Change Your Image
Nilsosmar-2
Reviews
Cactus (2008)
Involving and thought provoking
I found Cactus to be involving and thought provoking. I've read some reviews elsewhere online that said it wasn't fast paced enough; I think they were written by people looking for an action movie, and not prepared for what is basically a relationship drama, in which the painful trajectories the characters are on are revealed to the audience as they're revealed to each other.
I found it interesting that while both of the main characters were believable, the kidnapper ultimately was revealed to be more sympathetic (though both characters went through a transformation as the narrative developed.)
Re: the reviews online that claim too many elements were left unresolved, I understand but don't agree with their point. Cactus is not a movie that wraps things up into neat packets, neatly labeled, with a narrator summing up the meaning or "moral." The viewer is left to figure some (major) things out. If you like your movies all sewn up with neat explanations, it may be unsatisfying, but if you like relationship dramas that open up slowly, and leave you to ponder some things, I expect you'll like it.
Impostor (2001)
A good film; the strengths of the performances outweigh a few production problems
IMPOSTOR is a good movie, a solid and effective adaptation of Philip Dick's short story. The screenplay is gripping and tightly written. It's a wild ride, troubling, involving. The story is simple but not simplistic. It has some surprises.
All of the key characters' performances are good, and some are extraordinary. Gary Sinise is spot-on as the protagonist, Spencer Olham, running and fighting for his life and something more. Madeleine Stowe gives a genuinely moving performance in the role of Maya, Olham's wife. The chemistry and sense of love between them form the heart of the story.
I saw the original on HBO years ago, and liked it enough that I recently bought the DVD with the director's cut. I'm not sure what the differences are, but this cut does feel leaner and tighter.
The effects are uneven, which I expect is due to the movie's origin: it was originally conceived as a short, then the producers switched gears in midstream and retooled it into a full length feature. Some of the visuals are borderline, by today's standards, reminiscent of some bad moments on the Sci Fi channel. Others are excellent, so don't let that stop you from seeing the movie.
Looking past the uneven SFX, the movie is well worth seeing. One caution: if you haven't seen IMPOSTOR, and see any reviews that warn of spoilers, don't read them. Much of the story's emotional impact has to do with specifics of the plot it's best not to know about when watching it the first time.
The Mechanic (2011)
Good movie, with solid action scenes
The Mechanic is a good movie... solid plot, good action stunts, good editing. The story lacks complexity but has a driving energy and core emotional substrate, a through line of emotion that drives the film, that many films today lack. Action movies can be terrible or compelling; this one is solid and effective.
Some reviewers miss the puns and quips from other Statham films.... I don't. I find elements like that distracting. And they wouldn't have belonged in this film.
Some reviewers say the acting is wooden... I disagree. The script doesn't give Statham a lot of ground to cross emotionally, but Donald Sutherland comes through with an interesting, even touching performance. And Ben Foster has a volatile, unstable quality, straddling a weird but believable ground between vulnerable and borderline- psychopathic, that plays effectively off Statham's character's more guarded emotions.
Some fault the film because they're troubled by the scene in which - SPOILER WARNING - Statham's character shoots Sutherland in cold blood, at a juncture in the story when Sutherland has made himself vulnerable and defenseless. Again I can't agree that this is a fault. The scene IS troubling -- that's the point -- and is essential to Statham's motivation in taking Foster's character under his wing. If you can't get it out of your mind, neither can the lead character. His guilt over it is the obvious (and only conceivable) explanation for slowing himself down by taking on a sometimes-inept protégé.
Some fault the movie because they feel sorry for the assassins' victims; but that's also a strength, not a weakness. If anything, the movie would be stronger if there hadn't been a half-hearted attempt to justify the assassinations by painting the victims as being "bad".... as if their lack of redeeming moral qualities was what motivated the assassinations.
If you see The Mechanic, see it on the DVD because the deleted scenes are worth watching. They add emotional complexity, add some depth to the story and characters, and actually, one of the best action scenes in the movie is among them.
Total Recall (2012)
Nice design, but a disappointing story.
Total Recall (2012) is just okay.
It has some great design elements. The world of Colin Farrel's character is well imagined. The flying cars, and the logic behind them, are cool, and show some originality. The designers appear to have been given reign to create some gritty, interesting visuals.
The protagonist, Farrel, is in great shape physically.... he has the build of an action hero these days, appropriate to the role. The lighting enhances his good looks, particularly in the opening scene. As the old saying goes, "even his muscles have muscles." Still he has a nice "regular guy" energy that Schwarzenegger never cold have pulled off. So that's a point in his favor. Kate Beckinsale is also appropriately gorgeous. (In fact, so many people in the movie are good looking, it appears that the environmental devastation which destroyed much of the world only killed the frumpy looking.)
MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!
The movie starts well but heads downhill (for me) about halfway through. The action scenes are good, the fight choreography is satisfying and effective, but the plot fizzles out. The characterization and the characters' actions make no sense, and have an absence of logic or intuition behind them, giving them weak or nonexistent dramatic arcs. It makes me wonder if all of today's writers are doped up on antidepressants, disconnected from real feelings. For example, why does Quaid's wife (Beckinsale) disobey orders to try to kill him? She mutter something about the boss having liked him better, which is just silly, then something else about him having been a traitor, which makes no sense because he wasn't; the whole point is that he was a double agent. Why does the President of the world personally lead a strike force to kill a man he considers a terrorist? And why doesn't he deal more harshly with the woman who almost brings his plan down by disobeying his orders to let Quaid live?
The first half is pretty good; the next quarter is uneven; the last quarter is frankly terrible. In the original movie, Quaid's wife is decisively killed off, so the story can move on without her; in the remake she keeps coming back, and stays in the story long after he realizes she's not really his wife, for no discernible reason. She keeps popping up to try to kill him. Then at the end, she apparently saves him from dying, and puts him and an ambulance, then pretends to be his current girlfriend, all so she can -- what-- try to kill him again? Why? Who cares? And why does his girlfriend get upset when she sees the wife is dead? The ending is a muddled mess.
What bothers me most about this movie is the same thing that bothered me about Prometheus: that today's writers seem to have forgotten the interplay between plot, story structure and characterization, and how they need to relate to make a story come full circle. The ending needs to relate to the beginning and middle. It can't be just tacked on and rewritten a dozen times by a stupid committee. The result when it is, is that the movie falls flat and has no real emotional energy. The effects are nicely rendered, and the fight scenes are very cool. But the elements that could have made for an interesting and thought-provoking story are lost in a muddle. It's a shame, and points to a basic problem in Hollywood nowadays, a total lack of gut-level understanding about what makes an effective story.
It's still worth seeing, for the effects, as a matinée. But I call tell you that Philip Dick would not have cared for this version of his story.
The Lake House (2006)
Some good, some bad
The Lake House is an okay movie. It held my attention about half of the time.
The performances were just okay. The characters were pretty flat.
The scene in which Bullock and Reeves dance and kiss had some nice emotional tension.
The SF/fantasy element was somewhat interesting, but would have been better if just a little more thought had gone into it.
Moving on to some serious story problems (SERIOUS SPOILER ALERT -- stop reading if you haven't seen it):
About halfway through the story, Bullock's character makes a date with Reeves. He doesn't show up. She assumes the worst (though it's never said what exactly she assumes). Why? Why totally break things off, when you're in a deep romantic relationship, because of one broken date? Why doesn't it occur to her (as it does to him, and surely must to the audience) that something might or must have happened to him? Bullock's character does little that's decisive in the movie, but her abrupt decision to dump the guy because he didn't show up, without any explanation, makes her seem shallow and a little stupid.
Not a big point, but the story was set in 2006 (and 2004), but the characters did not have access to the internet. There did not appear to be an internet. If there was one, her first action, if she had half a brain, on realizing she was corresponding with a man from the past, would have been to look him up and see "what's he doing today." If he missed her date, she would have done some more digging. A world with magical mailboxes, I can accept; a world without an internet is actually harder to believe.
It's more than passing odd that in the time-line when he dies in her arms, after being hit by the bus that collided with the car, she didn't remember him. It's true that she had only met him once, at a party, but she had danced with him and kissed him there. Her boyfriend certainly remembered Reeves, enough to recognize him in the street and walk up to him angrily years after the kiss. Why didn't Bullock?
Minor point, but, who was she paying rent to, when she was renting the Lakehouse?
I can understand why he turned around and avoided being killed in the car/bus crash, but it appeared there was no crash in the altered reality. Why didn't it happen? And if it didn't, why did he need to stay away?
The story had so many sentimental elements, and the dog had so much to do with the sentiment, it seems odd that it wasn't around in the final scene. It could easily have been worked into the story, with a tiny amount of thought.
I don't mind a few story holes, but the ones in The Lakehouse could have been avoided with a little care and forethought. It was touching... I do understand why people liked it.... but I also think we have the right, as moviegoers, to expect that the plots will make basic sense. It's fine if they drift into fantasy, but the characterization has to make sense.
The Astronaut's Wife (1999)
A reasonably good movie, well acted
The Astronaut's Wife isn't perfect, but many of the comments posted about it are a bit over the top. The film does have a number of strengths, including subtle and interesting performances by Depp and Theron, particularly in the first half.
Some people have complained about the sex scene, but it's actually one of the most well conceived and edited scenes in the movie, both disturbing and erotic, and effective in conveying the twist in Spencer's relationship with Jillian, the moment when things start to go really wrong. It's actually one of the strongest scenes in the film, and I'm curious why it's stirred up such animosity. I think it may be because some viewers feel strongly that sex doesn't belong in "this kind" of movie. But just because a film has the word "astronaut" in the title doesn't mean it's for kiddies. Objections to the violence in the movie are a little odd too; there is some, but it's mild compared to most Hollywood films.
The second half of the movie does get a little tedious and predictable (but still has some very strong performances in spots, like Theron's when her character is considering aborting the presumably alien fetuses). Jillian's reactions to her sister's death come across as a little odd... she dreams about her sister's murder, sees her body, then still seems surprised a while later to see blood on her husband's hands. The ending does feel contrived and weak, both the alien entering Theron's body, and the (silly) tacked-on ending with the evil kids going off on the bus. (It feels a bit like a committee got hold of it and reconfigured the ending, making the whole thing feel a bit contrived and silly.)
So there are some problems, and the ending does cheapen and weaken the movie. Still in all I'd give it seven stars out of ten, for the strengths of the lead actors' performances.
Final Days of Planet Earth (2006)
Really really really bad, but fun
I found the DVD of this one for a dollar at a Pawn Exchange, saw the terrible cover, and thought, this looks like a horrible movie... I wonder why Darryl Hannah is in it? Could it be it was actually good? Could it be satirical? Is Darryl Hannah really in it? And why does she look like a bug monster on the cover of the DVD, if it's supposed to be a surprise? And why was the DVD only a dollar? How long had they been trying to sell it? Why had somebody pawned it for a quarter, and never come back to get it back? How bad could it be? I decided to find out. So I bought it, stuck it on a shelf and forgot about it.
So tonight I felt like watching a really bad movie, found it and watched it. It was funny, it was so bad it was fun to watch. Darryl Hannah looked like she was having fun being in a ridiculous movie for the first half or so, then like she just wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. I love the plot holes, the characters who make no sense at all and have no reason to be in the movie, the plot twists (like the shopping trip to buy the knives) that make no sense and have nothing to do with the story, the long meandering scenes about used car salesmen and bird watchers, the aliens who die for no reason when you chop their claws off, the characters who get giant bug larvae stuffed down their throats, the dialogue trying to explain in a bad meandering way what we just saw on the screen, the long scenes in which women sit around talking about scarves, the pointless scenes like the burrowing thing on the moon in the beginning that makes lots of noise in a vacuum, the bad sets and bad CGI.
Others have pointed out some of the plot holes.... to me they're the best part. I did like the line about aliens who put on their humans one leg at a time... I have to wonder if the actor ad libbed it, or if it was the one good line that survived when a committee butchered a good script, when it was being made. All of it was fun and ridiculous. I liked the hero tossing aside Darryl Hannah's host body instead of trying to save her after the alien bug thing jumped out of her skin. I loved the alien bus driver who stopped to let on an old lady passenger for no reason, while abducting the heroes. I loved the couple from Eastern Europe who had nothing whatsoever to do with the story and no reason to be in it, and ended up playing no role in the action. I loved the crazy interviews with the actors on the DVD in which they tried to respond seriously about serious questions about where there were really bug-like aliens running around on earth plotting to destroy the human race. I think there are, and I think they made this movie.