Change Your Image
mrmatt14
Reviews
Ink (2009)
10/10 for pure ambition
This is a far from perfect movie. The acting was shaky at times, and the cinematography sometimes was overwhelming. This was low-budget, and the flaws that come from those restrictions were clearly evident.
However, I'm 100% sure that if this movie had the budget of even a "mainstream" indie, it wouldn't be half the movie that it is. Despite its occasional flaws, I have to give this 10 of 10, simply for the pure ambition of the filmmakers. Ink is challenging stuff.
This is a difficult, but meaningful and thought provoking story which requires complete attention. It's not enough to watch it casually, as it'll be completely missed. It's slow starting, but give it a chance and the film is inescapable and deeply affecting.
I've seen enough movies of all sorts that I genuinely appreciate when a filmmaker shows me something entirely new and different. Ink delivers, in spades.
The Bridge (2006)
Zero margin for error
Purely from an artistic point of view, I give this film a lot of credit. It's beautifully shot and tells a series of compelling stories.
Given its subject matter, there are probably 999 ways this could have been exploitative and grotesque, and 1 way it could have been effective, and it found it's way to the .1% club. Despite the macabre subject matter, the film treats its subjects with respect and doesn't default to the rote "these people had so much to live for" reaction that is a logical first reaction.
Instead, the film uses the shock of witnessing someone's suicide as a medium to explore the background and nature of mental illness from a fairly objective point of view. The outcome is not exhibitionist, but rather a reminder to recognize the warning signs of depression and act accordingly.
I would say that this is an important film for anybody who has struggled to understand the mentality of someone who has attempted or committed suicide. I only give it 9/10 because they didn't interview an expert or two who could give some greater perspective on the subject, beyond the painful reality of the people who were actually depicted in the film. There is a lot of research to say that in a situation like the Golden Gate Bridge, someone depressed may have approached with the idea of committing suicide, but the final act is ultimately spontaneous. I would have liked to see that sort of angle explored a bit more.
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
I hate westerns
As a general rule, I hate westerns. I can't relate to them enough to care about the characters. Even when I can see there's something worthwhile in the story, the trappings of the genre place enough of a disconnect to keep me out of the story.
It was with much trepidation that I took a friend's recommendation to watch this movie. I agreed mainly because I respect both Bale and Crowe enough to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Despite being somewhat talky, there's not much in the script to make it something the movie can rely upon. In the end, do I honestly believe that the two lead actors to embody characters that can forge enough of a bond that the facades fall away and they have to deal with each other as real people?
With due credit to Logan Lerman, acting as a mirror to the hearts of both of the leads, I can honestly say that Crowe and Bale each achieve their formidable task.
I walk away wondering if I would have the courage to act as either Wade or Evans did, and I honestly don't know.
If that's not the sign of a film worth watching, I'm not sure what is. I may have to give westerns another chance.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Are you kidding me?
Three things in life are certain -- Death, Taxes, and that this new Indiana Jones movie will gross at least a billion dollars at the box office. Given that they could have spent any amount of money and still turned a profit, and that they've had 20 YEARS (!!!) to do it, the fact that this is what Spielberg and Lucas decided was worthy of our attention is insulting.
Spielberg once had a gift. He made movies that captured the imagination and defined a genre. He's lost that that touch, as he hasn't made a decent movie since Empire of the Sun (yes, I'm including Indy 3 in the dark period, not up to the standard of Raiders, and as much of a last hurrah as he's had.) These days, Spielberg just makes bad movies -- Schlocky, sappy, animated, amusement park ride, popcorn munching crap. It's what he does, but he's become successful at it. He apparently made the decision a long time ago to trade his legacy for a pile of cash, and I suppose that's to be respected in a very Hollywood way.
If Spielberg wants to brag to the world that he's lost his touch and can't do what he did 20 years ago, that's his business, but he shouldn't have done it with my childhood heroes.
That's heaping a lot of (well deserved) blame on the director, but he's not alone. The script was awful, especially when it came time to stop everything that's going on and present exposition. It couldn't have been more ham-handed if they flashed a big red EXPOSITION sign on the screen. The acting was mediocre at it's best. The score was grating and WAY too loud, and the whole thing looked like it was shot in a Sam's Club warehouse (I know, I know, they were going for an old serial look and feel. They failed. Miserably)
This would have been a GREAT addition to the Tomb Raider franchise. As an Indy, it's best to just watch the trailer.
Mr. Brooks (2007)
Nice alternative to the torture flick du jour
I saw the trailer for this one, and thought it was an interesting premise, but Costner movies are so hit or miss. He's the LAST person on earth that I'd expect to be playing a serial killer. His demeanor is too gentle and even. WOW was I right, and that's what makes the movie. That slow, gentle, deliberate pace gives it a surreal sense of unease that a lesser actor couldn't match. It is exactly his everyman persona that makes this movie work.
In the tone of the movie, I was thrown by Costner's previous work as well. He's best known for somewhat light and under-realized fare. Mr. Brooks is anything but. This is a very, very dark movie, to the point that it's uncomfortable in places.
Kudos as well to William Hurt, who isn't known for playing this sort of role either. His character could easily descend into cliché, but it doesn't. He holds the right note, and the chemistry between him and Costner is tangible.
Over the top torture/gorefests have been the flavor of the month. Don't get me wrong -- I love High Tension and it's ilk, but it's nice to see a film that doesn't have to go for the visceral reaction to achieve it's tension. This is an assault to the mind, not the eyes, and it's exceptionally well done.
Home of the Brave (2006)
Apologies are due
Some people in the movie business make movies they don't have to be proud of. They may do it for the paycheck, because it's a fun movie, or sometimes even to poke a little fun at themselves. The best examples of these (Snakes on a Plane, Miss Congeniality, Jurassic Park, or the better part of William Shatner's career) are fun, lightweight popcorn flicks that are good quality escapist fare that nobody has to feel bad about.
But then movies come along like Home of the Brave. Not only don't the minds behind this have a movie to be proud of, they owe an apology to the people they're trying to portray. If the movie's about alien mutant dinosaurs from Pluto coming to steal our rabbits, then a lot can be forgiven. If the movie is about the challenges that soldiers face coming home from a very real war, a more careful hand is required. Sadly, those careful hands weren't involved in this project.
It's a pretty compelling premise, and there is a lot of talent in the cast. Samuel L. Jackson tones it down a bit and (in a rare occurrence) underplays his role a bit. I never saw him as one to embody the "slow boil." 50 cent, for the few scenes he's in, is strong. Jessica Biel will probably get panned for her performance, in much the same way Christina Ricci was in Monster, because her character was *supposed* to be awkward, out of place, and painful to watch. Despite the fact it may be faint praise, I'd say it's probably the best work of her career. Brian Presley shows that he's been wasting his time on soaps and TV for far too long.
That's where the niceties stop. All this talent in front of the camera is wasted by a bad script, a worse directing job, and a story that was just fundamentally a bad idea.
***SPOILERS BEGIN***
We'll ignore the number of scenes that were totally blown by horribly clichéd dialogue and worse direction. Let's focus on the theme of the movie -- all soldiers who come back from Iraq are mentally unstable time bombs who are unable to re-integrate into society, at least at first. The white ones eventually find their way, and the black ones go for their guns and resort to violence. I kid you not -- that really is what this movie is saying.
The total lack of attention to detail is splashed across the closing frames in a quote from Machiavelli. "Wars begin where you will, but they do not end where you please." Nice quote, but this is from the same guy who said "Before all else, be armed," "It is better to be feared than loved," and "the end justifies the means." It sounds like I'm making a petty point, but it's illustrative of the lack of depth that this movie has.
***SPOILERS END***
I know enough people who have been to Iraq and back (or who are still over there) to feel insulted on their behalf. A subject like this deserves to be treated with respect, and this movie just doesn't do it.
The Hoax (2006)
Richard Gere, playing Richard Gere, in the latest Richard Gere movie
Richard Gere, playing Richard Gere, in the latest Richard Gere movie. That's The Hoax in a nutshell. Gere's a one-note actor, and he plays that note very well, in well chosen movies. If you like his movie (they're mostly just variations on a theme, aren't they?) then you'll love The Hoax.
Lasse Hallstrom does quiet, introspective movies, and this is a quiet, introspective movie on a grand scale. All the lies, all the pressure, in such a public forum, and yet, this remains a movie about a man, his wife, and his friend.
Gere plays the flawed hero who is, at his core, an honorable and likable guy who gets a little blinded by his own light, and pays a dear price for losing his way. (SURPRISE!!!) Alfred Molina plays neurotic to the point of annoying, but holds his own in a talent-heavy cast. Marcia Gay Harden is excellent, as usual, and the rest of the supporting cast do not disappoint.
It could have been about 20 minutes shorter, but overall, definitely worth seeing, as long as you like Richard Gere.
The Number 23 (2007)
So much wasted potential
Hrmm... where to start.
Matthew Libatuque is about as good of a cinematographer as there is working, and for the visually inclined out there, this one is a feast.
Jim Carrey.... hrmm... Jim Carrey. I like it when comic actors play dark, as long as it's done well. He does this one well, but he's still the wrong actor for the role. There's a difference between being dark and playing dark, and unfortunately, he was just playing. This one was SCREAMING for Colin Farrell, but instead we get Jim Carrey proving that he really can act.
But as for the movie, I can simply say it's a mixed bag, and the fault there goes to Joel Schumacher. He gets credit for being a mainstream director who likes the dark material, but once again (*ahem* 8mm) he either doesn't understand the material, or isn't willing to stick up for it's integrity in the face of his big studio bosses. Either way, David Fincher could have done wonders with this, or Christopher Nolan, or any of the other directors who have a talent with solid, dark material.
The ending is the ultimate fault of the movie. Obviously, some suspension of disbelief is required for something like this, but the ending so strains credulity that it ruins some otherwise noteworthy work in the rest of the film. There are so many excellent directions this could have gone, but Schumacher opted for clever, and that relegates this one to little more than a renter.
The Messengers (2007)
Nothing new, but not unwatchable
I saw this one tonight at a screening, and I wasn't entirely disappointed. I'll be honest -- there's nothing new in The Messengers. It's all been seen before in earlier, more original movies. This one is kind of a "best of" reel of some good ideas from other horror movies. If you're looking for something original and scary, this isn't it. If you're looking for a little jumpy fun, I can't say this one is a miss. By virtue of the "good ideas" being good, they work. What it lacks in originality it makes up for in assembling them in a reasonably coherent manner.
My only real gripe is that Dylan McDermitt looks about as out of place working the fields of his farm as any actor I can think of. They could have at least tried a LITTLE bit harder casting that part.
Think The Birds + Ju On + Amityville Horror + Sixth Sense.
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
I'm seriously conflicted here
I can't remember the last time I was this conflicted about a movie.
On the one hand, it was a maddeningly bad film. Everything was wrong with it. It was trite, cliché, tacky, and overzealous.
The whole plot can be picked up by the trailer -- an orphan boy (Jean-Baptiste) with no scent of his own but with an unequaled sense of smell grows up to learn the perfumerie trade and seeks to kill women to capture their beautiful scent in the best perfume ever made.
Before trying to digest the film, you have to just suspend disbelief and accept the plot (no small feat, to be sure.) Once you get past that, you have to work past a few spectacularly bad performances (*cough*Hoffman*cough*) and just accept that EVERY character is a stereotype. There are no real characters here, anywhere. So once you get past that (still hanging in there?) you have to suspend all thought until the end of the movie, then try to digest the whole thing all at once (please note the 147 minute running time.) Then comes the real kicker. There's just something about the movie that comes through that's hauntingly beautiful. At first I wasn't quite sure what it was. Then the layers started peeling back.
***SPOILERS BEGIN*** There's a long-ish and somewhat deliberate monologue about the 12 scents that make up a perfume. Three sets of four scents make up each of three "notes." The "top notes" are the sharp scents that first catch your attention. The "heart notes" come in as the first impression starts to dissipate and carry it for a while. Finally, the "base notes" come in as the top notes dissipate entirely and make up the lasting impression. Legend has it that in ancient Egypt, there was a perfume that used a 13th scent that rang through all the others, to create a truly unique and magnificent perfume.
When looked at as a whole, the movie follows the same structure. The top notes are an unmistakable romp through an 18th century fish market. The heart notes start to build sympathy for young Jean-Baptiste. And the base notes come in as the story starts to turn dark and truly bizarre.
Then, as a post-script, Jean-Baptiste is eaten by a horde of people in the fish market where he was born. An odd 13th scent to leave on, but it's what made the start to movie click. There's just something there that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
I wanted to watch it again, to study it, and to understand the movie's structure and motives. Despite being a not-entirely pleasant watch, but it's fascinating.
And that's when the final scene made sense. The people in the market didn't understand what was happening, so they had to take it apart, and consume it, even though doing so killed the person with such an amazing gift. To go back and take apart the movie and reduce it to a couple of plot lines and character arcs -- to "decode" it's individual scents -- would be to destroy it.
So is this a parable about the importance of appreciating beauty for it's own good? Is the "real" 13th scent of this movie it's ability to adopt it's own metaphor as it's primary structure? Has the movie transcended it's own plot and all it's faults to create a perfectly crafted impression on the viewer? All of a sudden, is this really such a bad movie after all? And the question that really sticks in my craw -- does all that make this one of the most brilliant films ever made? If I ever get the opportunity to meet Tom Twyker, I'm going to shake his hand, then hug him, then punch him. I think that's the only proper way to react to Perfume. I honestly don't know how else to react.
Fast Food Nation (2006)
Vegeterrorists of the world unite!
I'll start off by saying that any comparison between this and Thank You For Smoking are totally unwarranted. Thank you for Smoking was entertaining, and this was not. Smoking was funny, and this was not. Smoking was thought provoking, and this was not. Smoking was a good movie, and this was not.
I've seen some miserable failures of movies, but this one probably takes it. It wastes a lot of talent in a quite good cast for no real reason. The moral of the story - you don't want to know where your food comes from. Oh wow, that's thought provoking. There are some people who will say that it was a story about unsafe and unsanitary conditions in meat packing facilities, but after saying that part, they stop talking. If the recent outbreak of e-coli doesn't make you realize that the "problem" extends far beyond the meat packing and fast food industries, you're not paying attention. If they're still not convinced, Google "The Food Defect Action Levels." You don't want to know where your food comes from.
The "story" is of the so-called "awakening" of a small group of people to the reality that life isn't happy and wonderful and peaceful and buy the world a coke. The problem is, none of the plot lines are very compelling and none of the characters are particularly interesting. It's just boring.
**SPOILERS BEGIN** The movie even admits it's own miserable failure in the last 15 minutes, when someone realized "hey, we're not going to be able to evoke an intellectual reaction here, so let's gross 'em out." And that's exactly what they do. In a "plot" event that's more contrived than even the movie's marketing (read: for no reason whatsoever) the cameras roll to the slaughterhouse with only one goal - To provoke nausea in the audience.
All I can say there is that a more capable director wouldn't need to rely on such tactics, because their storytelling would have been compelling enough without it. Linklatter's one of the most hit or miss directors active in Hollywood today, but even at his best, he's not up to this sort of material. He knows it, so he goes for the visceral reaction.**SPOILERS END**
The vegeterrorist crowd was reasonably well represented at the screening I attended, and I'm sure this played quite well to their demographic. I couldn't note that anybody else was particularly affected by it. I envied the people who left early, and noted that mine was not the only sticker/button/poster in the garbage outside the theater -- far from it.
This is an activist movie in a vein that would make Al Gore say, "no, that's far to blatant." It tries to beat a message into your head as hard as it can, and if that's your sort of movie, by all means, go see it. Just don't get popcorn or anything else at the theater (you don't want to know what can be done to popcorn, even though there's no meat in it!) Otherwise, take this opportunity to see any number of other fine movies that are in theaters and miss this utterly forgettable movie.
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
An amazing accomplishment
I've always felt that when you fictionalize a story about war, you dishonor the memory of so many people who have a compelling story to tell by choosing to make something up instead *cough*privateryan*cough*.
The problem with war movies about real people is that you have to deal with complexities of character and plot that the genre simply doesn't lend itself easily to.
So when the story at hand aims to pose questions like "what does it mean to do the wrong things for the right reasons" and tries to debunk the popular myth of herodom, there's very little margin for error.
Enter Clint Eastwood. Never one to shy away from challenging stories, this is a much bigger effort than his usual understated character dramas. On the one hand, it doesn't "feel" like a Clint Eastwood movie, but on the other, it feels at home in his themes of used-up heroes -- the person behind the larger than life persona. These are complex characters in very difficult situations, and he presents them in a way that's straightforward and non-judgmental, so we're left to decide the answers to the film's central conflicts ourselves.
To a person, the cast is up to the challenge. It's hard not to admire Ryan Phillippe for a restrained and thoughtful performance, but the real kudos go to Adam Beach. Almost every aspect of Beach's character is cliché, with one minor exception - that's really the way Ira Hayes was. So the challenge was to portray Hayes as a real person despite the cliché, and the result is one of the most heartbreaking and troubling performances in the film. Here's a guy who is portrayed as a hero, who really has no answers at all.
There's a lot not to like about the film. It's not "entertaining" per se, in the same way that any war memorial in DC is not entertaining. Nor is it a particularly approachable film. What it lacks in popcorn-munching entertainment value, it replaces with gravitas. This is an important film, about an important time. It's status as a valuable history lesson is secondary to it's reflections on human nature and our society. As such, it deserves to be seen, and contemplated, and appreciated.
I can't wait for Letters From Iwo Jima (the companion piece, also from Clint Eastwood, told from the Japanese point of view.) Taken together, the scope of this project is breathtaking.
Factotum (2005)
Stunningly unwatchable
Disclaimer: I am not particularly familiar with Charles Bukowski's work, and many of the other commenters to date compare this movie with his work. I don't have that point of view, so this is only about the movie.
A short story is a short story because it's meant to be short. Trying to put them together is like gluing together a pack of lifesavers. It may end up one big chunk, but there's not question that it was nothing more than it's individual pieces.
That's what this movie is like. It felt like a collection of short stories, held together only by one character who inhabits each of them. The segments could have been reordered in almost any combination and it would not have affected the film.
The acting was quite good, the dialogue was above average, and some of the film-making techniques were quite effective. The only thing the movie was missing was a point. The characters weren't engaging, and there was no plot to speak of. It was just a character study of uninspiring characters.
I'm sure that there was some reason to have made this movie. Perhaps Bukowski fans can relate to it better than I can, but I really didn't see the point.
Superman Returns (2006)
Does the world need Superman?
This movie asks the question of it's characters, "does the world need Superman." In it's construction and execution, it asks of it's viewers, "does the world need a Superman movie?" I had goosebumps through the opening credits. There is a magic to the Superman myth, and from the get-go, Bryan Singer pretty must states that he's a big-league A-list director, but he's *NOT* going to make Superman his own. He's dealing with something bigger than himself here, and he's going to respect that.
Batman and Spiderman have achieved great success as superheroes and as movie franchises by being quintessentially human. For all their power, their greatest weakness is their underlying humanity. For the movies, this struggle with humanity is what makes them successful. (I'm purposely considering only the bookend Batman movies here.) Superman's not human, and he doesn't have human weaknesses. He's a pretty flat character in a 21st century of back story, darkness, and closeted skeletons. That's a difficult sell, to be sure.
The magic of the Superman story has always been the "nick of time" rescue. Singer uses this technique, but in a quid pro quo. Superman rescues, but at the same time, the side characters become self-reliant and do their fair share of rescuing themselves.
I hear the comment, "something's missing." The piece that's missing is Superman at the center of this movie, and I'm not sure that it's a bad thing. Everybody is at the center of this movie, reacting to the presence or absence of Superman. It's a bold technique, given that it requires the audience to meet it halfway, and some people just don't do that. To watch this, and appreciate it, you have to watch with your heart.
So back to the question, "Does the world need another Superman movie?" IMHO, there's an undeniable and unmatchable magic to be found in a movie that has a distinct lack of cynicism. It's fun and it's touching, but most of all, it's refreshing that a movie can reach heights such as these without having to find a new dark corner of the human soul. The movie is pure magic and can take us all back to the days when we were innocent and believed that good will win and bad will lose. For everybody who has lost touch with that innocence, a Superman is sorely needed.
**** On a total side note, the age-old maxim should now read, "don't do scenes with kids, animals, or Parker Posey." She can do no wrong, and almost walked away with this whole movie in her back pocket.
Happy Endings (2005)
Already one of the most underrated films of the year
The early reviews on this are mixed, which is a shame. I saw it at an advance screening and thought it was one of the best films I've seen in a long time. The plot is complex, and it expects a lot from the audience.
The film starts as a very dark comedy. The audience reacts with a "This really shouldn't be funny, and I shouldn't be laughing at this." As the movie progresses and the false facades of the characters fall away and they're made to recognize the consequences of their actions, the tone of the film shifts and all of a sudden, those things aren't so funny any more.
The cast is phenomenal, and the film is phenomenally cast. Their chemistry seems authentic. The secret appears to be that so many of the actors are cast against type (Kudrow isn't the comic bimbo, Arnold's playing the most dramatic and heavy role in the film, Bradford isn't the pretty boy, etc.) On top of that, every one of them, at some point, sheds every scrap of dignity they have as actors to make their characters real. That's probably a credit to Roos's directing.
Not everybody is going to like this film, and that's probably OK. It's a pretty challenging work, and I can easily see a very polarized reaction to it. Those people who are willing to surrender to it will find that it is a phenomenal ride.
Saw (2004)
I'll never look at a tricycle the same way again!
I got to see this film at a screening tonight, and had the added honor of having the filmmakers there for a Q&A to introduce and follow the movie.
The acting wasn't stellar, and the movie itself was admittedly a little rough around the edges, but none of that really mattered. It was one of the most intense and disturbing movies I've ever seen. It became pretty clear why that was so during the Q&A. The filmmakers mentioned that they had been approached about just selling the script, but since they had worked so hard on it for so long, that it was their project and they were going to hold out until Wan could direct and they would maintain control over the script. And thankfully, Evolution gave them the funding and left them with creative control of the project.
The result is that the whole movie has a level of internal cohesion that can only come when the project is a labor of love from concept, through development, and ultimately into production. Despite the faults of the movie, it still worked amazingly well, and had such a profound effect, because it was made by people who intimately knew every nook and cranny of the script, concept, and plot.
My fear is that this movie will go the way of Blair Witch (about which I had very similar feelings.) This movie will benefit from some very well deserved positive word of mouth, but it's just too intense, and too much of a niche film to live up to the mass market's expectations. This is NOT a movie for the general movie going public. This is a movie for people who appreciate the art of film-making, and want to be scared and frightened by a challenging work. If the average popcorn muncher makes it through 45 minutes of this one, I'll be impressed. For those who go -- and I recommend it highly -- be ready for a unique experience that one can never truly be prepared for.
The Forgotten (2004)
*SPOILERS* Stay away *SPOILERS*
Do all your friends a favor -- ruin the "twist" to this movie (if it can be called that) as quickly as possible so they don't get suckered into the hype of the movie.
I'm not quite ready to acknowledge that this one has a true twist in the plot because it becomes pretty obvious early in the movie, in the form of that haunting voice in the back of your head that slows down for car wrecks thinking "oh no, I hope they're not gonna turn to aliens." Too bad. Our prayers -- and any hope that this movie could be salvaged as an interesting psychological thriller -- are quickly tossed aside.
I can't even be convinced that the filmmakers were taking this one seriously. Everybody knows that Mel Gibson took the line "Give me back my son" off the market for missing kid movies. I was hoping that they wouldn't resort to using it, but sure enough, they blew that one too. On what planet would an obvious reference to a much better movie be missed?
I'm sure TNT will pick this one up in a year or so and run it 8 times a day for a month. Hold out until then to watch this one.
Diarios de motocicleta (2004)
... on my way to the library
I've never seen a movie that made me want to go hit the library and study quite like this one did. I know just about Latin American history to know that I don't know enough about it to appreciate the depth of this movie.
A number of people have said that this movie was lightweight, and didn't properly do justice to Che Guevara's politics. While I haven't read the source material for this movie, I suspect that these people miss the point. Guevara wasn't a revolutionary, or even anyone particularly significant, at the time that this took place. He was a kid reacting to the world around him. By de-emphasizing his politics in favor of the events that formed them, I think the filmmakers allow us, as viewers, to react not to the man, but to the influences that made the man. It's a difficult undertaking to leave such a substantial piece of the movie implicit, but it's a testament to the skill of the filmmakers that they were successful.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
I didn't expect much, and it delivered
To be honest, after the horrid Episode 1, I didn't expect much from Episode 2. Because of that, I can't say I was disappointed. Lucas delivered about what I expected.
It was gorgeous, and it truly sets a new standard for special effects in film. The problem was that it doesn't integrate the actors well in places -- it looks bluescreened.
To complain about the normal stuff, the dialogue was hokey (Yoda's lines sounded the most natural), the acting was stiff, and the directing was non-existent. For the most part, the actors do an OK job of pretending to see something that isn't there, but it's a stretch at times.
Natalie Portman has established herself as a fine and powerful actress, but I kept feeling like she had to dumb it down for the role and play down to the more limited talents and experience of her costars.
Hayden Christensen is pretty, but that's about it. He looks pompous and spoiled when he's supposed to be immature, and he looks constipated when he's supposed to look dark and brooding. Forget about the "sexual chemistry" between him and Portman that supposedly won him the role -- it didn't translate to film at all.
Ewan McGregor is the film's one laudable success. He character has matured since TPM and he has adopted a style and accent that could conceivably grow into Sir Alec Guinness. The lines are trite, but the performance is admirable.
The faults for this film, ultimately, lie solely on the shoulders of George Lucas. With the budget, the franchise, and the guaranteed returns, this movie could have commanded all the might of Hollywood, yet he retained the script and directorial reigns. A good script and a solid director could have made this movie work. Lucas is a brilliant mind and a top-notch visual effects guy, but a writer and director he is not. A perfect example is the event which really marks the turn in Anakin to the dark side. They hint at it, they talk briefly about it, but the single most significant event of all six movies wasn't shown for the true horror that it was supposed to invoke. Sure, it might have taken some careful editing to avoid the R-rating, but we're talking about the event that sends the innocent blonde kid down the road to Darth Vader.
Even he has conceded that TPM was a disappointment, but rather than purge the worst of the first, he tries to salvage them. GEORGE - IF YOU'RE READING THIS -- JAR JAR NEEDS TO GO AWAY. A "limited role" isn't good enough. GONE. GOODBYE. NO MORE. There's also the Pod Race II -- same ole thing in 3D with guns. Admit mistakes, let them go, and move on.
Perhaps the worst element was the misplaced attempts at suspense. This is a prequel, so we know that Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Amidala will live. To go through extended action sequences which place their lives in jeopardy is insulting. We all know they're not in any real danger, so don't waste our time. There is only one fight sequence that's worth noting, and that's the much commented-upon light saber fight at the end. (And no, I'm not talking about Yoda -- that was tacky.) There was an element of mystery because we didn't know if the bad guy was going to buy it, but it's notable because it was simply gorgeous -- perfectly choreographed and visually stunning.
I'll grant that the Star Wars franchise is a difficult task to undertake. It's a much-anticipated epic with a religious following. I can only hope that Lucas will focus on what he's truly good at, and let others handle the rest. Peter Jackson might be a good source of input -- he's got some experience in such matters.
Resident Evil (2002)
Lightweight, mindless eye candy
Not that that's a bad thing. Although I generally like more substantial fare, sometimes it's nice to have a fun movie come along. Unlike so many other action/thriller movies out there that pretend to be so much more than they actually are, this one makes no attempt to try to carry a meaningful plot or intelligent dialogue. It's pure escapism, and it's fun to watch.
I have to hand it to the creative team behind this one, as it cooks up new and creative ways to kill people. But the violence isn't as mindless as the rest of the movie -- there's still that sense of shock and horror when someone gets killed.
Oh yeah, and get ready for the sequel -- this one's not even subtle about setting up for Resident Evil II - Escape from Racoon City.
Series 7: The Contenders (2001)
Satire at it's best (minor spoilers)
A lot can be said, and has been said, about this movie and what it's trying to accomplish. What most impressed me was that it was what it purports to be -- a vicious satire on the "reality" programming that's flooding our TVs.
It's effective because it uses 2 primary devices. First, it's wickedly funny. The commentary between action sequences is modeled after the typical documentary in reality programming, and in many cases, is funny by it's own right. The situations in the larger picture, though, are even funnier as the full scope of all the subplots emerge.
Second, it's horrifyingly shocking. I'm not one to be turned off by movie violence, but the violence that is at the heart of this movie is fully realized and portrayed very well. It's hard to watch.
The combination of the two is where Minahan and company really show their skill. The juxtaposition of the constant humor with the shrieks and cries of a mother as she watches helplessly while her teenage daughter gets beaten to death is the vehicle that drives the whole point of the movie home to the viewer. This movie is entertaining because of the humor, but the violence takes the content outside of the movie and into the real world. The adept viewer walks away with a renewed shock that behind the "reality TV" and the constant flow of trash on Springer and other talk shows that we use as entertainment, lie real people, with real problems. It's hard to watch those shows again and take the situations out of the context of a real life.
To those who criticize the violence in the movie, I can only suggest what the movie would be like without it -- it would be the same kind of exploitative trash that is the subject of it's satire.
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
wow
I can't claim to understand this movie. It's plot is simple. The music, while intriguing, is not particularly lyrical. The camera work was choppy, rough at times, and almost annoying at places. The script is unspectacular.
So why did it affect me as deeply as it did? I have no idea, but I found myself in tears at the end, sitting stunned as the credits rolled, and the DVD menu came back up. Probably 10 minutes later, I finally stood up.
I guess that's the mark of a true work of art. If you give it the chance, let your guard down, and suspend disbelief just a little bit, it owns you and takes control. You sit spellbound as you experience those things that other people just talk about -- real courage and strength, dedication, and love.
There is nothing in this movie that reaches out and grabs the viewer, like the mass-produced bullets and bombs action movie. You're forced to meet this film halfway. The script, plot, and characters are painfully simple, and there are character and storyline holes everywhere. I found that there's a little bit of me in every one of the characters. The complexity of the film comes in the way I had to fill in the holes with my personal experience, attitudes, and feelings. At that point, I was a character in the movie. I was experiencing all these things. I had a horrible decision to make, and I paid the price for that decision. (I might note that people who don't like or understand this movie probably fail to make this connection with it.)
Bjork's major film is a work to be proud of. I'm disappointed that she did not enjoy the experience (although I could understand how making something of this nature could be a downer.) I think the movie world is missing a great talent without her. Deneuve was given a somewhat shallow role, but she makes the character complex and pure -- definately a difficult feat. The real jewel in this film was Peter Stormare, who follows his career as a seriously under-rated actor with a role and performance that is equally under-rated. Even more than the other characters, his love and pain is pure because he has no vested interest beyond love and devotion. Unspoken conflict is the hardest to portray on film, and he does it to perfection. Watch him closely -- it'll break your heart.
Cecil B. Demented (2000)
Physically painful
I felt physical pain as a "friend" made me sit through this movie. (He is no longer allowed to select movies.) All I could think about was how much longer it could go on before I could sort my sock drawer. Maybe I'm no fun, but it takes a lot more than the name "John Waters" to make me enjoy a film. It needs a coherent script and at least decent acting. This had the antithesis of both.
Just my humble opinion.