- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Knowing - Directed by Alex Proyas, starring Nicolas Cage and Rose Byrne, rated PG-13 [quote][quote]Even with the bad acting, this visually jarring sci-fi film really struck a chord with me. And Chigurh enjoys disaster sequences. [/quote] Knowing, the latest film from Alex Proyas (The Crow, I, Robot) almost delves into M. Night Shyamalan territory (it does feature a main character much like Mel Gibson’s character from Signs) but it saves itself with an entertaining science fiction plot and some of the best disaster sequences I have ever seen. The story starts off in an elementary school in 1959 with a class drawing pictures of what the future might look like for a time capsule. But one troubled girl, Lucinda, writes a series of mysterious numbers instead. Cut to the present when John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) obtains the paper from his son. Koestler discovers that the numbers are actually dates and death tolls of disasters from 1959 to the present, save for three more events that Koestler must investigate and, of course, see for himself. Koestler has to see the events so that we, the audience, can witness them as well. Proyas could’ve cut to these events and have Koestler watch them on the news, but by placing the character in the events, it adds a bit of realism to each event. I don’t want to give away what the disasters are since the shock of the first one is so great, but I will say that Proyas knows how to handle a massive, CG-filled catastrophe. He uses quick zooms and a shaking effect that allows the viewer to see everything clearly, but not focus on it enough to see the rough edges of computer effects. It also helps that the sound becomes blaring at each event, adding to the chaos of it. The disasters themselves are enough to warrant the price of admission for this film and that’s important because this film features some awful acting and plenty of awkward dialogue. Cage does a good job of looking completely dumbstruck during the action scenes, but he’s useless when it comes to showing emotion. The character is supposed to be disconnected due to the death of his wife, but Cage takes it too far. Koestler’s son is supposed to be extremely important to him, but Cage makes each scene between father and son so awkward that you never get the sense that these two even know each other. And the alcoholic aspect of his character was unnecessary, unless it was placed there to use as an excuse for Cage being so wooden in each scene. When you throw Rose Byrne into the mix as Lucinda’s daughter it gets bad…The Happening bad. Byrne, who does a great job in her TV series Damages, is miscast here. She is even less convincing than Cage when it comes to parenting and when she starts yelling in the third act she becomes laughably bad. The finale of this film might rub people the wrong way as well. It turns into a full bore science-fiction film with biblical connotations in the end and those elements were not necessarily there in the first two acts. There are hints to it, of course, like Koestler’s lack of faith and the mysterious people that stand in the background of many scenes and seem to be stalking Koestler and his son, but I think some people will be surprised with how far into the sci-fi genre this movie goes. I liked it, though. Proyas, who also directed the excellent Dark City (check it out if you haven’t seen it, and keep in mind that it came out before The Matrix) can make some truly thought-provoking sci-fi. The ending is different and interesting, which is something that is lacking in a lot of film endings today. Knowing has its flaws. The acting is abysmal at times and the score can be a bit overwhelming, though that is probably because Proyas realized that he needed musical cues to tell the audience how to feel because the actors couldn’t convey it. But those problems are dwarfed by the amazing visuals during the multiple disaster sequences and the interesting sci-fi conclusion. So struggle past the acting, because Proyas more than makes up for it in action and story. Now for my additions upon watching the film on DVD: I still feel pretty much the same about this movie and I actually like it more now that I've seen it again. Cage and Byrne are still bad, but after that first viewing I guess I got used to their bad acting and it didn't stick out to me as much as before, but it's still pretty bad. My main concern was whether or not the CG in the disaster sequences would hold up. I saw this the first time in a non-digital theater, which helps CG out at times. (I can recall being amazed by the Neo vs. hundreds of Smith fight in The Matrix Reloaded when I saw it in the theater, but when I saw it on DVD it looked like a cartoon.) The CG is a bit more apparent on DVD, but it didn't ruin anything for me. The first disaster I mention above (which is a plane crash and is in no way a spoiler anymore since previews for the DVD show and nearly every promotional picture I can find shows Cage standing in front of a crashed plane) is still great and if you have a decent speaker system it's downright awesome. Not sure why I didn't mention it the first time, but that plane crash scene is effective not only because of the shaky camera and everything, but also because it's one long take, which is odd to see when massive CG is involved. It's a jarring scene and makes this film worth a rental at least. I mention near the end that the music is overwhelming at times in the original review. I don't know what I was talking about now. The score has this old school sci-fi sound to it that completely worked for me. Maybe they just cranked up the volume in the theater or something the first time I saw it, but it certainly didn't overwhelm me this time around. I want to get into SPOILER territory here to discuss some of the vague sci-fi/biblical elements mentioned in the original review. This movie basically takes a turn into Christian belief when the children are taken to a new planet at the end (by "strangers" who happen to have what look like angel's wings) and set up in an Adam and Eve type situation. This is because the world actually ends. So even though the previews promised some a Day After Tomorrow type disaster movie, the viewer actually got a religion fueled science fiction revelations story. That is very interesting to me. What's most interesting, though, is that people see this ending differently than I do. The commentary track with the director hammers this home as a moderator asks many questions assuming the same things that I do and Proyas completely disagrees with the guy (for the record, Proyas sounds pretty much like a jerk throughout the commentary). I have listened to podcasts and read other reviews that have different ideas for this film as well. That shows me that this film, with all its flaws, requires a bit of thought and that is what good sci-fi is all about with or without the religious aspect. (continued SPOILERS) I also enjoyed the end of the world scene in which Cage drives through the hectic and decimated city set to Beethoven's 7th Symphony. And seeing the entire world basically catch on fire was pretty cool as well.
2012 - Directed by Roland Emmerich, starring John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Woody Harrelson - Rated PG-13 Destruction is nice and all, but the rest is a bit weak. "This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper." Director Roland Emmerich would whole-heartedly disagree with T.S. Eliot on that point. Emmerich destroys the planet in the loudest possible way he can and when he's showcasing the planet's destruction, 2012 works and is entertaining. When Emmerich tries to build characters and emotional connections; not so much. 2012 takes the ending of the Mayan calendar (12/21/12) and shows the doomsday scenario that some people believe in (though most everything I read or watch concerning the date now try to stray away from claiming the apocalypse is near). If you've seen the previews, you know what you're in for: mass destruction and a bunch of close calls for John Cusack and company. Cusack is trying to get his ex-wife, two kids, and their stepfather across the world to China in the hopes of catching a ride on some kind of ship being built by the world powers. Of course he's always just one step ahead of the spreading destruction. His escapes (especially the one featuring a limo) are quite ridiculous, but they look great for the most part. Emmerich, after Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, has become quite good at staging destruction. Destruction scenes are nice and all, but it helps if you actually care about the characters running away from the danger. I didn't care one way or another about them (which is the problem I had with The Day After Tomorrow, along with the awful CG wolves in that film). I normally don't like John Cusack in anything he makes, so that didn't help matters for me. It also might have something to do with the fact that I've seen all of this before. The characters seem like they didn't make the cut for Independence Day. Of course Cusack is divorced, but there still seems to be something between him and his ex (Amanda Peet). His son kind of hates him, but if the end of world can't bring father and son together, what can? Forming the government/science side of the characters are Chiwetel Ejiofor (a waste in such an effects driven movie) as the scientist with a code of honor, Oliver Platt as the scientist without it, Thandie Newton as the president's daughter, and Danny Glover as the president. All standard doomsday movie characters, but Woody Harrelson, as the conspiracy nut, stands out and makes his short but sweet scenes genuinely fun. The rest of the film is a series of tearful goodbyes, missed opportunities to reconnect, and characters saying variations of, "I think you should see this." Seriously, count how many times a character says a line like that, it's insane. I wanted to yell at the screen, "Hey, just stay in the room with the guy because something is probably going to happen every five minutes!" I guess it's all to be expected in a film like this and maybe the emotional scenes will actually work for some people, but it was all lost on me. One thing that wasn't expected, though, was the running time. This film lasts nearly two hours and forty five minutes. It basically pounds you into submission before letting you go with this formula: destruction, tearful goodbye, destruction, minor character death, destruction, tearful phone call, etc. It's just tiring and I was glad to leave the theater. I suppose 2012 never really had a chance with Emmerich behind it. He made a fun summer movie with Independence Day but his latest two films don't allow for much fun. Comic relief or light hearted moments just seem wrong in a movie featuring the deaths of billions of people. How can you root for a Russian trophy wife's tiny dog to survive when you know people are dying all around? It just doesn't work, but hey, it looks impressive and it's all just a movie. It just made me want to watch Independence Day again. But it was better than The Day After Tomorrow, so that's something, I guess.
THE SCOOP Director: James Cameron Plot: Fictional romantic tale of a rich girl and poor boy who meet on the ill-fated voyage of the 'unsinkable' ship. Genre: Drama/Romance Awards: Won 11 Oscars - best picture, director, editing, cinematography, art direction, costume design, original score, song, sound, sound editing, visual effects. Nom. for 3 Oscars - lead actress, sup. actress, makeup. Runtime: 194min Rating: NC16 for disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language . IN RETROSPECT Director James Cameron's most ambitious film to date. Titanic is an immense production costing over US$ 200 million, but deservedly won an astonishing eleven Oscars out of fourteen nominations. Reaping more than a billion bucks worldwide (excluding DVD sales), the historical sinking ship has certainly strike a chord with many. Titanic is almost flawless, intelligently constructed, and a remarkable motion picture altogether, considering the technical difficulties associated with producing such features. Although it's a fictionalized tale of two lovers set in the backdrop of the unsinkable ship, the star of the show is Titanic herself. Eclipsing the dramatic performances displayed by the leading cast of a young Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kate Winslet, the visual effects, and sound are the ones that steal the limelight. Ultimately, CGI technology can only help a film so much, so this is where Cameron lends his magical storytelling touch to it. He tells the story in a delicate manner, slowly through flashbacks, developing the main characters to the extent that they are realistically portrayed, and emotionally attached to us. How Titanic actually sank, we do not know. But Cameron gives us his haunting vision of that fateful early morning in incredible detail. We know part of it is made up, but we are so overwhelmed by what we're experiencing that most of us would be just happy to be resigned to the task of admiring the picture, rather than dwelling on historical inaccuracies. Titanic will please most Cameron fans, whom are used to his sci-fi thrillers such as Aliens , and The Terminator . This is not his most intense work, but it's a brilliant addition to his resume. Welcome aboard! SCORE: 9.5/10 [www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com] All rights reserved!
The White Desert devolves me to one of those studio-paid ultra-shills: the men and women who tell you about The Smash Hit of the Summer! before the movie’s drawn a dime; the writers of screaming poster text; the names stuck beneath hyperbole. That’s how this movie makes me feel. Metropolis and Intolerance —celluloid records of unparalleled set-design—elicit more of a CFO’s nod than a wide-eyed child’s grin from me. I’m impressed by the sights in those films; impressed by the labour they entailed, the money they cost, and the beauty they achieve. But I don’t believe them. They look like sets. And today, a talented designer with mouse in-hand can eclipse them, and do it in colour, too. The White Desert, though—this one holds its own. Add a few hues and audible quips and you could still place this this disaster flick among the CGI blockbusters of modern summer. Pretty girl? Check. Pair of lads, dueling for her heart? Check. Comic relief? Checkaroonie. Massive natural calamity, provoked by corporate greed and the hubris of Man, imperiling everyone onscreen? Check, and big time. The disaster, in this case, is an avalanche. The victims are the workmen of a mountainside mining camp, their wives, and children. The cause is an ever more urgent drive to bore through the side of the peak. The man behind the push is John Keith (Robert Frazer), an ambitious engineer who believes he can break a company record. Opposing him is his friend, Barry Houston (Pat O’Malley), the crew supervisor whose experience tells him they are risking too much. Barry is also John’s foe in matters of love—for both pursue Robinette MacFarlane, the tasty, tarty only daughter of company owner, Saul (Frank Currier). Robinette is played by Claire Windsor, doing her best to channel Clara Bow. She’s a sexually irresistible ball of spunk who throws her own punches and tells Barry to stick it when he says a mining camp’s too dangerous for girls. Barry, Robinette and the rest will soon pine for the days when sexual frustration was their biggest problem. But for now, crossed signals are due to bad body language, not downed telegraph wires. /</igdiv style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; CLEAR: both"/>/ig Windsor’s vixen, a light-comic creation, won’t matter so much once fun times cease at the camp. When John’s dynamite charges disturb one snowy cliff too many, burying the camp and cutting off its residents from the outside world, Robinette must get dead-serious along with everyone else. And this is a major shift in the film, because up to that point, Windsor, along with perennial comic relief, Snitz Edwards, and Currier’s dunderhead-dad, made The White Desert all comedy. Edwards pulls cheap but timeless laughs as the tiny man with a wife of superior tonnage, thrilled at the prospect of her leaving for the winter. Saul is an unusually kindly company owner with a tendency to be underneath falling objects in his own home—a nice piece of foreshadowing. And Windsor drifts delicately into farce, managing her two beaus so expertly that she can even hold both their hands at once under the same table cloth, one on each side. But all this goes when the snow starts rolling. Then life becomes a game of basic survival for everyone on the mountainside, facing starvation far, far away from any major settlement. The avalanche is followed by serious whiteout conditions that block the only supply train that can help them. Assuming, of course, they can even send a message to call for it. We never doubt the seriousness of their situation, because the avalanche itself, portrayed with miniatures, represents some of the finest special effects I’ve ever seen in a silent film. The snow smashes over buildings in seamless scenes of frightening realism. It scares us half to death, unlike so many silent-era stagey effects that send audiences into chuckle-fits. We know these people are in trouble. The half-buried camp is full of still-living people with minimal food; their collective plight embodied by a crying infant needing milk. The baby’s father is among those who trek out from the site in search of a functional telegraph wire. Both Barry and the guilt-ridden John make journeys too; John succeeds in making the call, nearly dying of hypothermia in the process. But the train-tracks are buried deep. Can the locomotive make it in time?
div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; CLEAR: both" What follows is one of the most potent portrayals of willpower I’ve seen in any movie, silent or otherwise. As the camp withers from cold, nerves, and paranoia, the engineers in the nearest town (which is not nearby at all) vow to push their way through the drifts. They do this with picks and shovels, working madly ahead of the train’s enormous snow plough. The plough itself is the ultimate showpiece: an enormous fan attached to the train’s foremost car, spinning its blades and spraying great arcs of snow to either side, all day and all night. Reginald Barker’s camera keeps us close to the great machine; so much so that I could almost feel it laboring; clearing a path, freeing the train to move ahead, foot by foot, toward a stricken camp that soon will be populated with the dead.
div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; CLEAR: both" C’mon! Wouldn’t you pay to see a movie like this? I did. I saw it live, and yes, I loved it. The White Desert is a pure thrill-ride; a knockout. Fun for the whole family. A non-stop adrenaline rush… get the idea? Go find it, go watch it. You won’t be disappointed. !!!!! Where to find The White Desert: I saw The White Desert at Cinefest, in Syracuse, NY. Piano accompaniment was provided by Dr. Philip Carli.
After watching " Daybreakers ," I was somewhat impressed with the Spierig Brothers . I wondered if they had done anything else, and they had. In 2003, they had made a zombie movie called " Undead ." What luck. I /</gistrong style="color: red;"/>/gilove zombie movies and these two seem like promising new film makers. " Undead " went right to the top of my Netflix queue. Turns out that was a bad call. " Undead " is a (comedy?) zombie movie about a small Australian town that gets pelted by a meteor shower which quickly turns the residents of the town into zombies. A small handful of survivors huddle together to fight off the zombie hordes, but that's only part of the story; there's also mysterious acid rain, alien abduction, and a huge spiked wall now surrounding the town and our heroes are slowly getting eaten, infected, abducted, or otherwise picked off. I couldn't really tell if the Spierig Brothers had meant to make a zombie comedy, a spoof of horror movies, or just a B movie, but whatever their intent, they failed. If " Undead " is meant to be funny, it's not. Cliches, bad acting, stereotypical plots, and overkill gore are not funny on their own; they're just boring and tedious. The story was original, but that only makes " Undead " seem more like a genuine attempt at a movie, and if that's the case, B movie would be a compliment. I understand that this is a low budget film that was written, directed, produced, and edited by two people, but it still falls short by any standard. (I suppose it could gain a cult following.) I look forward to the Spierig Brothers ' future projects, but I am now weary of their other past works. (All one of them.)
Sometimes I try to picture M. Night Shyamalan’s producers, standing around dumbfounded as he takes a good premise and meticulously f—s it up. Ever since he made The Sixth Sense, Shyamalan has been refining what was bad about that movie (the portentousness, the hollow profundity) and setting aside the good. Credit where credit is due, he got a good performance out of Bruce Willis once upon a time. But five movies later, anyone, everyone – his producers included – would have to conclude, reluctantly, that M. Night Shyamalan has lost it. The Happening is the most abysmal movie I’ve seen this year. And this is the year I saw Southland Tales. Philadelphia high-school teacher Mark Wahlberg (don’t laugh) poses his students a question. The nation’s bees are disappearing – where’d they go? One student thinks it’s pollution, another figures someone might be poisoning the bees… But Mark keeps pushing. Finally, one student says, “It’s an act of nature, and we’ll never fully understand it.” And because he’s the first of many Exposition Fairies, Mark likes his answer. Sadly, class is interrupted at this point. People in New York are committing suicide en masse. The government has ordered everyone to stay in their homes and wait out the supposed “terrorist incident”. School’s out for shudders. If it weren’t for the quality of the acting and the script, you’d be with this movie for the first twenty minutes. But the acting is bad. It is so bad that Mark Wahlberg’s performance is no better or worse than anyone else’s in The Happening. Those familiar with Wahlberg’s Action Man-like range of facial expressions might be surprised by such a remark. But trust me when I say that Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo and the little girl who plays John Leguizamo’s daughter and ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY who appears in this movie… is terrible. There’s a scene in the middle where Mark Wahlberg talks to a plastic tree and you actually feel sorry for the plastic tree that its talent for acting is being wasted. Shyamalan’s phobia about scale continues to run rampant (in a tightly confined space). No matter how big the potential for his premise might be (and there’s some weird shit Happening right across the East Coast in this movie) he steadfastly refuses to shoot any scene involving more than five people; framing everything humanly possible in close-up, abstaining from special effects, crowd scenes, car chases… basically anything beyond the technical range of your average wedding video. You can sum up Shyamalan’s entire approach from the scene in The Happening where Mark Wahlberg and assorted survivors gather round a radio (a f—ing RADIO?!) to listen to the world end. What irks the most are the two or three things he gets right: John Leguizamo telling Zooey, “Don’t take my daughter’s hand unless you mean it”; Zooey’s eyes; the distant scream in Central Park, and then later, outside the Louvre. Shyamalan is not a man without talent; he’s a man with a little talent and a great big f— off ego. If he could just learn to listen to someone else (his poor producers, perhaps); to take advice on which are the good ideas… he’d be ok. What’s The Happening about? It’s an eco-thriller, but it wants to be more. There’s a little bit about the fragility of life in there, something about the denial of death in the Western world, but mostly – smugly – there’s M. Night Shyamalan. He doesn’t have a cameo in this one, but he’s all over it like a rash. He’s there in the sententious lines that don’t mean anything, in the protracted close-ups of Mark Wahlberg’s meaningless face… Once upon a time he made a good movie out of these quirks, but that was five movies back. The Happening is so bad not even bees want to go near it.
< PREV NEXT >
» = New Post(s)