- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Filmmaking as an art, or how it is with any form of art, can be surprisingly divisive when confronted with the unusual, the unconventional, and the extreme. But sometimes the sole motivation of some filmmakers, and all artists, is to put art as a form of personal expression to the sidelines in order to be replaced by radical and alienating imagery as well as cynical and gritty themes for their sake alone. One such artist (a loose term, yet appropriate at times) is the Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier whose works have sought to push comfort boundaries intentionally, from the graphic sexually violent imagery in Antichrist and The Element of Crime to the stretching of protagonist mental or physical states such as in Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark . With a Von Trier film there is always an expectation that the film in question will challenge any reserved sensibilities that you might possess, which is at once a compliment to Von Trier as a unique filmmaker but is also a detriment to grabbing audiences in sharing your vision when the film is equally alienating in presentation, theme, and style. Von Trier’s latest piece entitled Melancholia is contemplation on the apocalypse focusing on two sisters, in two parts, facing impending doom in drastically different and telling ways. The style throughout Melancholia is reminiscent of the Dogma 95 era or the experimental independent era started by John Cassavetes where clarity of image or clean technical achievements is replaced with a flatter tone and cinema vérité camera movement. This is, of course, juxtaposed with an enticingly beautiful opening where a series of mesmerizing yet odd images flash before the screen to a resounding score. It’s such a displaced segment that you long for the beginnings lack of dialogue and focus of stunning visuals the more you get delve in to the unsympathetic and disparagingly alienating character focused plot that is Melancholia . To give Von Trier the benefit of the doubt that he is an artist of personal expression, it seems he has chosen to focus on the destruction of earth in Melancholia to reveal his own pessimistic view of the human race. “The Earth is evil,” states Kirstin Dunst with a tonally complimentary delivery of the film’s heavy and emotionless style. There is no reflection on a potential meaning of life, but rather the nihilistic approach that alone we are and alone we stand. This wouldn’t necessarily be an unapproachable or estranging topic if it wasn’t handled in such an exasperatingly languid pacing. The film, while robust with an extreme pessimistic concept, dwindles as the uninteresting and bland characters fill the screen with meaningless interaction after meaningless interaction. It can be argued that Von Trier has purposely made his film so inaccessible and truly uninteresting in its presentation of characters to drill home his point that if the world happened to end it would just end all the trivial relationships and nothingness that we experience in our lives. He uses this film to denounce tradition and mock the fear of death as though they are irrational inconveniences to experiencing a true form of purely rational apathy. But that flies in the face of actual human experience making Melancholia a truly alien experience, never convincing an audience that its cynicism is admirable or even relevant. This is the idea of taking extreme positions for the sake of extreme positions, something Von Trier practices constantly as evidenced in his personal interactions with the media. There are moments of visual brilliance that are unfortunately overshadowed by the languorous pace and the completely negative script that includes a plethora of contemptuous characters. If Kirsten Dunst’s (who unfortunately is no Emily Watson or Nicole Kidman) presentation of the character Justine is the tonal expression of the film than we can truly say that even though she might bring home the film‘s theme of loneliness and apathy to light, it isn’t necessarily a position we’re invited to share or even could recognize as a convincing narrative. Compliments are always bestowed upon Von Trier and his pretentious followers who swear he can do no wrong. This attitude is stemmed from being awestruck by someone who defies film conventions from the technical to the emotional for its sake alone. It seems Von Trier has an increasingly condescending attitude towards those who can’t see or understand his contempt for the boundaries or those who feel he should at least try and speak with his audience, rather than speak to his audience. Not all of his films are emotionless arduous journeys but Melancholia must certainly be described as that. This is a film for dedicated Von Trier fans or those who view something slightly different as a form of genius when it’s rather just a form of playing the devil’s advocate to positions that most people don’t take. His uniqueness should be complimented and there are true moments of inspiration, especially his opening montage of surreal and subjective apocalyptic imagery. But Melancholia as an inviting film or one that possesses the ability to drive home a particular theme falls short through its flat tone, stone-like acting, and languid pacing. While there is no hope that Von Trier will ever adopt the regular conventions of storytelling there is hope that he could return to experimenting with a tighter film length ( Europa ), a more inviting and sympathetic protagonist ( Breaking the Waves ), and a unique presentation rather than the tired and slow cinema vérité style (sets of Dogville , style of Elements of Crime ).
Fellini’s Satyricon (Federico Fellini, 1969) The films of Federico Fellini always have been intriguing and mysterious because every first viewing of his films I feel like I’m entering in a different world than mine. Not only the imagery but also the narrative and the acting. It is always like the feeling of being in a dream-like universe. The first film from Fellini I saw was his Casanova with Donald Sutherland. It’s time for an anecdote: when I came back from my one month trip in Italy in 2006 my flight from Paris to Montréal had a special passenger: Mr. Donald Sutherland. The funniest thing about this little moment was that I knew who he was and I loved his presence in Casanova , Don’t Look Now, 1900, etc. But everyone was shouting this is Jack Bauer’s father! For Odin’s sake’s this man is a living legend don’t insult him by saying that he is the father of the flavour of the moment! Recognize the man at least! I discovered many Fellini films before I started this blog, so this is why this is one of the first reviews about his work. Satyricon was the first film of Fellini I ever bought, the Antic Roman settings and the name of the movie (I am a fan of the band of the same name) were the two magnets that got me and my hard earned money. Opposed to many Italian and American peplums that tried to recreate with precise details the past, Fellini’s Satyricon is the perception of the Roman Empire by Fellini himself. This is his fantasy about this time and age. It may sound a little pompous but for the neophytes out there Federico or affectively Fefe had an incredible imagination and his creations are inimitable. This creativity is characterized by a childish approach to everything, many of his imagery is taken from his memories and his impressions as a kid on how he used to perceive and see life. Far from being his most accessible work, Satyricon did not have standard narration neither does it have appealing characters. It looks like a freak show set in Ancient times. It is raw, bizarre, and beautiful at the same time. But like many unique films, this Fellini is a masterwork of cinematic brilliance and mise en scène. Even if it’s not considered as a major work from his oeuvre I still think that film has a special aura of greatness and weirdness. Moreover, Satyricon is a very personal film made by the genius vision of Federico Fellini. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/satyricon.html
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972) This is by far one of my favourite film of all time. Buñuel has always been a one of a kind director contributing with Salvador Dali on the surrealism with his Un chien andalou and L’Âge d’or , two masterpieces of moviemaking and dreamlike sequences that every self-respected cinephile should have seen. The symbolism of these instinctive films as so many levels of understanding and such depth that a simple essay on them isn’t enough to crack their codes. Let’s get back to Le charme discrèt de la bourgeoisie made almost fifty years after Buñuel’s first films! What strikes you the most is how the surrealism that characterized his first films is still omnipresent but even more mastered than ever. Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie is the culmination of Buñuel’s work : the perfect surrealism film. The uses of symbolism and camera techniques is really subtle and Buñuel doesn’t need to slice the eye of a woman or get a cow in the bed of two lovers. The many situations of Le charme ... are already overly enough and the closer to realism it gets the better it is. The dreamlike sequences that always feel like if you were in reality but finally you weren’t at all embarks the viewer on a trip with the bourgeois that are trying to get diner together and enjoy a nice evening. This series of events is packed with humorous dialogues and situations. Just like Woody Allen, another admirer of Buñuel’s work, I feel that this kind of hybrid film where humour and reflection means entertainment and Cinema. It is a smart film where subtlety uncovers the hypocrisy, the fears, and the vices of the bourgeois characters populating the film. The uniqueness unity of Le charme ... brings you in common places and then just when the viewer thinks he knows how the situation will turn out Buñuel gets a bunny out of his hat. This master has many tricks in his bag. You have to see the film to fully understand the reach of the whole thing. In 1972, there were many big successes: The Godfather , Cabaret , Deliverance , What’s Up Doc? , The Getaway , Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were to Afraid to Ask) , but in my opinion Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie along with Aguirre: The Wrath of God was the greatest film of that year. Unfortunately other films mentioned earlier will always make shadows on Buñuel’s greatest achievement. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/le-charme-discret-de-la-bourgeoisie.html
Bridesmaids (Paul Feig, 2011) First, don’t ever read the chosen critics lines on movie posters. Second, always learn to read a review and/or a critic until the end. Third, one liners are lame and even if it says “It’s the female version of The Hangover ” or “The Best Comedy of the Year!” don’t listen to them and learn to read more than one review about a film. I do not pretend to possess the ultimate knowledge and no one should be neither. Especially in the case of Bridesmaids , almost fully casted by current and former SNL players; Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, etc. It was a good cast and the idea, even if it sounds like a female The Hangover , well it is so not the case by the way, falls flat on many levels. The weakness of the script is that it travels between absurd comedy, rom-com, existential drama, and bathroom jokes. It literally shoots on too many ducks at one time. Even if the target isn’t missed every time it is hard to follow the lead here because every scene is like a sketch and maybe it lacks of links or should had had a stronger director to hold the glue together... But, many situations are too long and the comedy slowly becomes a malaise for the viewer that tries to identifies with Wiig’s character that constantly fells deeper and deeper. I wouldn’t say that this movie is “awful” as my compatriot Kevyn Knox noted in his capable review but I would say that it was quite a light comedy that even if the laughs aren’t as frequent as they should be, it wasn’t a torture either. However, I fully agree with Mr. Knox on the fact that producer Judd Apatow is wrongly recognized as the new guru of Hollywoodian comedies. The pedestrian humour and the bathroom jokes even if efficient, I really don’t understand the public sometimes, are simply bad taste and could be excised from the script. The greater laughs I’ve heard in a theatre were when I first saw The Great Dictator by Charles Chaplin circa 2002. It was clear honest laughs of clever humour about one of the most important moments in the History of humanity. I’m not comparing Bridesmaids with The Great Dictator but I am saying that to be funny a film doesn’t need to be vulgar or disgusting. A lesson Apatow must learn and apply in his movies.
From an off-branch of the Judd Apatow School of Crude Yet Heartfelt Humor comes Bad Teacher , the story of an inebriated gold-digging middle school teacher looking for the easiest way down the Yellow Brick Road. Cameron Diaz, whose sense of humor is much better than people give her credit for, sleazes slickly through the role of Elizabeth Halsey, whose moral ambiguity makes her character's profession all the more unsettling (and one will often wonder exactly how she managed to become and stay a working certified professional). Her foe, the disturbingly (and realistically) perky teacher Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch), adds much "zany" humor to the story, as well as bringing a more down-to-Earth perspective of middle school life (i.e. she actually teaches). Jason Segal, the greasy yet earnest pursuer of Diaz's character, is essentially every other character he's played, except now he's a gym teacher. However, he is good at what he does. The Achilles heel of this film is Justin Timberlake, whose character seems to have suffered a severe head trauma at some point. Playing the thick-headed new teacher in school, who happened to be born into a very wealthy family, Timberlake breezes dumbly through the movie, overly-oblivious to Diaz's character's ulterior motives, innocent to the point of man-childish. His character is too underdeveloped to be realistic- one would feel that he is not responsible enough to take care of himself, much less a class of 7th graders. Even with Diaz's character being a master manipulator, he falls too easily into her thinly veiled schemes, as if he has no self-guard or sense of preservation. Partly the fault of Timberlake, and mostly the fault of the writing, Timberlake's character seems to be there only to represent Diaz's character's ultimate goal- to snag a dumb-rich man that will pay for the rest of her life. However, while this movie has an Achilles heel, it certainly is no Achilles. It's more like the Mets of movies (no offense to Mets fans)- it tries, it works well, but in the end, no cigar. There are humorous bits (Diaz's drunk, clueless roommate was a source of humor) and there are dry bits (the Illinois State Test Score theft seems especially superfluous), but in the end, it averages out to be worth a $9 afternoon; if one were to pay any more to see this film in theaters, one would feel slightly cheated. It doesn't touch on too deep an emotional point, the character does not experience an alternating emotional catharsis (although she does make some minor changes, which seems more realistic), and there is no CGI overstimulation to give the movie-watcher a shallow thrill. It's simply an OK comedy that profiles was Diaz (as well as a colorful assortment of side characters) can do. Rent it on Discount Days at your local friendly video store, if that store still exists. It's worth a cheap laugh.
Cowboys and Aliens is a cross genre film based off a graphic novel, starring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. Craig’s character wakes up not knowing who he is, or how he got a strange metal object attached to his wrist. He soon gets captured and learns he was a wanted outlaw. As he’s about to be taken away spaceships fly through the night sky and start attacking the town and abducting people. At this point he realizes the device on his hand can fight the aliens, and joins the townspeople in trying to get their loved ones back. The neat thing about this movie is it’s a cowboy movie first, and a science fiction film second. It has all the tropes of a western, Cowboys, Indians, bandits, saloon brawls, etc. It also has the beats of the UFO phenomenon, alien abduction, lost memories, cattle mutilations, but also the aliens methods (they basically lasso people to abduct them) and their overall plot fit in perfectly with western mythology. Along the way there are nice character beats for the various townspeople, including the dorky saloon owner and his search for respect. Despite the somewhat goofy title the premise is played completely straight. My sole complain is that, while it has some suspense, it should have/could have been outright scary. One really interesting thing to me was that, unlike most movies of this type, it left no room for a sequel. It has a definitive ending, and is a neat experiment in cross genre film. 8.5 out of ten.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the 5 film series of the 1960s/70s, which in turn was based off the 1963 French Novel. This film sets out to tell the very beginnings of the Ape revolt. It starts with San Fransisco scientist Will Rodman researching a cure for Alzheimers, which has stricken his father (John Lithgow). He tests a drug on apes made to repair brain cells. Through a series of circumstances Will ends up raising a baby monkey at home who displays heightened intelligence. Will’s father, who was a cultured man in life, names the monkey Caesar. Years later, the course of events lead Caesar to being kept in a shelter with other monkeys, where he is not accepted at first. He’s very depressed and lonely, until he comes to attain leadership among the captive apes. Unlike what’s considered “typical” summer franchise flair, Apes is primarily a character piece. We follow Will and his despair over his ailing father, who Lithgow plays wonderfully. We also see his ethical struggles and the conflicts that come from the business side of medicine. The strongest part of the movie is Caesar himself. We follow him through his joys and his despair, share his concern when he wonders to Will if he’s a pet, and ultimately cheer for the Apes as they revolt against, well us. Rise of the Apes is perhaps the only movie with a CGI character (not counting full CGI movies like Toy Story or Shrek) that I truly cared about. He was definitely a better character than say, any of the Transformers or Star Wars characters of the last ten years. Action comes at the end as we see the Apes outsmart the humans on the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s a great scene that shows in one shot why Caesar will become a mythical hero to be remembered by the Apes for all time. It’s interesting to see that the Apes don’t intend to rule the planet, (In fact even in combat Caesar is purposefully non-lethal) and that it’s not necessarily the Apes that wipe humanity out. For Easter egg specialists one of the humans who mistreats the Apes says that line “Get your hands off me you dam dirty Ape,” which is what Charlten Heston said in the original film. Also there’s passing reference to the Icarus space ship, which is from the films and original novel. Apparently in this movie it had a manned mission to Mars and gets lost. That’s all I know of as I haven’t seen the old films. Rise of the Apes is one of the better reboots made, which hopefully will lead to a great film series. 9.8/10.
Steven Spielberg and writer / director J.J. Abrams comes the latest in the U.S. Summer blockbusters. Set in the summer of 1979, Super 8 follows a group of school kids shooting a zombie film on Super 8mm in the hopes of getting it into the amateur film festival. During a night of guerrilla film making they witness the crash of a U.S Air Force freight train travelling through their town in the cover of night. Over the next few days a series of unexplained events begin to occur and despite their best efforts the kids are landed smack bang in the middle of a fight between the government and whatever has escaped from the train wreck. I was hoping that Super 8 would be a return to the 80's kids movies I grew up with (E.T, The Goonies and Stand By Me) and in some ways it is a homage to them, but the film is targeted to a more adult audience, which makes me question why the main characters are school kids? It is not difficult to spot that J.J Abrams was influenced by the early 80's and more specifically the films of Steven Spielberg, take for example that the two leads come from broken homes, they live in a small town where there is very little for them to do and that the whole film is basically an action movie version of E.T. As was usual for these films the adults take a back seat and let the kids drive for a change and the performances and casting of the kids is spot on. The two main leads Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning give believable and engrossing performances, whilst the rest of the geeky crew slip into their roles with relative ease. During the second half the film turns into more of a creature feature and it is during this time that it suffers most. Whilst it has become somewhat cliche to hide your creature from the audience until the last minute (again we can thank Mr. Spielberg for that!) Super 8 gives us a fairly good look at what exactly is causing all of this destruction and mayhem, but by doing so takes some of the mystery away from us. The last 20 minutes or so seem a little rushed and the explanation for what exactly is going on seems a little forced. Having said all of that, Super 8 is still quite the adventure and certainly provides the sort of thrill-ride Hollywood used to give is with its Summer blockbusters and whilst it may not be the most original thing out there so far this season it is refreshing reprieve from comic book adaptations and sequels.
Transformers 3 achieves something possibly unprecedented in the history of the film franchise. It is the third entry in the series, and it is better than the first two. Often the third entry of a series begins the decline in quality, but thankfully not in this case, as the first two Transformers movies were so infamously scorned. I hated the first Transformers movie (in 2007 I hated almost every movie). I almost walked out of that scene where the Autobots were at Spike’s house (who was completely unlikeable), because I didn’t pay 8000 won to see a dog pee on Optimus Prime. I refused to see the second one in the theater, and only rented it because a friend was an extra, and I wanted to see that part where they walk out of the Smithsonian Institute and into the Nevada desert. So I had no plans to see the this movie, but then I saw the ads. Wait, this looks good! How could this be? On to the review. Transformers 3 opens with the only film sequence I’ve seen worthy of being in 3D (I saw Avatar in 2D). It is a battle on Cybertron and it looks fantastic. Cut 1961, when the US discovers an alien ship has crashed on the moon. JFK (who is shown on screen but looks a little off, we also see Nixon and Obama) then orders a moon mission, hence we have a secret reason for the space race. Cut 1969 with actual news footage of Walter Cronkite as the moon mission is underway. What is not televised is the secret recon mission to investigate the alien space ship on the moon (Later revealed to be the Ark, which was in the cartoon). So far the first two scenes of this movie are better than the entire first two movies put together. Then we get to Sam, who is frustrated as no one knows he’s saved the world twice, and is struggling to find a job and feels the pressure from his parents. He has a new girlfriend, the impossibly hot Carly, who was his girlfriend in the cartoon. However, she’s not an M.I.T. student as in the cartoon and sounds British for some reason. Spike’s dealings with the Transformers put a strain on their relationship, as she has lost a brother who served in the military and is worried for him. Spike is also jealous of her hot shot car collecting boss. Now this relationship is hardly one of the silver screen’s great romances, but it has a tiny bit of dept to it, which is much more than what he and Megan Fox had. Next we get the real reason behind the Chernobyl incident, as the villains unveil their plot. It involves growing a rift between the humans and the Autobots, hence the villains live up to their name of Decepticons. There’s a betrayal part way in, but that left me wondering why said plot didn’t happen sooner. Leonard Nimoy does a voice of a Transformer, and there’s a few Star Trek jokes, and a clip of he old show, apparently it’s the one where Spock “goes nuts.” There’s also a neat scene where Megatron takes the giant Lincoln statue in Washington off its seat, and sits in the seat himself. Megatron did that in one episode of the old cartoon. Thankfully there’s not jokes about pot and masturbation like the first two. Spike’s mom makes a joke about his manhood, but it’s real fast and subtle. Also one of the Autobots almost says clusterf&*k. The problem this one has, is a similar problem for the whole series. We don’t get much of the Transformers personalities. Shockwave appears and has no personality, he’s just another grunt, not the cold logical warrior. (Maybe Nimoy should have played him instead) He also has this big tentacle thing, I couldn’t tell if this was a Decepticon being or just some weapon. Bumblebee still hasn’t had his voice repaired yet, how long has it been now? Finally the big action scene at the end mostly has the humans fighting the Decepticons. Now I like seeing some of this, and I like knowing humans can take them down, but we’re paying to see robots fight. For instance we get told that a bunch of Autobots got captured, but we don’t see that happen at all (And one part where Optimus fights actually looks like it’s framed wrong). It’s strange because most fx movies that fail do so because they focus on the fx and not the characters, but with this franchise the fx are the characters. Still it is an incredible improvement over previous entries. It leaves us with a sense that the series could end here. Looking back, it’s so disappointing how the series turned out. There’s such a rich mythology to this franchise. To me it always made perfect sense to have the first movie on earth, the second on Cybertron, and the third have Unicron, the giant robot planet. I don’t know what the future holds for this series. Maybe in 5 years it will be rebooted into something greater. (Personally I’m hoping for a Hasbro Cinematic Universe similar to Marvel’s, with Transformers, G. I. Joe, M.A.S.K. and Inhumanoids, but that probably won’t happen.) No matter what happens, we’ll at least have this one. 8/10
Green Lantern is Warner Brothers’/DC Entertainment’s attempt to start another superhero franchise outside of Superman and Batman. (Past attempts included Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Steel, and the aborted Wonder Woman TV show) I’m going to do this differently from my other reviews, I’m just going to break down the good and the bad, because there’s plenty to be said for both. The Good: Like the best FX/Franchise/Blockbuster movies, the story tries to be about something other than action and FX. The main theme of Green Lantern is fear, and how we face up to it. The main character, Hal Jordan, puts up a front of never showing fear, which originates with his relationship to his father. Of course under the surface he’s filled with fear, which hurts his relationships with his family and potential love interest. Hal’s victory over Parallax, the main villain, is at least partly based on facing his fear, as opposed to mere fisticuffs. The basic concept of the Green Lanterns is explained in a brief opening monologue, almost reminiscent of the Superman movies exposition scenes with Marlon Brandos’ Jor-El. There’s an earthbound villain that, in classic superhero style, has parallels with the hero, regarding father figures, and failing to live up to expectations. The story makes basic sense, in that Parallax is using fear, and the Green Lantern Corps’ (aliens who also have the super-powered rings that are used to keep the universe safe) failure to deal with that lead to Hal Jordan becoming the first human ring bearer. The Bad: My biggest complaint is that, for as much money was spent on special effects, some of the effects looked really goofy. Both villains heads looked goofy, the council of the Corps looked really goofy, and many of the outer-space scenes looked like a video game. This is the inherent problem in scenes that are %100 CGI, it takes you out of the movie. As opposed to say Thor, which had actual built sets with accompanying CGI. Also, Hal’s debuts his heroics on earth by stopping a disaster that’s almost laugh out loud funny. Hal Joran was not unlikeable enough in the beginning. We see he’s a tad irresponsible, but that’s not enough. He’s nowhere near the total jerk that Tony Stark is, nor is he AS arrogant as Thor, or as selfish as Spiderman was initially. His romance wasn’t strong enough, we’re not rooting for them as much as a couple. Also we see Hal’s family in one early scene, then we completely forget about them. Finally there’s little things in the plot that don’t make sense. Hal fights the Earthbound villain, then the two are separated for no good reason. Did Hal just let him go? We see there are thousands for Corps members, but only a few (of the best) go to fight Parallax (and die). Wouldn’t thousands and thousands of Corps members be able to beat him? Also, early on we are told, TOLD, that Parallax destroyed 2 planets or something like that. Why did the TELL us this, why did they not SHOW us? That could have put Parallax over as a dreadful villain. Speaking of which, for a villain that is based around fear, he brings no sense of dread to the screen. There’s a really great movie hidden somewhere in Green Lantern, but it just doesn’t get there. I’ve always been a Marvel fan, but I don’t dislike DC. DC comics has great characters. Green Lantern is a great character with a rich mythology. In a way it’s like Star Wars with superheroes. I want to see DC make other film franchises besides Superman and Batman. I’ve wondered for years why we don’t see a DC Cinematic Universe to compete with Marvel’s. Unfortunately Green Lantern is just not going to do it. By the way, to the best of my knowledge, there were no references to anything else in the DC Universe, nothing about Gotham, Metropolis, Martian Manhunter, New Gods, etc. Green Lantern is a combination of the traits of a really great film, mixed with the traits of a really bad film. I’ve never seen anything quiet like it actually. 7/10
RATING 8/10 Bottom Line Smart, engaging, with a touching human story, “Source Code” is riveting sci-fi thriller, even though its ending perhaps goes a bit too far and is maybe too smart for its own good. The Good From the outset, Source Code throws you in to the shoes of Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who appears on a train, but with people recognising him as Sean Fentress. Disorientated and confused, he spends the next eight minutes trying to figure out what is happening, and then the train explodes. Stevens wakes up in a capsule, and discovers he is part of a military experiment which allows him to transport in to the last eight minutes of the mind of a passenger on a doomed train that was subject to a terrorist attack that has already occurred. His mission is to find out who planted the bomb so the terrorist can be stopped in the future. It would be pointless to describe more as the story becomes somewhat more complicated as it goes along, with not everything appearing as it seems. Jake Gyllenhaal puts in one of the best performances of his career as the driven Stevens, who forms a bond with fellow passenger Christina (Michelle Monaghan), and Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) whom he sees on a computer screen in his source code capsule and is his direct link to the real world. Despite all the tech jargon and high-brow concepts, the film has a very human core at its heart, as the stories of Stevens, Christina and Captain Goodwin all intertwine to uncover a very tragic, but then uplifting narrative. Much of this film feels like Groundhog Day in that Stevens is continually sent back in to the same eight-minute world of the train, but director Duncan Jones is extremely adept at keeping everything interest and fresh. What pushes everything along even further is the eventual discovery of Stevens situation, and whether or not he has the capacity to alter the events he is witnessing on the train. The film then delves in to concepts of parallel universes and dimensions, some of which is fascinating. “Source Code” is a smart and engaging thriller, a fantastic piece of science-fiction, and a film that does not lose sight of its touching human story. The Bad There is a point in the climax, and you will know when it happens, when the film should have ended. Given the amount of time spent discussing how the events on the train could not be changed, and the eventual revelation of Stevens predicament, it was only fitting that the film should end on the freeze frame where Stevens kisses Christina just before the bomb explodes. Given the inevitability of the train’s fate, and Stevens’ all-but-dead existence, there was something very poignant about that moment where the picture freezes on the couple. A few moments later however, the story starts up again, and despite it being very clever, and throwing a number of new intelligent layers on to the idea being presented, it just does not feel right. Yes, it gives Stevens a happy ending, and yes, it opens up your mind to alternate dimensions and whatever else, which is a perfectly plausible aspect to show, but it seemed more powerful that the film should have ended on that freeze frame. In the end, Stevens sends a message to Goodwin saying how ‘source code’ can do more than you ever imagined, a somewhat lame excuse to explain the ending.
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.
p RATING 6/10 /p p BOTTOM LINE: The visuals are extraordinary, and the concept is intriguing, but the ho-hum storyline and adherence to an 80s soundtrack to tie in to the first film make this a bizarre beast; it's a modern film on a technical and visual level, but it feels more like you are watching a cheap B-grade 80s film. /p p /p p THE GOOD: The original film Tron became a cult classic from the 80s, and although it made money, there was nothing about it that cried out 'sequel'. Over two decades later, we get a sequel, and it is suped up and spare no expense. The concept of creating a digital world as a forum to assist humanity in science and technology is intriguing, and the visual world created by director Joseph Kosinski is nothing short of stunning, and unlike anything you have seen before (outside of the first film of course). The visual style alone make this film worth watching on the big screen, but it is also other nice touches, including a fully realised younger version of Jeff Bridges playing the villain, featuring some fantastic CG work. This character, 'Clu', is a totalitarian leader in this digital world, and numerous images are homages to history. On these levels, the film can be appreciated, and the one stand out sequence in particular is the bike game after Sam (Hedlund) arrives in the digital world; nothing short of visually stunning. 'Tron Legacy' is worth watching at the cinema if only for its visuals. /p p strong THE BAD: /strong For such a high concept idea, the storyline delivered is decidedly ho-hum. It is a bit of a cliché that films that rely so heavily on their technology do so at the expense of script, but there were enough seed ideas here to make something worthwhile but were never taken advantage of. The delivery is more a by-the-numbers operation. The actors, particularly Jeff Bridges and Olivia Wilde, lend some humanity to the piece, but Garrett Hedlund seems oddly miscast. What makes this film utterly bizarre though is its 80s-style soundtrack. Although you are watching a visually modern film, the soundtrack is so powerful that you actually feel like you are watching a cheap 80s film, almost to the point where you can imagine seeing film scratches on the print and the audio sounding mono in nature. Perhaps it was an attempt to make something different from the usual big budget blockbuster, but in this case, it does not really work. /p
The good old Asian monster flick genre has been on hold since the Japanese decided to stop making Godzilla features. Well, the whole King Kong concept has been exploited since the beginnings of the special effects in Cinema. Gigantism is a very Japanese and especially American complex. With the more recent remakes, the Jurassic Park franchise, Cloverfield, etc. The monster genre was a little tired lately. The Host, a Korean monster film opens similarly to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, a scientific incident. In the British film it's the infected apes that spread the disease while in the Korean film it's the toxic substance thrown in the river that created this fish-like monster. Besides, the horror/action angle of the film, the story implies a funny 21st century family of a lazy lunatic dad in his thirties, his yuppie cum little criminal brother, his athlete sister, his smart daughter and his good will father. Each of these characters will learn and overpass his weakness to survive to the passage of the wild creature. Tinted with moments of pure horror using the classic codes of the genre while injecting a great dose of humor and just a tint of sentimentality this crossover of genres is a very hip movie. It's a crowd pleaser. The kind of film that can easily become a cult film among young film lovers. The mix of genres may irritate the purists of the horror genre and maybe some older cinephiles will feel that it's too "cool" or too young... The colors of the film are superb and like many Asian films they are a little saturated but it balances itself with an extraordinary cinematography. We are in the presence of an eye candy looking picture; read here in the most positive way. Despite some very interesting moments and many twists, I got bored by the whole thing. I think that the story lacked of tightness in its final thirty minutes. However, The Host is a very good movie.
RATING 7/10 BOTTOM LINE: The high-brow concept, ethics, and execution of the monster make this horror film rise above the usual offerings from the genre, but some silly character motivations and some unbelievable sequences and their impact on the story rob this film of any greatness. THE GOOD: One issue that ‘Splice’ raises quite convincingly is the dangers of genetic experimentation. Although some of the plot points may be far-fetched, the core concept of genetic scientists mixing DNA from different species to create new ones is not, and is quite frightening. Clive (Brody) and Elsa (Polley) are two brilliant scientists who successfully mix various DNA from a variety of species to create two worm-like creatures in an attempt to derive genetic proteins from them to further develop medical technology. However, Elsa tries to convince the pharmaceutical company funding their research to mix human DNA in to their experiments, but without success. Out of curiosity, she convinces a reluctant Clive to do an unofficial experiment to see if it can be done. They give birth to ‘Dren’, a weird hybrid, quasi-human. Clive wants to terminate Dren immediately, but Elsa is much more forceful in keeping the experiment going. It is in this first half of the film as the experiment develops and the full implications of what Elsa and Clive are doing really drive home a strong dramatic and ethical point that just because they can do this, does not mean they should play God. This point becomes all the more prevalent when their original experiment with the two worm-creatures turns in to a public disaster after they mutate. Dren starts exhibiting the same mutations later in the film, leading to disastrous consequences. The question of moral responsibility is also at play, as both Clive and Elsa wrestle with their obligations to ‘Dren’, who becomes a fully-fledged being with emotions and soul. The ethical undertone of the film makes it compelling viewing and sets this apart from other horror films, even though it relies on horror conventions at certain points for dramatic effect. The standout feature of the film on a technical level is of course the creation of ‘Dren’, using a mixture of computer graphics, fantastic make-up and prosthetics, as well as Delphine Chaneac’s elegant, vulnerable and not quite human performance as the adult Dren and Abigail Chu as the child Dren. ‘Splice’ is a horror film with smart ideas, which makes it compelling to watch and the horror on display far more frightening. THE BAD: A number of unfortunate aspects to this film ultimately rob of it of any greatness. The handling of both Clive and Elsa’s characters in the script is a point of contention. They may be driven by scientific discovery and wonder, but somehow their motivations to continue the experiment, particularly Elsa, are never fleshed out as believable, particularly when the danger becomes more prevalent. Clive’s sex scene with Dren is incredibly disturbing, and also unbelievable given Clive is against this experiment and never really identifies with Dren until a certain point in the film when the narrative has him arbitrarily change his tack. Given his objections to Dren throughout, it seems inconceivable that he would want to have sex with her, no matter the lame excuse given of how Elsa’s DNA is in Dren and Clive recognises this. One big sequence that does not help at all is when the two worm-like creatures attack each other when they are on display at a presentation the pharmaceutical company puts on. It is violent, bloody and disgusting. How the head of the company could conceivably allow Clive and Elsa to continue after such an obvious public disaster is completely unbelievable; any normal CEO would terminate the whole operation, if only to save face. All these points rob ‘Splice’ of its greatness. It is unfortunate because at its best, the film is mentally engaging as well as terrifying, but then stumbles whenever these aspects come to the fore.
» = New Post(s)