without really exploring the idea of a man, who is not allowed to say 'no.' Or, for that matter, an entire wave of people who can't say 'no.' I found myself squirming in my seat before things got even more stale in the final third. On one hand the complications were welcome because the movie had just been going for so long without looking at the consequences of Carl's actions. On the other, it's the same stale, formulaic complications, lines and realisations we knew this movie had to have but were praying for something fresher.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
Sour and Flat Jungle Juice
"Tropic Thunder" just isn't that funny. The start is good - funny fake movie trailers for the three leads (Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey jnr) and a huge, expensive screw-up on the set. But the main plot of the movie - the actors are dropped off in the middle of the jungle and filmed with hidden cameras and recording equipment to capture their authentic reactions - is just too stupid for words. What kind of movie studio would throw away a truckload of money by having its actors spend most of their time wandering around a jungle, only stopping occasionally to follow the script and deliver their lines? With nobody to direct them? And how did the production team place all that recording equipment around the jungle without ever running into the villains that the actors eventually encounter? Some may think I'm taking this too seriously, but the goofy plot put a big dent in the movie for me. They should have continued with making the war movie the way they did at the beginning.
Apart from some comic bright spots - Stiller's "Simply Jack" moments and his encounter with the thing he loves most in the world are hilarious - there's just not much else that is funny. I'm not a huge Jack Black fan, but I think we can all agree his characters was a weak link and a giant waste of space. Downey's white turned black actor was moderately funny, and I think Tom Cruise's performance is just one of those things people think that they're supposed to love - to me, it just highlighted how unsuited to the role he was. Heck, he showed twice as much viciousness and intensity in 'Magnolia.' A pretty lazy, unfocused and corny romp in the jungle. "Tropic Blunder" indeed.
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Back to Familiar Ground
As many know, Ang Lee and Eric Bana tried to do a Hulk movie in 2003. It didn't work. Brooding and arty with limited action. So this time around they went for a "reboot" - new director and cast and approach. For other movies, the word 'reboot' means an update from what we've seen before. For 'The Incredible Hulk', reboot simply means getting back to the basics - more action and a brisk and easy to follow story. In other words, this aims to be be meat and potatoes and that is what it is.
This movie offers up much that is good and solid but not spectacular. The plot is simply designed to enable what we want to see. Nearly all the cast do fine. I wouldn't mind seeing them reprise their parts in any future movies. However, I'm not 100 percent sold on Edward Norton as Bruce Banner / The Hulk. He's a fine actor and there's nothing wrong with his acting here. It's just his approach to the character. Bruce here is quite solemn and repressed. He seems to be thinking deeply about his predicament, but not really in a battle to control his rage. Therefore, it never really feels like a smooth transition whenever he transforms into the Hulk. His chemistry with Liv Tyler's Betty Ross is pretty good though.
On the action front, the film is very good. It gives us what we want to see. A whole lotta Hulk Smash! The finale is definitely kickass and The Hulk versus The Abomination delivers. The film ends fairly abruptly after that. Now that we've had two movies in close succession basically introducing The Hulk and the major characters, now is the time to move on and start pushing this series into high gear.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
Everything Hell Should Be
The Hanson brothers - Andy (apparently has his act together) and Hank (clearly doesn't have his act together) need money. Andy comes up with a scheme to get some dough that will have consequences for the whole Hanson family.
This film delivers. This is a layered, full-blooded roller coaster ride that knows exactly what it is doing. As a crime drama / thriller I would happily compare it to 'No Country For Old Men.' While both films have have an ample supply of character drama and thrills, 'Devil' is more on the thriller side because of its fast pace. 'No Country' is a colder and bleaker film that you can really admire, while 'Devil' is a bit more enjoyable. There is definitely less violence in 'Devil' than 'No Country.' The acting delivers as well. Ethan Hawke, sometimes wooden in the past, brings the jitters, sweating and the deer-in-the-headlights-look to the besieged Hank. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Andy, has the film's hardest scenes and is fast becoming the actor, who you believe can do anything.
There's really not much wrong with this film. It jumps back and forth without being confusing. Events spiral out of control, but the film never does - the writing (from first timer Kelly Masterson), directing (veteran Sidney Lumet) and the editing stay as tight as a drum. In many categories, this is award caliber stuff, though maybe films like 'The Departed' and 'No Country' squeezed this one out of the limelight. If you liked those, you'll like this.
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
Where's the Beef?
Charlie Wilson. A drinking, womanising, liberal Texas congressman, who was the driving force behind funnelling money to Afghanistan rebels to fight the Sovients.
Writer Aaron Sorkin. The man who wrote 'A Few Good Men' and was the main creative force behind 'The West Wing.' An extremely talented guy, who can really hit you for six dramatically and emotionally (many season 1 and 2 'West Wing' episodes). On a good day. Other times he can write poorly (many mediocre season 3 and awful season 4 episodes - that's right - the show went downhill way before he was forced out!! Let's set the record straight!!!).
This movie didn't engage my interest enough. It's main mistake is too much information and not enough reflection or specificity on what it all means. The amount of money spent in Afghanistan keeps rising and the weapons keep on getting larger and more sophisticated, but all our main characters don't seem to have much at stake personally except their time and the desire to win. Other real life heroes portrayed in movies have to risk life and limb to achieve what they want. Their wife leaves them, they're alienated by their friends/colleagues, the powers that be try and take them down etc. But the forces of darkness aren't really compelling here. An example is the way Charlie Wilson gets the money from congress to funnel into Afghanistan. Despite some people questioning the soaring amount, at the end of the day, he's always going to get whatever he requests without too much inconvenience. The same with the drinking and womanising angle. Unlike 'Primary Colours' (also directed by Mike Nicholls) It's not good for much except for some humour and a little political inconvenience.
The movie is not the total train wreck that I seem to be describing. The main characters are all well played by Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julia Roberts (not seen enough and surprisingly convincing as a filthy rich politically concerned Texan). And there are Sorkin's trademark amusing/dramatic sparkling dialogue and character exchanges. But the movie doesn't really provide the punch to the gut that I was looking for until the last five minutes, where Wilson has to truly sit back and take stock of what has happened and its implications for the future. Somewhat too little too late.
PS This review is not meant to be in any way disrespectful to the real life Charlie Wilson and what he achieved. My review is simply concerned with the big screen translation of his story.
Half Nelson (2006)
The Ryan Gosling Film
Dan (Ryan Gosling) is a drug-addicted high school history teacher. Drey (Shareeka Epps) is one of his students, who can see herself possibly following in her brother's footsteps and working for a local drug dealer. Dan and Drey strike up a friendship.
Dan is a smart, fundamentally decent man leading a life of quiet desperation. His ex-gf, Rachel (Tina Holmes), tells him that some people get better, and Dan is adamant in his response. Not him. Change is not for him. To another girl, he explains how he tried rehab, but it doesn't work for him. And yet Dan's desire for change is shown in his lessons to his students. He constantly describes opposites - up and down, left and right - and talks about change. From one breath to your next breath, change has happened. And yet Dan's affliction just provides more and more of the same.
The film is all about Ryan Gosling, who gives us a complete portrait of his character. You just can't take your eyes off of this guy. Whether babbling under the influence or talking with real passion to his students or just sitting quietly saying nothing at all, Gosling shows us a man, who has a lot to give, but is held down by his affliction. The out-of-nowhere flashes of humour and the many moments of vulnerability completely endear us to Dan. His friendship with Drey arouses moral instincts in him that brings his self-loathing and helplessness more to the surface. We understand Dan, and our understanding of him is mirrored in the eyes of all the supporting characters, played out by a perfect ensemble cast. So much is conveyed just in the briefest character exchanges.
So the film succeeds with strong performances and making sure all the pieces fit together with respect and care. And yet the finished puzzle isn't really as gripping as it should be. Maybe because we've been through this material before, or maybe because this is a film that lives through its many small moments and observations. With tense character-driven material like this, I was sort of expecting more flash and meltdown, but this isn't that sort of film. This is a film, where you can admire the focus, commitment, and quality, but its a slow burn - not a big jolt to the system.
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
Jokes are Fine, but It Should Have Been More
Doesn't it suck how so many big event hyped-up movies are labelled with 'it could have been more' these days? But I guess that means when they get it right, its even more special.
The one-liners and pranks are fine all the way through. There's nothing cringe-worthy-in-a-bad-way here. You'll chuckle, but something needed to be done to separate this from, and make it much more than, just an extended TV show. This is possibly as hard as it sounds, but I'll tell you what they needed to do. They needed to make the premise much more significant. They main plot needed to be incredibly daring/wacky/outrageous and possibly irreparable. What they chose - government's big dome going over Springfield - was not that interesting and wasn't even milked to enough comic effect. Unlike other major crises on the TV show, this one has the opportunity to stretch out for two hours and reveal deeper and more complex internal conflicts inside the souls of Springfield - to comic effect of course. The other plot threads - Marge and Homer's marriage problems, Bart's Dad problem, Lisa's boyfriend - aren't that bad but you pretty much know how they're going to end up.
So what we have left is lots of good one-liners and pranks, and a feeling that it was all over so quickly. The makers really wanted this to be good. They seemed to have wanted it so badly that they were afraid to stick their big toe in too much. It's like a good TV episode, and a kind of missed opportunity.
Death Proof (2007)
Quentin's Best Since 'Pulp Fiction'
The people that will not like this film are the people that need a frequent appearances of blood, cursing and action in their movies - 'Sin City' fans. Those people will call this QT's flop but it really isn't. Despite the controversy, we've always known QT is more than just some film-violence geek. He has fun playing with the audience's expectations and yet he is on your side. He wants to make a really good night out at the cinema for you, but unlike so many others he knows exactly what he's doing. He has the talent.
'Death Proof' is just plain-old entertaining without ever feeling forced. The focus here is on women and instead of being plot heavy with multiple twists we just follow them as they talk, drink, argue and kid around. Having acquired more experience in the world, QT doesn't have to turn to Royales with Cheeses and Madonna dick dick dick as much. The characters feel normal and you really do become swept up in their respective personalities, sparkling fresh dialogue and private little battles. Plus the girls are pretty hot/cool. Not in a fake look-but-don't-touch-me kind of way but more fun and laid back. I fell in love with the slinky Jungle Julia (Sydney Poitier) but my friend liked Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito) and another guy liked Pam (Rose McGowan). About 25% of the flick is car action and when Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) first strikes after all the build-up tension, it is one of the most gripping action scenes I've ever seen. 'Death Proof' is much better than the less-creative, here-come-the-zombies-again flick 'Planet Terror,' but that film is still passable entertainment. I don't think 'Grindhouse' would have flopped as much in the US if the films were released separately. Four hours of cinema in one night is just not something most people can get behind. The quality is still here, see it.
Team America: World Police (2004)
One of the Most Quotable Movies I've Ever Seen
The later 'South Park' episodes have shown a trend. The creators - Stone and Parker - have seen their creative juices dry a little so they've been relying more on two things. Massacres and Parodies. 'Team America' has both. More on this later.
Broadway Actor Gary Johnson is recruited by Team America: World Police. His acting ability is needed to foil a grand terrorist plot. The thing I kept hearing from everyone is that the first 1/2 hour is brilliant but then descends into the usual Parker/Stone gross out gags. Well I watched the first 30 minutes and was still laughing hard for the next 30 minutes. This movie is a parody but with enough creative originality and things to say to move it beyond being JUST a silly parody (ie Scary Movie 3). Where the movie slides is the final act, where the parody moves into an area that has just been done to death (even as a paradoy). The team needs to foil the terrorists as the clock is ticking down. Cue more massacres stuff.
This creators have hit movie gold for a number of reasons - the puppets are cool and the sets look fantastic. All the more so when you hear that everything was done old-school - no computer trickery here. From Paris to Cairo a lot of love and effort went into this film. The single-mindedness and naivety of America is hilariously captured here without being mean-spirited. The characters just are who they are. They're even likable and engaging! The comic genius just keeps on coming with the dialogue, plot developments and catchy as hell songs. Some of these things (ie the puppet sex) will go down in comedy history. I mean, the vomit scene is like the gross-out golden moment on par with 'I coulda been a contender'). The comedic targets are wisely picked: American chest-beating right-wing neo-conservatism and righteous liberal head-banging/shaking.
The world has been crying out for a movie like this. While there have been movies and docos on America's 'War on Terror' fuelled with anger and despair (Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Clooney and others get a look-in here) none have captured the absurdity of the whole situation so easily. If 'South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut' was all about pushing the limits of decency, then 'Team America' is definitely more mellow but still cuts to the bone and even surpasses that film. This film demands repeat viewings.
The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
Some Laughs, Nothing Original
Not as cool/sharp as the Farrelly Brothers 'Dumb and Dumber' or 'There's Something About Mary,' More laughs than 'Stuck On You' and the dreary 'Me, Myself & Irene.' This film contains the laughs that have become the staples of comedy films of this type these days. Its pretty much Basic (Farrelly) Comedy 101. Randy Father. Crazy Chick. Sweet Chick. Naive Southern Family. Sex Gags. Visual Gags. Whipped Husband. And some body fluids. The only thing noticeably different is the grey in Stiller's hair.
But its got enough laughs to break through the sluggishness. Malin Akerman gives an entertaining performance as the sweet chick who Stiller takes the plunge with before turning out to be a little 'off' on their honeymoon. Their mismatched sex is hysterical and so is some later immigration stuff. Nice to see everyone hasn't completely lost it, but now lets have something to show you've still got it.
30 Days of Night (2007)
30 Days of Shi...e
The premise is cool: A remote Alaskan town has 30 days without any sunlight - '30 Days of Night.' A group of vampires come to town to take advantage of this. Eventually, we follow a small group of survivors as they try and stay alive until the 30 days are up. However, the cool premise is taken away by the fact that the filmmakers have no idea how to handle it. It may as well have been called '3 or 4 Days of Night' since we keep lurching forward in time with hardly anything changing for any of the characters.
The film is bad because it simply has its priorities wrong. Its main priorities are: sick gore (a blunt axe takes about 6 swings to chop a head off), and people hiding from the vampires. What it isn't concerned with: people battling vampires to stay alive. The vampires are cool, no question. They dress in dark clothing, look fantastically warped, screech and speak a strange language. The main problem is that they are so much stronger than the humans. The vampires can do anything. Watch them stop speeding cars, run faster than the eye can see, take bullets and keep on coming .... therefore, any confrontation with the humans can only end one way - with the humans being overwhelmed and killed as brutally and bloodily as possible. So the main action of the film is hiding from the vampires, and trying to avoid them until the 30 days are up, rather than trying to take them down.
These problems along with a complete lack of logic by the characters sink the film. This is best summed up when about 3/4 of the way into the film, a character leads all the vampires to a house, where he grabs an inspired weapon to use against them. The weapon works beautifully and then he doesn't even try to use it again!!! On top of this, people hide out for days and nobody needs to eat so much as a sandwich. 6 people dash through the streets to another location with one axe between them. Nobody even thinks to grab a plank of wood or even a frying pan? I know horror-film characters make dumb decisions but that's only good when its part of the fun. This film seems all too willing to just throw out consistency and common sense whenever it is mildly convenient or for no reason whatsoever.
'30 Days of Night' - Its a Very Long Period. Pun Intended. Blood people, geddit?!
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
Despite the Warnings From the Faun, You'll Want to Eat and Drink This Film
In Fascist Spain, 1944, Ofelia and her pregnant mother travel to live with the mother's new husband, the cold and brutal Captain Vidal of the Spanish Army. As he fights the rebels, and her mother suffers, Ofelia is drawn into a fairytale world, where she is told that she is a princess and must complete tasks to return to where she rightfully belongs.
I can see why many love this film, and it has many positives. Technically its absolutely gorgeous - the music is haunting, and the cinematography of the 'real' world and the 'fairytale' world seamlessly compliment each other. The art direction is beautifully imaginative but never overkill. At its heart is a fantastic central performance by Ivana Baquero as Ofelia. And she's not one of these teenagers who just looks young either - she was only about 11 when they shot this. She rarely puts a foot wrong and makes you believe everything she's going through. She's the glue that holds it all together.
The main problem I had with this film is that it takes a while to warm up. Half way through, the film still felt like it was setting things up rather than moving forward. It felt frustrating and I was worried that this would turn out to be like writer/director Guillermo del Toro's 'Hellboy,' where I felt that not enough happened to sustain the movie. That it would be all a tease.
But the film gets better and simply casts a spell on you. Captain Vidal is such a violent, temperamental asshole that you can completely understand why Ofelia retreats so readily into fairy tales and the world of the Labyrinth. The more committed filmgoers will argue whether or not the fairytale world is 'real' or not, but the rest of us can be content with the knowledge that its real if the girl believes its real. Personally, I think it all was really real but I'm a bit of a sap. The ending is perfect and one of those that you can revel in.
This is not really for kids because of the violence and the maturity of some of the themes. But if you're an adult, don't be put off by the idea of giant toads and underground worlds. The magic in this is totally character driven and that makes it all the more special.
Crash (2004)
You Thought You Had All the Answers ...
'Crash' is a film of many intersecting lives charged with racial conflict in Los Angeles, California. It won the 2005 Oscar for Best Picture.
Crash is one of those films that tries to seriously tackle a big issue from all sides, through many different characters and multiple plot lines. One of the negative raps 'Crash' has received is that it relies on unlikely co-incidences in some plot developments. Some people don't agree with this, but I did get this feeling. Some of the meetings between the various characters are quite unlikely by themselves, and the whole thing isn't helped by introducing all the main characters at the start and then just having them interact only with each other through the whole long film without introducing anyone else noteworthy. In other words, it feels like Los Angeles is only populated by these people, making their surprise interactions even more jarring as the plot twists and turns ... and twists some more.
The film's tagline, said at one point by Matt Dillon's cop, is 'you think you know who you are? You have no idea.' And the film gets this point across at various instances by repeatedly scratching the surface of its characters. The victim becomes the bigot, the bigot discovers underlying humanity etc. Its a simple message, of course: scratch the surface (the colour of a person's skin) and you'll find depth.
The film is entertaining enough and the tone is pretty much what you would expect from the above description - empathetic, serious, dramatic conflict and self discovery. The acting is good with Don Cheadle displaying a Morgan Freeman ability to make us feel what is going on underneath his sombre, still exterior. Thandie Newton gets the biggest scenes and crackles with intensity. Overall its good - there's one scene (impenetrable cloak) in the middle that gave me goosebumps and is now one of my favourite movie moments - but occasionally kind of florid and a little bit amateurish.
Oh, and for the record, 'Brokeback Mountain' is a much better, focused film than this and should have won the Best Pic award.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
An Expensive Mess
To whom it may concern, I also reviewed 'HP and the Goblet of Fire' and gave it 8 stars. Read it if you like because I sort of touch on the same issues here.
As we know, the first few Potter films were widely criticised for being absolutely stuffed with everything from the books. As the books got longer, though, it would be inevitable that heavy trimming would have to be done. They did well with 'Goblet of Fire.' They didn't do well here.
Remember the threesome scene in 'A Clockwork Orange?' The mechanical and acrobatic sex captured as if it was in fast-forward? This is what this movie is like. The whole name of the game here is expediency and efficiency. A lot of the major scenes from the book are here except they are whittled down to the shortest time possible and include only a couple of lines. There's no build up or pleasure. Potter has his Arthur Weasley vision and 30 seconds later Shacklebolt is saying 'You can't deny, Dumbledore's got style.' Yet nearly everything stylish about Dumbledore's escape in the scene has been cut. All the fun has been drained out just so everything can be crammed in. The task of trying to balance making a good movie and put in everything essential to the whole Potter mythology has clearly taken its toll. Though I was able to keep up, the casual movie-goer by now is going to be hard-pressed keeping up with all the talk about prophecies, floo-networks and Padfoots.
So because of the overriding tone of speed, slash and burn, I couldn't enjoy the story, and therefore, the film. As for the good points: This is a major franchise movie and the money put into it clearly shows. Art direction like the Ministry of Magic and the Department of Mysteries is glorious to behold, but even here, there is a sense of overkill. The duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort would have been much better if it was like in the book but here its a huge amount of flashing sparks. As for the acting, all the main actors are quite comfortable in their roles. Daniel Radcliffe has improved a lot though I don't think he'll ever entirely banish the wood from his performances. What is most pleasing about the entire film is the new characters. Imelda Staunton is most entertaining as Dolores Umbridge, and the chick who plays Luna Lovegood did her perfectly. I smiled every time she was on screen. And Helena Bonham Carter has a lot of fun as deranged sexy death eater Bellatrix Lestrange. Marry me, Ms. Carter, I'll be good to you.
4/10. Don't bother seeing it. And good luck to the people who have to put the 6th and 7th books on the screen. They'll need it.
Lady in the Water (2006)
Its all Make Believe
The setting is an apartment complex called 'The Cove.' Ordinary, kinda sad building superintendent Cleveland Heep discovers a lady in the apartment pool. She's from another place - The Blue World - and she is here to awaken a certain person and help return the world to good.
Your enjoyment of 'Lady in the Water' will depend on whether or not you can surrender logic and believability and just believe. I'm not just talking about the strong fantasy elements with all the talk of narfs, scrunts and magical healing mud. I'm talking about narrative and character plausibility being almost entirely thrown out the window so that the film can dramatically move ahead. For example, Cleveland learns nearly all the rules about Story and her world through a 50-something year old Chinese woman, who knows because the information was passed down to her. Soon, everyone in The Cove is trying to do everything they can to help Cleveland and Story out, no questions asked. People hang around their apartments all the time, waiting to be drawn into the story, as if they've never gone anywhere else in their lives.
So why would anyone enjoy this, you ask? Well first of all, there's a certain suspension of belief that we all like in the movies, right? I mean, we know that the characters of 'Lost' should look 10 times more scruffy after all that time on the Island, but do we really really want them to look that way? For those who can just ride with it, there are some good things to report. Paul Giamatti gives another strong performance as the stuttering, everyday hero and Bryce Dallas Howard is believable without saying much as the quiet, fragile Story. They have great chemistry and the supporting roles are quite fun. Even Shyamalan himself is good in his mandatory acting turn. And though I spent the first 2/3's dealing with the above issues, the last 1/3 is filled with stately and dramatic moments. With this film, Shyamalan successfully seems to tap into the confusion, despair, hope and yearning in these current troubled times, hinted at in the wonderfully simple opening monologue and the glimpses of the Iraq war on the news. The characters all want to have a purpose in life and they all want to do good. They all want to rally around each other and work together. They want to rebel. By the end of the film, those implausible things I mentioned earlier seem less important (but still there).
The true star of this film is the score by James Newton Howard. Also working with Shyamalan on his previous films (sixth sense, unbreakable, village), Howard's score soars, moves, surprises and thrills.
End verdict: Not as sharp as 'The Sixth Sense,' not as fun as 'Signs' and having the kind of murky logic of the 'Village.' However, it has a lot of trademark Shyamalan stuff and if you've generally liked his past work and you're willing to give your plausibility radar a good push down, or have a low one to begin with, then you could see this film and enjoy it.
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
An Extended Episode of Alias
Where I stand on MI. Mission Impossible 1: Very cool. MI2: Stop switching faces! Ethan and Thandie Newton should go on mushy double date with Anakin and Amidala.
Where I stand on JJ Abrams. Alias: Often good but unbelievable, I'm more a '24' fan. Lost: Often great but I've stopped watching it.
Put them together and you have Mission Impossible 3
Abrams is a competent and experienced entertainer used to this sort of material: twists, guns, spies, gadgets, villains, devices that could destroy the world, secrets, lies etc. He constantly keeps things moving and interesting. On the other hand, focusing mainly on Alias here, his stuff is sometimes hard to swallow even for action TV. To me, Abrams is kind of old-school in the way he often skips over plausibility to set up the action or drama spectacle he really wants to focus on. Characters endure extreme conditions and combat and come out with barely a scratch on them, they globe-trot everywhere at a moment's notice and only run into realistic obstacles if it is convenient to the story. On Alias, haven't you noticed that Sydney (Jennifer Garner) has to change into 1001 different costumes to remain undercover, while Vaughn pretty much only changes his accent? Maybe I sound kind of stuffy here but this stuff irritates me.
In MI3, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is now engaged to Julie (Michelle Monaghan, lovely) when he is pulled back into the line of fire to retrieve his former pupil Agent Farris (Keri Russel, who looks cool with a gun) from mean arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman, playing standard bad guy). The rest of the movie is a cat and mouse game with Davian, who wants to gain access to a nasty weapon and hit Hunt where it hurts.
MI3 feels like an extended episode of Alias. It does not feel cohesive but quite episodic (gee, wonder why?) sort of split into 3 sections characterised by a major action sequence. The action is sometimes pretty great, but generally not spectacular. Nothing to match the tension of the first movie's famous CIA infiltration. The cast is fine, and Tom Cruise has a really cool run, nice high knees and fluid arm action. Head looking straight ahead... There is some more swapping faces stuff that doesn't seem as annoying as it was in MI2. Overall, the story is pretty basic stuff.
BTW ever since 'Match Point' I've always thought Jonathan Rhys Meyer, playing one of Hunt's team here, would make a really good James Bond. He's dark, handsome, from Ireland (like Brosnan), is only 30 y.o. and does dangerous and confident well. Not that I want Daniel Craig (see my Casino Royale review) replaced but maybe in the future?
Minority Report (2002)
"Careful, Chief. You dig up the past, all you get is dirty."
'Minority Report' is gripping and intelligent for most of the film but the impact falls away towards the end.
First of all, the premise is cool and so is the way the film handles everything. We all know Spielberg is a capable and quality filmmaker and the whole pre-crime concept is introduced and explained well. There are nice touches here and there such as 'conducting' the search for the murderer. Its true that some aspects of this film like plot devices and technical choices (all films agree that the future will have cold, blue light) are kind of standard and not that original. Not only that but red herrings like new alphabet letters and pills that make time pass faster were promised beforehand.... However, this doesn't really rankle that much. Spielberg doesn't go overboard on the futuristic gadget stuff but concentrates on the characters/story instead.
What's irritating, though, is that some of the plot turns are inconsistent and fairly implausible. I mean, at the start we're told the pre-cogs can only see murder because murder is what most affects the metaphysical universe, however the filmmakers don't stick to this rule later on.
However, As Anderson hurtles towards the future murder he is accused of, the film is mostly tense, thoughtful and gripping. Some of the best scenes don't have to do with chase scenes but character interaction such as Anderton's meeting in the greenhouse and a discussion about his son later on. Unfortunately, after the main event, the film becomes sort of unnecessary and overblown. The ending (concerning pre-crime) isn't very believable at all when you think about it. The early 21st century films - 'AI: Artificial Intelligence,' 'Catch Me if you Can,' and this one seem to be good/great Spielberg. Its nice to see him back at the top of his game, though, with the absolutely heart-stopping 'War of the Worlds,' and the extremely intelligent, respectful and courageous 'Munich.' Spielberg's usual pals in cinematography, score and editing do nice work here but nothing that will blow you away. Cruise does a fairly good job but sometimes seems stretched in some scenes - his 'War of the Worlds' performance is much better. The acting star of the film is Samantha Morton as pre-cog Agatha. She shudders, gasps and sees murder over and over again with wide eyes and raw believability. Colin Farrell also shows smarmy promise here.
In conclusion, a great Spielberg film would probably be considered a triumph for most other people. I recommend you watch this film.
PS: One last thing. If you were Anderton, wouldn't the best thing to do to clear your name be to hide out somewhere and lock the door? That probably wouldn't make for a very interesting film, though, would it?
Little Children (2006)
An Enaging Film with Focus
'Little Children' is one of those movies set in suburbia that explores men and women dealing with strained marriages, the politics of parenting, inertia, loneliness, fidelity/infidelity and dangers lurking beneath the surface. When not done well, films like this can appear to be overblown soap operas. When done right, like this one is, it is something to sink your teeth into and enjoy.
Sarah (Winslet) and Brad (Patrick Wilson) are both one-child, stay-at-home parents with a lack of focus or drive in their lives and a lack of connection with their spouses. Sarah is more frustrated - unwilling to just have a healthy fantasy life like the the other park mothers, while Brad drifts around and broods. They use their children as an excuse to spends more and more time with each other. Both actors give very bold performances here, their characters' emotions radiate off their bodies even when they're not saying much. Winslet is particularly good, managing to give Sarah an earthy sensuality. Her character feels so trapped that her lust for a purposeful and happy life becomes a rebellion. Winslet makes Sarah so in touch with her emotional needs and gives her such a charged urgency that I found her alluring, something I haven't felt towards her in her past performances, through she's always been an attractive and extremely good actress.
In the other story, a recently-released child sex offender (he exposed himself to some kids) named Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) tries to exist in a community that is being taught to fear him. Haley really shines in his role as a man acutely aware that his dark urges are wrong but is still in their grip. Haley is far more deserving of the supporting actor Oscar than Alan Arkin was, for his by-the-numbers 'Little Miss Sunshine' performance, but I guess they wanted to give him some sort of lifetime achievement recognition.
The movie slowly, piece by piece, becomes more gripping as everyones' lives become more desperate and tangled. This is sort of like 'Desperate Housewives' except more mature and less quippy. The script and direction manage to maintain focus on what is important. A criticism I have heard of this movie is that Brad and Sarah's spouses (Jennifer Connelly and Greg Edelman) are not developed enough and only serve to justify the two leads. Even though this may be true (Sarah's husband is pretty much a cameo) I have mixed feelings on this. The filmmakers' clear intention was only to feature the spouses in a way that gives you an idea of the relationship they have with the main characters, and to further flesh out the main characters. In other words, less is more. While this may or may not have been fine, it is only the ending of the film where it becomes a relevant problem. The film ends for Sarah and Brad in a way that calls into question the exact state of their current marriages. Since the spouses are underwritten, the viewer is left with a bit of an empty feeling. We've come to know the characters very well, but the information isn't quite aligned with the questions the ending raises. Also the film shows its literary roots through its heavy reliance on a narrator at the start, which (don't worry) becomes rarer as the film progresses. Much of what the narrator says is unnecessary as the actors are often already doing such a great job acting out the narrated text.
However, all this aside, 'Little Children' is clearly engaging, entertaining, carefully made and doesn't struggle to find things to say. I highly recommend it, if, like me, you're of those people who are constantly looking for something meaty in terms of acting, story and dramatic conflict.