Change Your Image
jrosenf1
Reviews
V for Vendetta (2005)
"...violence can be used for good...justice..."
That single line tells you all you need to know about the mindset of the title character, V (Hugo Weaving), who uses violence to get back at those who wronged him and his native England. But it isn't just simple, mindless violence that the masked terrorist uses to avenge his injustices; no, he uses a calculating form of destruction specifically designed to punish those responsible. And the results are both horrifying and gratifying at the same time.
We are introduced to V through Evey Hammond (Portman), an employee at the government-run news channel BTN. She is out after the imposed curfew and finds herself being detained by agents of the High Chancellor (John Hurt) called Finger agents. As they threaten to rape her, the masked figure emerges from the shadows and promptly slices up the men in order to save the girl. But rather than leave her there he takes her to his "lair", a plush retreat he calls the Shadow Gallery. Once there he reveals his intentions to Evey by showing her the fruits of his labor: the demolition of a downtown landmark and subsequent spread of panic and fear throughout London. "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people" V tells her with voice that both comforts and chills. "Are you going to kill more people"? "Yes" he answers flatly, and THAT line alone could win Weaving an Oscar- I still have chills down my spine from his heartless nonchalance regarding human life.
But as the tale unfolds we learn that it's not the lives of ordinary citizens that V is planning to terminate, but those of a select group of government leaders and influential community members. Why is the man in the Guy Fawkes mask vowing to carry out what British freedom fighter Fawkes and his co-conspirators could not do in 1605- bring down Parliament? Because those inside are responsible for the condition that V is currently in, burned and barely human, but determined to settle the score with those responsible. "I've not come for what you'd hoped to do, I've come for what you've done" he tells one of his victims as she pleads for mercy."Are you going to kill me now"? she asks. "I killed you 10 minutes ago" he tells her. As his reign of revenge renders hypocritical higher-ups in pools of poison-filled puke, Evey is both mortified and mesmerized by the mysterious masked madman. And so was I.
A police officer, Chief Inspector Dietrich (Rea) has been trying to solve the case of who the man behind the mask is but every time he digs deeper into the past he is reminded to look away, or else. Still he continues to piece together the puzzle, and what he discovers puts the exploits of the terrorist in new light- V may have a just cause for his vendetta after all. The men in charge of the country are not the people they appear to be, but they are responsible for the state that their nation is in. On the 5th of November, the day that Fawkes is celebrated and one year after his reign of terror began, V will go out with a bang, bringing down Parliament and all of its' corrupt members. Or will it be his beautiful muse who lights the fuse?
Much has been said about this film glamorizing terrorism and demeaning government. After all, the central character is a debonair terrorist and the totalitarian government is portrayed as a controlling,corrupt, power-hungry entity. But I don't believe that the talented director, James McTiegue, nor the creator of the graphic novel the story is based on, Alan Moore, intended it to be seen in that light. It is what it is-a fun, fascinating, thought-provoking story that is like nothing ever seen before on film. It has been said to contain elements of everything from "Batman" to "Phantom of the Opera", but V FOR VENDETTA is a singular masterpiece that strips down the elements of today's society and asks us to examine what's inside.
Everything about this film stands out: the acting is top-notch; Weaving, wearing a mask the entire film, should easily earn an Oscar nod for his entrancing portrayal of the chilling villain, and Princess Amidala Portman finally conveyed a range of emotions, proving she's NOT just another (very) pretty face. The music was excellent, from the "1812 Overature" during V's destruction of property, to the golden oldies in his antique jukebox to the perfect closing number, the Stones' "Street Fightin'Man" (listen to the words). And the cinematography was simply amazing; the Wachowski Brothers "Matrix" influence could definitely be felt,especially in the awesome dagger showdown scene near the end. The lighting, colors, shadows and camera angles were all perfect and set the tone for an actual graphic novel come to life, without all the gimmicks of a "Sin City". All in all one of the best films I have seen in a long time and easily one of the best of the year, one that will remain in my head for a long time to come. It did not make me want to embrace terrorism and anarchy- it just made me want to think.
Push (2006)
Fresh faces and directing help & hurt this one
Contrary to what most of the posts state here, there is NO WAY this film is a 10. Those people obviously worked on the film or are friends of the director. It WAS an engrossing tale, one that has been told a million times in cinema, but I give the director credit for trying a fresh approach.
People have been getting caught up in the tempting world of drugs on film for decades, only to have their dreams of quick cash and instant cred go up in a ball of flames. But this time, director Dave Rodriguez took a bunch of no-name actors, made them middle-class working stiffs, and gave the old story a modern twist. The three central characters, Joe (Lindberg), Kevin (Forsythe) and Mickey (DePaolo) are all life-long buddies who have taken different career paths. Kevin is a commodities trader, Joe (who resembles Giovanni Ribisi) a bartender, and Mickey (a dead ringer for a young Kevin Spacey) a salesman; all of them dream of a better life. So when Mickey picks up a bag of Ecstasy dropped by a dealer as he was getting busted at a club, they start to talk about making a quick score. But the drugs belong to the local "X" kingpin, Paul Diaz (Sanchez), who is like a little Tony Montana, right down to his 2nd in charge named Manny. Not wanting to get busted selling HIS stuff, the boys go to Diaz' house and offer a deal: let them sell the stuff- they have plenty of connections- and they push hard to do it. After some debate, Diaz agrees, over Manny's objections, and the clock starts ticking to their implosion.
Of course they start out like gangbusters,slinging "X" all over the place, especially in Miami's gay clubs, thanks to Kevin's friend Toni (a hilarious turn by "Entourage"s Paul Ben-Victor). Things are going great; they're all making cash AND paying Diaz on time, so they start to think bigger: Kevin wants to leave his job after making some large investments, and push full-time; Mickey is becoming a hero with the teen rave crowd and trusting too many people under him; and Joe has dreams of getting out soon and buying the bar when the owner Vince (Palminteri) retires.
Here's where the flick starts to sag a bit. Everyone watching knows what's coming- it's going to end badly. But we are treated to numerous scenes of "emotional heft" that were, frankly, pretty amateurish. When Joe's girlfriend confronts him about sleeping with Diaz to get Joe out of the biz, their crying almost brought me to tears- of laughter. Kevin also becomes an emotional wreck, unconvincingly. This was when the solid but inexperienced cast looked over-matched, which brought down the rating of the film.
Anyway, not to spoil it but it doesn't end well for the boys, and it tells a cautionary tale of not going for the quick buck to sacrifice your whole life. Like I said, nothing new there. But the cinematography, Miami backdrop, and decent if not spectacular performances all made it a film worth watching. Oh, and Michael Rappaport was great as the big time trader with a major drug problem and an attitude.
Banlieue 13 (2004)
Like Jackie Chan on crack
I pretty much knew going in what this French actioner was going to be like, so I didn't have hopes of it being an Oscar contender. I just wanted to be entertained by it, and thought it might have little bit more to it.
It didn't. It WAS mildly entertaining, due to the terrific action sequences, amusing tribute to "Scarface", and colorful characters & scenery. But that's all there was. The plot was threadbare: in 2010 Paris, a roof-hopping vigilante named Leito (Belle) teams up with tough-as-nails cop Damien (Raffaelli) to infiltrate a drug dealers' lair. That happens to be located smack dab in the middle of a walled-off ghetto known as District B13, which is filled with fast & furious cars and fill-in-the-ethnic-blank junkies. The pair must defuse a bomb placed in the center of the district that supposedly only Damien can disarm. But the bomb is in possession of Tony Montana-wannabe Taha (Naceri), a ruthless coke-head who has taken Leito's sister as his drugged-up sex slave (a-la the Tony/Gina/Manny angle from SCARFACE). The pair must fight through Taha's band of thugs, namely head goon K2 (D'Amario) and get to the bomb before it's too late. Spliced in are some truly magnificent action sequences: wall climbing, acrobatic fighting, and enough bone breaking and bullets flying to make me dizzy. All of this is set to a thumping techno soundtrack and reminded me of a mixture of Crouching Tiger, Mad Max, The Matrix trilogy and Jackie Chan on crack. Sure the scenes were entertaining, but they were too few and far between, and with nothing else to hold my interest in the meantime, it left me waiting for the "good parts" to start again- never a good sign.
The ending has a political message thing to it, but it rang pretty hollow with the tone of the film. It was what it was- entertaining to a point, but by no means should be used as a film of any social relevance. Oh well, maybe they'll get it right in the inevitable sequel.
The Proposition (2005)
One of the greatest Westerns of all time
My first thought when this film ended was "WOW". And it's not easy to elicit a reaction like that, especially nowadays. But this stunning piece of Australian cinema left me awed and breathless from the opening credits to the harrowing ending.
It begins with a montage of snapshots depicting the era- 1880's Australian Outback- including photos of a murdered family, all set to a hypnotic lullaby. What follows is a gunfight reminiscent of a video game in its intensity and ferocity. When the smoke clears Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone, in his best performance since "Sexy Beast") offers a deal, or proposition, to Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce, channeling the Spaghetti Western-era Clint). We learn that the Burns Brothers have been inflicting terror on the region for some time, and that includes the rape and murder of the woman, along with her unborn child, husband and young son, seen in the opening. Captain Stanley, the proverbial "new sheriff in town", has been brought in to tame the wild frontier. But upon capturing Charlie and the younger Mike, instead of killing them, he makes them an offer: Charlie must go track down & kill the eldest Burns brother, the vile Arthur (a brilliant Danny Huston) within nine days, or Mike will be hanged.
Charlie reluctantly agrees and gallops into the barren wilderness to track down Arthur, who has been hiding in a remote cave. Along the way he crosses paths with sly bounty hunter Jellon Lamb, wonderfully played by John Hurt, and is nearly killed by a spear from an aborigine. When Charlie wakes from his coma he finds that he has been saved by Arthur and his small band of cohorts, and unaware of Charlie's intentions, they welcome him back to the fold. Meanwhile, Stanley is facing opposition in town from all sides for letting Charlie go, including from his loving, loyal wife Martha (the always-excellent Emily Watson). She wants justice for her murdered friend in the form of 100 lashes for the one brother in jail, the feeble Mike. The scenes of Martha questioning her husband about the case, and his refusal to answer her despite, or because of, his obvious love for her add a deep emotional sideline to the main story.
***SPOILERS****
By now Charlie is healthy enough to kill his brother, yet seemingly reluctant to do so- he has numerous opportunities but lets them all slip by. The answer to the age old question "is there loyalty among thieves" appears to be "yes", especially when the thieves are brothers. Ultimately Charlie decides to stay true to his blood and the group rides back to town to exact revenge on those responsible for Mike's imprisonment, starting with Captain Stanley. This leads to the film's mind-blowing climax: when they arrive in town they immediately head to the jail to rescue Mike; this is accomplished by lopping the guards' heads off. Charlie takes the wounded Mike to safety, where he dies in his arms. At the same time Arthur and Sammy head to the Stanley home to finish their plan. The brutal beating of the Captain and subsequent rape of Martha is absolutely agonizing to witness. But just when I thought I couldn't take any more, Charlie arrives, and after having another apparent change of heart, puts an end to the insane cycle of violence once and for all.
***END SPOILERS***
Much has been said about both the cinematography and violence in this film; let me confirm that BOTH are spectacular. The scenic vistas drenched in sun-baked light, burning sunsets over the stark plains, twisted trees that resemble sculptures and luminous star-studded night skies never ceased to awe. And the amount of flies, dirt, and blood in the film had me swatting the air and trying to spit dust from my dry mouth; if the cinematographer isn't nominated for an Oscar there needs to be an investigation! As for the violence, yes it is unflinching & raw, but completely appropriate for the time. It's true that scenes like Mike's flogging, the Stanleys' torture and heads being cut off, beaten to a pulp and shot in half are graphic & disturbing, but it's not gratuitous like in movies such as "Hostel", rather necessary to portray the harsh realities of life during that period. In fact there are probably fewer actual SCENES of violence than in your average slasher flick, it's just that in contrast to the slow pace and soothing backdrop of the rest of the film these moments hit you like a sucker punch to the gut, further driving home their effect. But the real beauty of the film is that the story, adapted by Aussie icon Nick Cave, is multi-layered and complex while appearing very simple and minimalistic. The characters are all conflicted, like many of us today,and make decisions both right and wrong; even Arthur's twisted logic that everything they do is okay because they are family has a sick nobility to it. The class-dictated racial hatred is another (unfortunate) parallel to modern life. So you can look at this film in two ways: an unrelenting tale of violence and vengeance, and an allegory for the problems that have been plaguing mankind for thousands of years.
When all is said and done this film will go down as one of the greatest Westerns of all time. With its beautiful scenery, gut-wrenching violence, fantastic acting and haunting score, THE PROPOSITION is a film that will be watched over and over again for many years to come, yet another quality absent from most movies today .
Looking for Kitty (2004)
Ed Burns should take a cue from Woody Allen
This is another New York-centric little character-driven film about a down-on-his-luck private detective, Jack(Burns), who takes a case for a sad-sack husband, Abe(Krumholtz) searching for his recently departed wife. Jack is a lonely man who has lost his wife and feels screwed by the system. Abe is a baseball coach from Upstate who longs for the return of his beloved Kitty. But she evidently tired of Abe's small-town ways and devotion to the kids on his team, so she took off to shack up with a rock star in a Manhattan condo. Despite their differences, and Jack's desire to be left alone, Abe persuades (for $500 extra/week) Jack to let him assist in his investigation; their daily interaction leads both men to learn something about themselves.
All the typical Burns' traits are there: poor schlub with relationship problems? Check. Men attempting to find themselves, usually with the help of unattainable women? Check. Witty dialog and terrific one-liners? Check. Enough shots of downtown New York to film a travel guide? Check. I mean, it's a decent little movie that hits a few high notes, such as when Jack wistfully gives historical back-ground about the "holdout" buildings left in the booming megalopolis that is downtown, or the gut-wrenching scenes of Burns pining for his lost wife. But there really isn't much to it, and what is there, we've seen it all from Mr. Burns before. And much better (i.e. Brothers McMullen, She's the One).
My advice to Ed: next time out, take a cue from the Wood-man and move your tale to another locale. Woody finally abandoned his beloved city, hopped across the pond to London, added some intrigue, and the result was his biggest critical and box office success in years, MATCH POINT; it was so successful he opted to make his next film there as well, although early reviews of SCOOP are not flattering. But maybe you could try Ireland, and add a little mystery or a torrid affair. Heck, even add Scarlett Johansson if you must. Because we love ya, Ed, for your everyman charm and ease in front of, and behind, the camera. But I for one am growing tired of your one note acts. You have the talent to do so much better.
Hard Candy (2005)
Difficult subject that needs to be addressed on film
This disturbing little indie has generated so many opinions on both sides of the fence. Many praise it for the psychological tension and gritty realism; others condemn it for its spotty dialog, padded runtime, and implausible scenarios.
Not to be a fence-sitter, but both camps have solid points. The interaction between the two leads, Jeff, a pedophile photographer (Wilson), and Hayley, a savvy, vengeance-minded 14-year-old girl(Page) is hypnotizing. From the opening shot of their chat room hook-up, through their first meeting, to the hunted turning the tables on the hunter, the performances of these two actors had me glued to the screen. The innocent-looking but not-so-innocent Hayley stole the show as we watch her transform from naive victim to bloodthirsty vigilante right before our unbelieving eyes. And Wilson more than held his own by making his despicable character sympathetic thanks to his emotional portrayal. Both should be a force in this business for years to come.
Unfortunately, things went south quickly. Could Haylee have drugged Jeff and tied him up so tightly that he couldn't move? Possibly. Could she have subdued him numerous times thereafter, and forced him to choose his eventual fate? Doubtful. In parts the script seemed to get real thin, like the director had run out of story, so he just added some pointless dialog and side stories. And Jeff's aforementioned fate and the questionable ending of the film really brought it down another notch.
But my point is that at least those involved took the chance on this difficult subject and hopefully shed some light on a problem that is plaguing our society today- internet predators. This film made me think and want to take action against these people, just not the kind of action Hayley took. The actors did what they could with the script, and if the director had cut the film down to a lean 80 or so minutes, the message could've been a lot more potent. But I think they accomplished what they set out to do, and that was to make a thought- provoking film that would make more people aware of this troubling issue, and hopefully help other underage kids from making similar mistakes.
Failure to Launch (2006)
Has there ever been a more appropriate title?
I think not. This rom/com had should have been halfway decent, with its solid cast and a plot ripe with comedic potential: Trip (MM)who still lives at home turns the tables on Paula (SJP),a too-cocky-for-her-own-good girl hired by his parents to lure him out. Throw in Kathy Bates & Terry Bradshaw as the parents and Zooey Deschanel, Justin Bartha and Bradley Cooper as the wacky friends, and I thought this one might be different.
It was different, alright; I've never before seen 4 ANIMAL-BITES-MAN scenes in one film that wasn't on the Nature Channel! The first time was silly enough; the second was overkill; the third seemed like a bad dream; and by the fourth my wife and I were pleading for the madness to end. If this is what the director thinks passes for comedy, well he'd better go back to film school. But what did I expect from the guy who brought us the unforgettable disaster that was "Showtime" .
The movie had some funny moments, mostly from the (in)decent Bradshaw (a moment that will never be erased from my memory),and the excellent Deschanel as Paula's psycho roomie- I would rather the film focused on her character than the others- but basically McConaughey just did his flash-the-pearly-whites-and-rock-hard-abs thing and utter a few corny lines, and SJP did her Sex and the City thing and look like a moving Picasso painting. Yawn.
Just another typical cheesy romantic comedy, with numerous nature attack scenes thrown in for good measure. Watch at your own risk.
The King (2005)
Bernal's quiet intensity holds the film together
Hard to recommend, or enjoy, this film due to its unlikable subject matter; incest, betrayal, hatred, religious fervor, murder, and isolation are some of the more disturbing themes examined in THE KING.
Yet I did find myself enraptured with it, and that was mainly due to the performances. Spanish heartthrob Gael Garcia Bernal (Motorcycle Diaries, Amores Perros) simply captivates as Elvis, a recently discharged Marine who heads to Texas to reconnect with the father he never knew. But his father, fundamentalist preacher David Sandow (William Hurt) has no intentions of welcoming his illegitimate child, born out of wedlock to a Mexican woman "before he was saved", into his current family. That's when the cold, calculating Elvis sets his plan into motion, one that involves seducing his 16-year-old stepsister (Pell James in a remarkable per-formance),eliminating his bothersome stepbrother, and eventually bringing the entire family to an untimely end.
As I said, tough subject matter to like, but the engrossing performances make the difficult topics easier to digest. Bernal's take on the sadistic psychopath role is refreshing, as he uses his good looks, disarming smile and smoldering eyes to convey sympathy that belies his intentions. Hurt has rarely been better as the preacher who uses religion to cover his sins; his turnaround with Elvis after his other son "disappears" is alarming and speaks volumes about his character's true self. James is magnetic playing the innocent waif who falls for the conniving trick played by Elvis, and when she learns the truth her reaction nearly brought me to tears. Even the underdeveloped role by Laura Herring (Mulholland Drive) as the wife carries weight, although she was used much too little.
All in all a fascinating look at some difficult subjects that was made watchable by the actors involved. And while I cannot recommend the film, it has some attributes that will make it difficult to forget.
The Matador (2005)
"The Facilitator of Fatalities..."
... is just one of the many great lines uttered by conflicted hit-man Julian Noble (Brosnan, in one of his best performances ever). The nice thing about this dark, quirky film is that you really never know where it's going. We know that when Julian meets Danny Wright (Kinnear, playing naive & goody-goody instead of smarmy & crass), a salesman in town to land a big client, the two are somehow going to hit it off. But it's the journey that forges their unlikely friendship that is so much fun to watch.
Julian is at a crossroads in his life: on his birthday, after finishing another "corporate gig", a.k.a knocking off an unwanted CEO, he realizes that he has no friends, no home, and no future. This state of nothingness leads him down a booze & sex-soaked path of self-doubt and delusions, neither very good for a man of his profession. So when he meets ordinary guy Danny at the hotel bar, it is Danny's "normal life" and genuine kindness that leads Julian to open up to this total stranger. The emotional weight in the film is palpable; although Julian is a man of low morals and questionable integrity (he looks at pre-teen Catholic schoolgirls as appetizers for his voracious sexual appetite), Brosnan's complex, multi-layered performance makes you care about this lout, and you find yourself rooting for Danny to help him get through his emotional crisis. As I said, you never really know where the film is going, in a good way. A couple of times flashbacks are used to fill in the blanks, and I found myself saying "I didn't see that coming". You also get the feeling that Julian could say or do anything at any time, another reason you kind of get an "edge of your seat" experience, even though this is not an action film.
It was great to see the suave, debonair Brosnan playing against type as a perverted, sexually ambiguous (he rips off a few comments about homosexual encounters) wreck of a man, in other words, the Anti- Bond; he is deserving of all the accolades for carrying the movie more than all the other actors combined (Hope Davis appears briefly as Danny's wife; Phillip Baker Hall also cameos as Julian's "handler"). Witty, dark, emotional, intelligent, disgusting, sexy and fun are all words that could be used to describe both Julian Noble (love the ironic name) and "The Matador".
The Zodiac (2005)
Not a "true" serial killer film
This film either suffers from poor marketing or from having the wrong title; it's no more about the actual Zodiac killer than "Summer of Sam" was about the Son of Sam. It merely uses the infamous slayings as a backdrop for how a community, a police department, and one officer in particular were affected by the traumatic events.
Although most of the depictions of the murders were eerie and well-done, the real focus of the film is how the taunting nature of the killer and the lack of hard evidence plays havoc with the psyche of lead detective Matt Parish (Chambers). As the case wears on and the pressure mounts to catch the killer, Parish begins to distance himself from his caring wife (Prison Break's Tunney) and odd son (Culkin). Ironically it is near the end of the movie that we see one of the more dramatic scenes, when a drunken, frustrated Matt comes home to a locked house and orders his wife to leave the door unlocked, not to bow down to the psycho. She looks at him incredulously and screams at him, saying "he's still out there and he knows where we live". Matt stumbles out of the house, and a montage of the dramatic events that were taking place in the world at the time (moon landing, Vietnam, the Manson slayings) is run while the song "Time(Has Come Today)" by The Chambers Brothers plays. It leads up to a chilling scene of the killer donning his creepy hooded costume and committing one of his more heinous killings, viciously stabbing two lovers to death in a field in broad daylight. Powerful stuff.
Unfortunately the movie wraps up rather quickly after that, but it did leave some indelible moments. It was a serial killer flick from a different perspective, and I applaud the director for trying something new. "Time" will soon tell if David Fincher's soon-to-be re-leased version carries more weight and delivers on the killer's last words that he is "waiting for a good movie about me". This film may not be directly about him, but it's still pretty good.
Down in the Valley (2005)
failed to live up to expectations
Like many other posters have stated, I wanted to like this film; it seemed to have a lot going for it (great cast, interesting plot, terrific visuals). So I dug in and stayed through to the end, hoping it would at least come to a satisfying conclusion. Well it didn't. For one thing, it was about 30 minutes too long- from the opening scenes when Tobe (Wood) meets Harlan (Norton) you know two things are guaranteed: they are going to fall in love, and something tragic is going to happen. Problem is, the director throws in so much unnecessary filler (trippy scenes at a club, repetitive family squabbles) that the focus of the story gets off track.
At its heart this film is a character study/slice of life piece. Tobe, a teenage girl rebelling from her overbearing, violent but caring father Wade (David Morse) and Harlan, a wannabe cowboy with childhood abandonment issues who lives in a delusional world, hook up at a gas station; she is immediately smitten with his "aw shucks" attitude and his focus on her. Harlan tries to ingratiate himself into her family life, attempting to smooth things over with dad and befriending her younger brother Lonnie (Rory Culkin in another mesmerizing turn), who has no male role model in his life (he is adopted, and neglected, by Wade). You know things are going to turn sour when these twisted lives intertwine, especially when we see that Harlan likes to act out old Westerns in his room, using real six shooters. Throw in the fact that Tobe's dad is a corrections officer, veteran, and avid gun collector, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this crush is going to end badly. But when the tragic events finally do unfold, it's not in the manner I expected, nor hoped; plus the finale drags on to the point where I was praying for it to end already (not a good one to watch after midnight).
This one had so much potential, and there WAS a lot to like about the film: the performances were stellar across the board, the cinematography depicted beautiful images of the new San Fernando Valley where it collides with the Old West, and the ideas were ambitious and commendable. But with some editing and a tighter script, this intriguing little indie could have really been a keeper.