Change Your Image
terkoss
Reviews
Dragged Across Concrete (2018)
Not for One Expecting Action Every Minute. Like Those Who Appreciate David Lynch Films...not for Everyone.
Warning. This movie isn't for everyone. As you can see, there are many reviews (all that I've read, in reading/scanning ~10 at least) giving it 1 or 2 stars in their review. The common complaint being "boring" and (direct quote), "...talk, talk talk, no action, no action, WHERE IS THE ACTION!" But the genres are crime, drama, action. And the movie is 100% of that. It's chalked full of crime (haha), loaded to the hilt with drama, and there are select scenes (albeit virtually non-stop as one gets in the movie Crank) of some of the most thoughtful, most suspenseful action scenes I've watched in too long.
At 2 hours and 39 minutes (including credits), it is long. There were some scenes that reminds us that we need to be relaxed and immerse ourselves into another aspect of the human experience. If one isn't interested in that, then absolutely, it's nothing more than "...blah, blah, blah..." as another reviewer wrote. I had to readjust fairly quick as well, realizing the goal of the writer/director (S. Craig Zahler). I did this, because I've seen the vast majority of Gibson films spanning his career. I thought...he just doesn't do crap films. And I had to factor in the possibility that I'm misinterpreting the vision of the film. Once I did that, everything changed. I settled back, listened intently to the dialogue and discovered a refreshingly well-written script. If one is focused on the quiet (there's very little if any soundtrack, as I remember) "talking", preoccupied by the fact that they're still sitting at their Captain's desk and it's been 3 minutes, they'll take themselves out of the film and only one thing will be felt...boredom.
But forget about judging the scene, focus on truly listening, and one picks up on some very eloquent, witty, high-minded banter between Brett Ridgeman (Mel Gibson) and Anthony Lurasetti (Vince Vaughn). I even got a few laughs at some of the humorous wit. This is a movie of exceedingly subtle observation.
A reviewer thought Mel's acting was bad? No...just because his character was drained, his spirit was tired as a veteran cop; his worn demeanor may look drab on the surface. But again, one has to look deep at the subtleties of expression in him to understand.
And either the acting was poor, or Zahler intended to present some scenes with an air of awkwardness on the surface. Henry Johns (Tory Kittles) and Wheelie shared some dialogue that seemed unnatural. But in other scenes, Tory Kittles' performance was very smooth; perfectly believable and compelling. I'm inclined to believe it was S. Craig Zahler's intention to present an awkward "look" to some of the smaller scenes. There is no doubt Zahler had a specific style vision in the production of the film. David Lynch often took his visions to an extreme (with the exception of The Elephant Man; toning it down a smidge for that one). Eraserhead (his first full-length film; 1977) left the everyone fully dumbfounded and beyond confused the first time we watched it. But he would ultimately introduce us a totally unique film watching experience spanning decades. I have not seen S. Craig Zahler's style of direction in his previous two films (Brawl in Cell Block 99 and Bone Tomahawk), so I cannot say if the styles compare to Dragged... I can say that his directing vision of Dragged Across Concrete was unique, daring and creative. I'll take this any day over the cookie cutter Hollywood formula "money maker" (Example: Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum movies...but Identity was awesome!).
So many people today only want sensory overload when they watch a movie if they think they're sitting down for an "action" film. Admittedly, I never saw a teaser or trailer for this film beforehand. Very often the trailer can pluck only the most action-packed scenes and mislead one into thinking they'll get 2 hours of the same (and attract the wrong audience). That's not the director's fault. That's 100% the bigwigs who sign off on the trailer. 20 years ago, I worked for one of the biggest movie trailer production companies in the Hollywood film industry. Sadly, marketing is a whole different gig vs. striving to portray a director's vision in a commercial.
All in all, I commend Zahler for an exceptionally well-written script. I feel compelled to watch it again, thinking I'll pick up on more clever dialogue. Sure, watching and listening to Lurasetti (Vince Vaughn) eat his egg salad on rye, hearing the munching with accentuated volume takes the right attitude to appreciate. And there are other slower scenes that require one's appreciation of alternative cinematic style to find the value, but as a whole, the movie's plot, direction and production have me thinking about it 24 hours later. And that in itself speaks volumes.
Drunkboat (2010)
Great Film for the "Filmphile" (is that a word?) I.e., Not for Everyone...
So many movies today are masterpieces of script; highly complex storylines, intricately woven, with shocking twists, inundating the eyeballs with action scene after another, or mind-blowing visual effects. Or if a comedy, goofy, semi-humorous (just enough to keep us amused), sometimes if we're lucky truly original observations of human nature. Other films are tremendously impactful performances, requiring highly controversial plots and ultra-intense emotional performances (Example: "Doubt" with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman).
Some people need that kind of movie to be "entertained" or impacted as the credits roll.
Films like Drunkboat were far more commonplace in decades past. I miss them and bravo that at least in 2010, once in a while, one still gets squeezed out of a production company. As of this writing (May 2018), only about 500 people have rated it...eight years after its release. What the hell?
I loved it. It goes without saying it was a simple story. It's all too easy to knock it and reduce it to nothing. One either has the receptors for appreciation of this kind of film or not. I know a bad movie when I see one...I've watched plenty. A film should take one into it; into the life of it. The acting was perfect from everyone. That is to say, the actors lived their roles. I never once sensed they were acting. Malkovich was in "Hollywood" in his role in Warm Bodies. Not here. He studied for this role. He walked on to Warm Bodies, I'd bet. And I liked Warm Bodies very much, but not it's not JM's best work.
I suppose this is a film for aspiring actors to study. This isn't a film for folks who need to stick to movies like Ready Player One to be entertained. Absolutely, there's no chase scenes, no murder, intense suspense, etc. It's a story. It wasn't intended to be anything else. I hope the Director is pleased with his work, because I was fully captured by it and seriously considered giving it an 8. I take iMDB ratings seriously, and an 8 must be exceptional, however. I've only given a several 9's., and either no or maybe one 10. A 1 would be just north of 90 minutes of static, that somehow made it to the big screen.
Drunkboat is a very sincere film for filmphiles who can sit back, relax and appreciate the depth in the subtleties of the human condition. If that last sentence doesn't make sense...you'll surely think it sucks.
The Bag Man (2014)
Dig This Film...Have Watched it Several Times
Recorded on the DVR, I've probably watched it six times already. The Bag Man quite obviously isn't for everybody. Maybe expectations. Maybe there's just something missing with some who "didn't get it", or don't have that *something* inside them that finds the allure.
Analysis is tough on this one. It's not a sophisticated storyline. The script only has moments of clever dialogue. Mostly, it's the overall mood, I suppose. It's in directing, the soundtrack, cinematography, etc. that gives it its appeal for me. I gave it a "7" rating, because I don't abuse and overreact. An 8 has to be exceptional. A 9...genuinely phenomenal. I've never yet given a film a 10. Conversely, a 6 still has some merit. A 5 is so-so, but some definite cringe-worthy moments. And so forth. Point being, I saw quite a few 1s in the reviews (and 2s and 3s). A 1 is virtual static on the screen in my mind, or something that looks like a 2nd Grade movie project that somehow made it to the big screen. IMDb raters...sigh. Well, a rating is in the eye of the rater. For those of us who "get it", I bet we'd agree that those who didn't just don't have the receptors to pick up on the Director's vision.
Cusack's as an actor was my initial attraction. His roles in Identity and others drew me in. His performance in TBM was as intriguing as any of his other best films. Sorry, but Cell was a bummer. His acting was lackluster and the film was just weird (the ending was just funky, as hard as I tried to play along). But in TBM, he was at the top of his game. I didn't "see" acting. I saw what I love about him most; a natural born actor who takes me into the life of the character. Can't ask for more.
De Niro: Another reviewer is correct to an extent - that he can play a gangster in his sleep. Agreed, but ol' Bob is also in major cruise mode in his career, being his Golden Years. I've seen the passion receding over the last 15 years. Even in more significant roles like Silver Linings Playbook, I've detected less than 100% from him like in his most impacting historical roles. That wasn't the objective here, to play a character like Leonard in Awakenings, or Rupert Pupkin in the King of Comedy. However, there was only a fleeting moment or two at best when I felt he wasn't fully immersed in the smaller role of Dragna. I got the impression he really liked this role. Interestingly, he looked physically better than I've seen him in years. He was tan, had super cool hair, slick and hip glasses, and he slipped right in to the image of that character. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he accepted the part. I'm not convinced it was the script that captivated him. Even his opening lines are relatively straightforward. Yes, some of his later banter was medium-witty, but nothing that will leave one changed forever. Regardless, he was cooler looking than I've seen him in years. But don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in seeing De Niro look cool. His character's cool worked perfectly with the mood of the film.
Crispin Glover was captivating. So smooth and believable as Ned, the motel clerk. If one thinks of the non-event checking into a hotel can be, Ned makes it the polar opposite of that. In short, the character of Ned is loaded with character. And while other reviewers speak for you and me, "...you can't help but think...", I'll speak for myself: I love Crispin in this role. I haven't seen him in a while, but I still remember his impact on me in his role in the movie Teachers. He was powerful then, and hasn't lost anything in his dedication to his roles.
Rebecca Da Costa: A very intriguing choice in casting. An odd voice (accent), and at first, wondered if her acting was up to par. In the end, I believe her acting was fine. It was just her odd personality, which added to the unusual chapter of Jack's (Cusack) life. It augmented the realism of finding oneself amidst a troubled, yet fascinating person. Some people aren't attracted to those types. Maybe that makes the difference...the secret desire to live a chapter of Jack's life. That's what a film should do - take us inside it and live that life for a couple hours; have us wonder whether Rivka (Da Costa) was a cheap hooker, or someone we could fall in love with; a caring, smart and compassionate person. A foreigner who just so happens to be uniquely beautiful, awkwardly trying to seduce, yet too often showing her genuine self and sincerity as a human being.
On the surface, if I didn't get "immersed", I'd probably give it a 5. But I got sucked in. I got it. A solid 7 for me. Bravo to those who made this film. I'll be watching it again.
Cas & Dylan (2013)
Simple Story, Yet Charming, Heart Warming and Refreshingly Well Acted
I did a "quick check" on Cas & Dylan on IMDb when I saw it on the TV listings, and was reluctant to watch it for several reasons: Firstly, I saw that it had only been rated by a whopping 635 people, had a rating of 6.6, and lastly
starred Richard Dreyfuss. The truth is, Richard Dreyfuss' films of years ago are seriously among some of my most cherished of all time, including Always and Once Around. But I hadn't seen him do anything in years, and when I did, in Leaves of Grass (small role)
his acting seemed unnatural. I was left thinking that he had lost his acting skill.
Anyway, thought I'd give it a shot anyway. And it only took five minutes into the film before I was taken in, and smiling at both his smooth acting as well as Tatiana Maslany's. After five minutes more, I was further charmed by Mr. Dreyfuss' timing and humor, and pleasantly pleased that considering his age, he was very well cast for the film.
I've read reviews of others who are familiar with Tatiana Maslany, but I've never seen her before this role. So I was struck by this surprisingly talented young actress's personality and presence. She was a big part of what had me so much enjoy this movie. I'm very attracted to films like this, that focus on the characters, the heart of the film itself and the subtleties within it, as the "goal" or the intent of the film.
All in all, this was a quite enjoyable little film, with beautiful scenery, charm, and enough to have me shed a couple tears (the good kind). And any movie that does that has accomplished something special – touching one's heart is a good thing. So bravo to Mr. Dreyfuss for some pretty darn good acting in front of the camera (at ~70 years old!), and bravo to Tatiana Maslany for a perfectly natural and wonderful personality shining through in her acting as well.
Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
Restoring Faith in Hollywood...
I went through a period where I hadn't seen a truly great film come out of Hollywood for several years. Last week, I saw Running with Scissors, and was glad to know that not all hope was lost. That film was made by people who really wanted to make something with lots of value. And I walked out of the theater thinking, "that was the best film I've seen in years".
Last night, I went to see STF, and had to revise my opinion...IT now was the best film I've seen in years (the former, being American Beauty). The heart and soul of the filmmakers showed clearly evident. No Hollywood sensory overload formula, no grabbing big name actors simply to get people in the theater (Must Love Dogs), no bland or predictable script (MLD again), no overacting (Crash), no red flags all over the movie, that read "that would never happen in a world of fiction" (Crash again) (if you can grasp what that means).
Stranger than Fiction was stupendous. The flow of the movie was perfect. It was one that sucked me in, and I stayed in.
The acting was in the top 3% of greatest achievable by man. Will Ferrell's performance was perfect
he's one of my favorite comedic actors, but transitioned perfectly to a subtle personality, believable, consistent and captivating (even better than Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), which I liked very much, as well as JC's performance).
I was especially impressed with Dustin Hoffman's performance. Another great actor, who went through a too long phase of Hollywood formula movies (Outbreak), where the acting was a 2nd priority in the production. Mr. Hoffman's performance in STF was spectacular. Relaxed, fully submerged in his character. Besides everything else I love about this film, I want to see it again just to see DH's supporting character role. Truly, I think this is one of his best films.
But all the characters in the film are to be applauded enthusiastically. Marc Forster's direction left no leniency for a non-fully immersed moment in any of the actor's performances (bravo to Maggie Gyllenhaal). Emma Thomson's character was refreshingly odd, but not overdone just genuine. Brilliant work by all involved in producing the character of Kay Eiffel.
The plot was not simply a single great idea with a mediocre script. The flow was smooth, and ended perfectly. Never once did I find myself with any confidence of how it might turn out. I had no clue as to if or how he would actually die. And Kay Eiffel's reasoning for changing the ending (no spoiler here!) was impacting and a subtle climax of the movie, revealing much of the spirit of the filmmakers, let alone a very intelligently written script.
I surely hope that Hollywood throws this title in the mix of contenders come awards time. It clearly deserves numerous points of recognition. This film, like American Beauty, seemed to have little concern for pleasing anyone other than themselves. They were far too involved in making something great to be concerned by the aforementioned.
Danger Theatre (1993)
Full Blown Hilarious....
I saw a few of these episodes back in '93, and remember them to be 100% hilarious. If I'm not mistaken, they were only 15 minutes long. I think very few people saw it...I'm surprised I was able to find it, and I've never known anyone that's seen it. I'd buy the DVD if it were produced. And that's all I had to say about it, so since there is this retarded requirement to have 10 lines minimum, I guess I'll just use it up with totally useless verbiage, and be banned from submitting again (until I simply use one of my other 9 email addresses). I'd love to know the reasoning for a minimum comment...I can understand 10 words min., but even for people decide not whine about it like I am here, and actually try to lengthen their comments, it'll obviously be worthless banter...brilliant IMDb.