I didn't hate the movie, however it just plods along and most of the characters aren't really interesting or sympathetic enough to really care about them. Billy Crystal tries his best, however the humour in scenes without him doesn't really work. I know it's meant to be a comedy drama but it fails to find the balance between the two and the main character was rather unlikable it made it hard to care what his outcome was at the end.
Reviews
8 Reviews
It's a shame
27 January 2020
The film started off so well, however the second half turns into a jumbled mess which is makes it so hard to follow. I'll give credit to the actors as they were all very solid however the script and direction left a lot to be desired, a lot of the action scenes where so dark it was hard to make out what was going on. For a film that showed such promise early on, the second half of the movie seems to come off as a parody of the the Ned Kelly story, 4/10 only for the performances and first 40 minutes, otherwise a 1 star from me.
The Box
(I) (2009)
Donnie Darko strolls into a Dark City via The Matrix
11 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Donnie Darko strolls into a Dark City via The Matrix. That's a kind way of explaining this convoluted mess of a film which never really gets going, and never really seems to understand where it wants to take us either.
James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play Arthur and Norma Lewis who find a cardboard box on their front step containing a device with just a single button. They are soon visited by a mysterious man in in a trench coat named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), who gives them a proposition; press the button and he will give them one million dollars, but if they do so, a stranger will die.
This is an interesting enough premise, and it's disappointing that writer/ director Richard Kelly couldn't do more with it. Instead of trying to a weave a story out of the ethical dilemmas of such a choice we instead see Arthur and Norma being visited by acquaintances giving them coded messages and warnings, a glimpse into scientific experiments the specifics of which are never explained, random characters suffering unexplained nosebleeds, as well as the couple experiencing journeys through portals via their subconscious.
This film reminded me of the disastrous Julianne Moore vehicle, The Forgotten, which was a film with an equally intriguing setup but had no idea where to take it. Without having any direction after setting up the initial premise, The Box becomes a giant mess of a film. The film becomes hard to follow at times, and then it becomes 'I couldn't care less' as the it continues to move in a direction where there is going to be no satisfying outcome.
The ending is rather dull, and any surprise or suspense is lost because the viewer stops caring about the characters long before. It still doesn't make much sense, because Kelly leaves too many questions unanswered and too many random events that seem to form on purpose. This worked with his previous feature Donnie Darko, as it created conundrums the audience could ponder about for weeks afterwards. The very ethical dilemmas posed in The Box should very well do the same thing, but you can afford to miss the film that goes with them.
James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play Arthur and Norma Lewis who find a cardboard box on their front step containing a device with just a single button. They are soon visited by a mysterious man in in a trench coat named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), who gives them a proposition; press the button and he will give them one million dollars, but if they do so, a stranger will die.
This is an interesting enough premise, and it's disappointing that writer/ director Richard Kelly couldn't do more with it. Instead of trying to a weave a story out of the ethical dilemmas of such a choice we instead see Arthur and Norma being visited by acquaintances giving them coded messages and warnings, a glimpse into scientific experiments the specifics of which are never explained, random characters suffering unexplained nosebleeds, as well as the couple experiencing journeys through portals via their subconscious.
This film reminded me of the disastrous Julianne Moore vehicle, The Forgotten, which was a film with an equally intriguing setup but had no idea where to take it. Without having any direction after setting up the initial premise, The Box becomes a giant mess of a film. The film becomes hard to follow at times, and then it becomes 'I couldn't care less' as the it continues to move in a direction where there is going to be no satisfying outcome.
The ending is rather dull, and any surprise or suspense is lost because the viewer stops caring about the characters long before. It still doesn't make much sense, because Kelly leaves too many questions unanswered and too many random events that seem to form on purpose. This worked with his previous feature Donnie Darko, as it created conundrums the audience could ponder about for weeks afterwards. The very ethical dilemmas posed in The Box should very well do the same thing, but you can afford to miss the film that goes with them.
Flash of Genius
(2008)
Invention of wiping
5 September 2013
Every day we go through life using all kinds of objects and gadgets we never ever stop to think to ourselves 'how does this work exactly'? Not so, Roberts Kearns, who makes a hobby out of taking things apart and putting them back together, often with improvements.
Greg Kinnear puts in a solid performance as the real life wannabe inventor who has his patented invention of the intermittent windshield wiper stolen by Ford Motor company, and goes on a decade long battle to get recognition for his work. The film is your typical David v Goliath story, and the film suffers from Kearns not being the most interesting of people. If he were an eccentric Albert Einstein type inventor, this could have been a lot more entertaining.
Never the less, it's still quite an interesting true story, and the film picks up in the last act once it hits the court-room. Some funny touches by Kinnear warms the audience to him and had me at least rooting for the little guy. It's no masterpiece, but just a light drama suited to a lazy Sunday night in front of your Television set. Just don't take it apart after-wards.
Greg Kinnear puts in a solid performance as the real life wannabe inventor who has his patented invention of the intermittent windshield wiper stolen by Ford Motor company, and goes on a decade long battle to get recognition for his work. The film is your typical David v Goliath story, and the film suffers from Kearns not being the most interesting of people. If he were an eccentric Albert Einstein type inventor, this could have been a lot more entertaining.
Never the less, it's still quite an interesting true story, and the film picks up in the last act once it hits the court-room. Some funny touches by Kinnear warms the audience to him and had me at least rooting for the little guy. It's no masterpiece, but just a light drama suited to a lazy Sunday night in front of your Television set. Just don't take it apart after-wards.
Taking Lives
(2004)
Its own worst enemy
4 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
D.J. Caruso knows how to craft a good film. His debut feature, The Salton Sea, was a sordid but gritty look into the drug underworld. For at least the first half of Taking Lives, he does a great job too, setting us up with tightly paced serial killer thriller with a haunting scope. Angelina Jolie does a reasonable job in the lead and more importantly is nice eye candy. Sadly, it doesn't take long for the film to fall apart after a promising opening.
I don't feel the need to get into the plot, that's there in the IMDb summary. So basically without revealing any actual plot twists there are two main problems with this film. The first is that it's VERY predictable, even if you don't get the twist straight away, there comes a point in the film where there is no choice for the viewer to see the inevitable twist before it actually comes. And once that point comes along it's a downhill slope for the remainder of the film.
The second problem is, even if the twist is obvious, that is no excuse for failing to tie up loose ends and fill up plot holes. In this film there's too many unanswered questions that the film-makers don't even attempt to address. It's an insult to the audience to simply expect them to forget about certain facts introduced to the story early on in the piece and the film cheats so often too, only showing what they want you to show, because the that's the only way the story can hold up.
Overall a film that starts off so well, but ultimately disappoints and assumes it's audience has an I.Q. of less than 65.
I don't feel the need to get into the plot, that's there in the IMDb summary. So basically without revealing any actual plot twists there are two main problems with this film. The first is that it's VERY predictable, even if you don't get the twist straight away, there comes a point in the film where there is no choice for the viewer to see the inevitable twist before it actually comes. And once that point comes along it's a downhill slope for the remainder of the film.
The second problem is, even if the twist is obvious, that is no excuse for failing to tie up loose ends and fill up plot holes. In this film there's too many unanswered questions that the film-makers don't even attempt to address. It's an insult to the audience to simply expect them to forget about certain facts introduced to the story early on in the piece and the film cheats so often too, only showing what they want you to show, because the that's the only way the story can hold up.
Overall a film that starts off so well, but ultimately disappoints and assumes it's audience has an I.Q. of less than 65.
Triangle
(2009)
Could have been better
27 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Time travel movies, or those that introduce the 'what if' scenario always intrigue me. They can be hit or miss a lot of the time, and sadly this falls into the miss category.
The premise is interesting enough, a group become stranded when their Yacht overturns in the ocean. When a cruise liner comes by they board it, but the ships not what it seems. Suddenly, the group seem in a situation where they encounter a duplicate of one of their own, and go through timewarp which sees them relive the same circumstances again and again.
Without saying too much more to give away spoilers, the actions from the main character Jess (Melissa George) are quite absurd at times, and the character herself is extremely unlikeable. Having a protagonist you don't care about in such a thriller (and thus not care whether she lives and dies) is the first mistake. The other is it becomes obvious at around the 30 minute mark where the film is going, and the conclusion is inevitable. A good psychological thriller should stay one step ahead of the audience, not the other way round.
The other problem I had with the film were the performances. The cast is all Australian, but for some reason the director entrusted them all to play the parts with American accents. Some of these attempts, particularly Emma Lung, are just appalling. While others like Michael Dorman seem to switch back forth between the American and Aussie accents. As an Australian myself, it would have been a lot better if they were allowed to use their native tongue, instead of poorly done accents, or just hired American actors if they wanted to appeal to the domestic US audience. The results in this film are just a distraction.
The premise is interesting enough, a group become stranded when their Yacht overturns in the ocean. When a cruise liner comes by they board it, but the ships not what it seems. Suddenly, the group seem in a situation where they encounter a duplicate of one of their own, and go through timewarp which sees them relive the same circumstances again and again.
Without saying too much more to give away spoilers, the actions from the main character Jess (Melissa George) are quite absurd at times, and the character herself is extremely unlikeable. Having a protagonist you don't care about in such a thriller (and thus not care whether she lives and dies) is the first mistake. The other is it becomes obvious at around the 30 minute mark where the film is going, and the conclusion is inevitable. A good psychological thriller should stay one step ahead of the audience, not the other way round.
The other problem I had with the film were the performances. The cast is all Australian, but for some reason the director entrusted them all to play the parts with American accents. Some of these attempts, particularly Emma Lung, are just appalling. While others like Michael Dorman seem to switch back forth between the American and Aussie accents. As an Australian myself, it would have been a lot better if they were allowed to use their native tongue, instead of poorly done accents, or just hired American actors if they wanted to appeal to the domestic US audience. The results in this film are just a distraction.
Trust
(I) (2010)
Trying to send a message as opposed to entertaining
25 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to watch this film as an entertainment piece, given the upsetting nature of the storyline that could be lifted from any true newspaper article.
A young girl talks online to a boy and when she does meet him he's not how what she seems. I was thinking reading the back of the DVD when I rented this he'd be some psycho stalker but the actual plot is a lot more shocking, a 35-40 year old man who preys on vulnerable under-aged girls in an attempt to seduce them.
The film plods along nicely and keeps the viewer interested the entire way, and certainly sends a strong message to parents about what can go wrong if your child is giving unsupervised internet access.
The performances are solid and the tension between the family members keeps the film engaging, but overall while watching the film it often feels more like you are watching 'Guide to monitoring your child's internet use' special and the conclusion, while realistic, is somewhat unfulfilling. It's an decent enough film, but not for everyone's tastes.
A young girl talks online to a boy and when she does meet him he's not how what she seems. I was thinking reading the back of the DVD when I rented this he'd be some psycho stalker but the actual plot is a lot more shocking, a 35-40 year old man who preys on vulnerable under-aged girls in an attempt to seduce them.
The film plods along nicely and keeps the viewer interested the entire way, and certainly sends a strong message to parents about what can go wrong if your child is giving unsupervised internet access.
The performances are solid and the tension between the family members keeps the film engaging, but overall while watching the film it often feels more like you are watching 'Guide to monitoring your child's internet use' special and the conclusion, while realistic, is somewhat unfulfilling. It's an decent enough film, but not for everyone's tastes.
Wolf Creek
(2005)
Not for the faint hearted
6 February 2009
Wolf Creek has a familiar setup to other horror/ slasher films. Ben (Nathan Philips) is an Aussie and exploring his native land. He meets two English backpackers, Liz (Cassandra McGrath) and Kristy (Kestie Morassi) along the way, they buy a car and tour the northern outback. Surprise, surprise their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and an outback local Mick Taylor (John Jarratt) offers to tow them back to his place and fix up their car overnight... And that is where the story takes its twist.
This premise may seem really familiar. However the way the story is constructed makes it different from other slasher movies. The film has often been criticized for having one dimensional and unlikeable characters. This adds to the realism of the story though. The three young travelers act and speak like three young tourists would. Their conversations are often dumb and meaningless. They drink and party. They play guitar while driving down the country roads. They react to certain situations as everyone would. So while we may not like the characters, they come across as real people which is more than can be said for most films in this genre.
Jarratt is creepy and often terrifying as the sadistic loner. The film contains several disturbing scenes but for true horror fans this is worth seeing as it doesn't conform to the standard caricatures and outcomes that you'd expect from a film like this. 8/10
This premise may seem really familiar. However the way the story is constructed makes it different from other slasher movies. The film has often been criticized for having one dimensional and unlikeable characters. This adds to the realism of the story though. The three young travelers act and speak like three young tourists would. Their conversations are often dumb and meaningless. They drink and party. They play guitar while driving down the country roads. They react to certain situations as everyone would. So while we may not like the characters, they come across as real people which is more than can be said for most films in this genre.
Jarratt is creepy and often terrifying as the sadistic loner. The film contains several disturbing scenes but for true horror fans this is worth seeing as it doesn't conform to the standard caricatures and outcomes that you'd expect from a film like this. 8/10
Tell Your Friends