Change Your Image
superjxiv
Reviews
Bondage (2006)
Do yourself a favor and just see it.
I was lucky enough to see the world premiere of this film at SXSW just the other day. I knew little about the movie but wanted at least one screening under my belt at an actual film festival. The screening was in the morning, so I ended up talking about it to everyone around me the rest of the day. It's been the highlight of the trip, other than meeting the cast and director.
In the opening moments of Bondage, a first time feature for directer Eric Allen Bell, young Charlie Edwards is arrested for vandalism and arson. The corrections industry in California is uninterested in addressing his emotional trauma; they just want to store his body for the course of his four year sentence. To escape the harassment of the gangs and the corrections officers, Charlie feigns insanity and moves to a psychiatric hospital. The doctors push drugs on top of drugs to nullify everything in Charlie's world. And all Charlie wants for himself is to live his own life without the oppressive rules made up by other people.
The narrative flexes the sequence of events, seamlessly incorporating past, present and future moments into a coherent storyline. There are moments when the film explores the tactics Charlie's parents would use to enforce their standards of control, including a particularly harrowing sequence where they drag him into the bathroom and force his hands to scrub out the tub as he pleads for mercy. A character late in the film makes this observation: parents who box their teen into a corner with rules and emotional manipulation are so shocked when he comes out fighting, it's no wonder they call him crazy.
Michael Angarano in the role of Charlie had a formidable task carrying the film, and he excels at giving the character a sense of tragedy. By mere body posture and softly spoken lines, we see Charlie as a damaged and frightened person, who understands little about why he's so deeply interred in a system that cares little for his well being. Illeana Douglas and Eric Lange as Charlie's parents are haunting with the complexity they bring to what is essentially the forces of old and evil. The film does not forgive them, but it creates in them real people, who do both wonderful and terrible things. Just like Charlie. It would be an oversight not to mention the adorable Mae Whitman as another product of an abusive home. Her character may have the least amount of screen time, but her impact on the film's final thirty minutes could be felt for hours after the credits rolled.
There's a famous poem by Phil Larkin called "This Be The Verse." It ran through my head the entire time I sat in the theater. IMDb won't allow me to post it here due to the expletives it contains, but it's not hard to find after a quick search on Google.
Go see this movie.
- Jon
Underworld (2003)
Needs an 8th less plot, a 4th more action
Vampires are cool. They are beautiful, ageless creatures that are both immaculate and terrifying due to the threat they pose. No one can deny the distinct sexual tension when a vampire seduces and bites one of its victims, because nine times out of ten, the victim kinda wants it.
The vampires in `Underworld' don't do this however. They might as well exist in the Matrix, shooting at everything that moves in stylized poses with weapons that slide and click against each other all the time. Where `Underworld' lacks originality, it makes up for in noise, noise, noise. I guess that's supposed to be scary.
Kate Beckinsale plays Selene, a vampire warrior always clad in tight leather. Her clan of vampires have been hunting down a clan of werewolves for the better part of a thousand years, and yet both clans have retained pretty sizable numbers. In the progress of the movie, she encounters Scott Speedman's doctor-type who's werewolf bite could result in some hirsute nights when the moon is out. They fall in love, kinda, but only to fulfill the Romeo and Juliet allegory/rip-off the producers were aiming for.
The special effects for the werewolves never really come full circle. When the beasties are realistic with digital effects, they look like cartoons. The practical effects just look like people wearing werewolf costumes. Neither creation seems to move in a realistic, animalistic way.
The vampires all look the part, but that's a little easy. Make'em look nice and pale, slap on some fake teeth and employ some wire effects. But these vampires certainly don't act the part. They're all very whiny people for immortals. There's a bizarre love quadrangle as the head of Selene's cult swoons after her while some other vampire chick swoons after him all the while Selene's making the sweetie eyes at the werewolf doctor. Honestly, who cares?
Does a movie like this need so much plot? There are really only three scenes big enough to considered action scenes. The opener and the finale are so overlong and overdone, the audience gets bored. The third is so inconsequential, why waste the film stock? The rest of the film is all double and triple crosses, convoluted plot points and flashbacks of why the war started in the first place.
Had this film had half the skilled visuals of `The Crow,' `Blade' or `The Matrix,' it might have been a standout. `Underworld' is more like a stand still.
Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)
I'll tell you creepy . . .
Honestly, folks, I didn't want to start this review by mentioning that writer/director Victor Salva is a convicted child molester, but one can't help but pick up on the subtext of Jeepers Creepers 2. The premise of this film, if you could call it that, is a very old monster preying on high school basketball players who like to walk around without shirts on. Holy Inappropriate Metaphor, Batman!
The team just won the state championship basketball game, and are driving somewhere in a school bus, but the Creeper has no intention of letting those luscious . . . I mean, edible young boys get away from him.
As far as movie monsters go, the Creeper has the least interesting interaction with its victims. It smiles at them, winks on occasion, but mostly it just smells them. There are countless close-ups of the Creeper's over-complicated nasal passages, because, as we are later informed, the Creeper chooses his victims based on the smell of their fear.
This information, along with several other plot factoids, are provided by one of the cheerleaders who suddenly becomes psychic halfway through the movie for no better reason than someone has to fill us in on what's really happening.
I don't know if its supposed to be scary, but the Creeper has certain rules. Like, it only awakes every 23rd spring for 23 days so it can eat. What's kind of funny, or not, is that we the audience are informed of this before the first scene. Why do we learn it again an hour later, and see everyone reacting to it as if it was some kind of revelation?
One thing that helped the first Jeepers Creepers was its sarcasm. I remember one character saying to another, `You know the part of the scary movie were someone does something really stupid? This is that part.' In my review of that film, I even praised its visual comedy:
`Now here's my favorite part of the movie. He drags the body over to his truck and heaves it in the back with all his other bodies, slamming the door. Two or three seconds of darkness . . . then one door cracks open, and the Creeper just tosses the severed head in, like it was his backpack.'
But alas, this humor is completely missing in the sequel. All we have here is an hour and a half of a scary guy chasing after all the fresh young boys in the area. Had it been a home movie, that mighta been creepy.
Adaptation. (2002)
Wildly Entertaining
From the minds that brought us into the mind of John Malkovich in the fantastically absurdly "Being John Malkovich" warp reality with even more zeal in the perplexing, and yet entirely enjoyable "Adaptation."
First off, Adaptation is based on a real book, "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, which chronicles the exploits of John Laroche, a real southerner who finds and exploits every loophole possible to take orchids from their native wildlife preserve. The downside of this book, I surmise, is it tells a lot about flowers, and not so much about people or events.
So when screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, the same screenwriter who penned "Malkovich" tries to adapt "The Orchid Thief" into a movie, he hits a few roadblocks. Here's where the movie gets weird. Because it's not only the story of Laroche, its also the story of how Susan Orlean came to write about him, and how much trouble Kaufman has adapting it into the movie we're watching.
These three levels, inexplicably, play out completely cohesively. We're never confused or lost, just in awe and a little uneasy of what this mess could possibly lead to.
The movie is packed to the gills with outstanding performances. Chris Cooper and Meryl Steep play Laroche and Orlean with spot on perfection. It's a departure for both, I think, playing these somewhat tragic characters with such whimsy. Laroche is depicted as the most intelligent, yet completely deplorable red neck since the kid on the porch in "Deliverance," but he does so with a kind of frantic glee. Streep, as the New York journalist whose bored with her marriage and her shallow elitist friends, finds an odd solace in the company of Laroche, whose joyous obsessions keep him distracted from his own sadness.
On the flip side of the movie, we have Nicolas Cage, performing in two of his best roles ever. He plays both Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman, completely identical twins with completely different outlooks on life. Charlie has made his career as screenwriter, believing in the artistic quality of film and its ability to explore the varied facets of humanity. Donald, knowing his brother has a reputable name, wants nothing more than a fast paced potboiler, a script that will sell big and win big in the most cheesy and predictable way.
What I found amazing about Cage's portrayal of the twins was how they were physically indiscernible, identical in every detail. But you always knew which was Charlie and which was Donald by how they talked, how they held themselves physically.
The finale of this film, which I choose not to divulge here, had me in stitches, although it wasn't particularly funny. It was all an exercise in style, perhaps, because the final product, the movie called "Adaptation" is a little bit Orlean's intention, a little bit Kaufman's frustrations. It is a little bit Charlie, and a little bit Donald. Maybe a little confusing, but it never fails at being entertaining.
Cheers,
Jon
Solaris (2002)
Wonderfully crafted, but too slow to enjoy
It's a difficult job for a movie critic, or a critic of anything, when the product has artistic merit, but the method in which that product is brought forth is incredibly painful. Think of an enema that ends up looking like the Mona Lisa.
`Solaris' must be the slowest, most drawn out movie to come out since Stanley Kubrick died. It even echoes Kubrick's brilliant, yet taxing, `2001.' Care and detail are given to ever pause between every word, every gesture, and every moving part of the characters, the titular planet, and the space station orbiting it.
Chris Kelvin is asked to figure out what went wrong on that space station, why the crew has cut off communications with Earth. Arriving at the station, he finds two dead bodies, and two remaining crew. They are of little help. Chris goes to bed and dreams of his wife, who died some years before. He awakes to find her lying next to him, as if nothing had happened.
The main question posed in `Solaris' isn't whether or not she's really his wife. She's not. His wife is dead. All this new girl will ever be is a reflection of how Kelvin remembers her, not who she really was. The question is, do we ever communicate enough to ever really know someone.
Steven Soderberg always takes an interesting approach to the idea of memory and flashbacks. One of the film's pluses is that the flashbacks aren't there to supplement the storytelling. The flashbacks, which show the young couples passionate first encounter, their playful banter as the relationship blossoms, and a few needless shots of Clooney's ass, are shown to us as the memories themselves race through Chris's and his wife's mind.
While all these ideas and themes have a lot of potential, the film merely sets them up and fails to provide us with any real follow through. Chris soon becomes convinced that he can make up for past mistakes, that he has been given a second chance. This section of the film denies him all the intelligence we'd expect as he fervently tries to keep this new girl alive.
A mistake of this movie was its wide release, where it will not find an audience. It's deep and meaningful, and it shows us insights into humanity that most movies gloss over. That's good. However, it's nearly stationary pace, repetitious visuals, and the quiet performances by the entire cast hinders its entertainment value. That's too bad.
A lot of critics and filmmakers seem to forget that most people watch movies as a form of entertainment, not a as a means of mediation. The best movies are the deep, meaningful, and artistic ones that can still entertain us.
Die Another Day (2002)
Good Old Dependable Bond
Ah, the sweet smell of familiarity. To say a Bond movie is predictable is kinda like saying Halle Berry has huge . . . prospects. Stating the obvious, then viewing it over and over and over again, it all becomes so overwhelmingly redundant, you just want to sit back say, "Shoot the b***ard, Jimmy, and have some unprotected sex with whatever girl is next to you. Then that one, the one by the bar, then seduce the evil one with the gun. Whatever. You've got my blessing."
"Die Another Day," the twentieth Bond film to date, delivers everything you'd expect from a movie with a hokey title.
Personally, I'm indifferent to the Bond series. They're a good time at the cinema, but they always seem to come a few years later than they should have.
I believe the villain of the movie's big scheme had to do with a giant mirror in space that would amplify the sun's power a hundred times and melt the surface of the earth. It's neat, in a Bond-villain sort of way, but inexplicably, the villain also required a super-powered evil suit that . . . well, they never really explain what the super-powered evil suit did, but it certainly didn't make the villain all that super-powered.
Also, there was a subplot about genetic manipulation, or transplantation, where a number of people had their bone marrow or something replaced by other people's bone marrow yadda, yadda, yadda, you've got a brand new face. This leads us to several revelations, going something like "Oh my gosh! That's not (insert presumed character name)!! That's really (insert real character name)!!"
Couldn't the makers of this film just drop the other shoe? I would have been a little more tolerant if they just up and stole the face peeling gimmick of the Mission: Impossible series.
Jabs and witty jokes aside, it is an entertaining movie providing a wealthy suspension of disbelief. Bond does a bit a surfing, and while these scenes are exciting, does anyone remember the last time they saw an old British guy shooting the curl? There's also an over-the-top sword duel, but it happens about an hour into the film, so you know it's not on of those crucial plot points.
Overall, it's just another Bond film. It's better than the last one, but its not exactly reinventing itself. But with the guns, the gimmicks, and the chicks, it doesn't really need to.
I Spy (2002)
Completely unfocused attempt at farce
"I Spy" has a great premise, in which we see the world of spying and espionage through the perspective of a less talented and less popular secret agent. Owen Wilson is only sub par compared to the likes of 007, but this characterization allows for some clever satire at the idiosyncrasies one only finds in a spy movie.
For example, Wilson is handed his spy camera, which is about the size of a computer monitor. He points out the cardinal rule stating all spy equipment must be sleek and smaller than life.
In the plus column, this humor runs through the entire movie. However, it should have been the main focus of the movie. It wasn't.
Too much time is spent on the painfully not funny Eddie Murphy. He plays a undefeated boxing champion that won't stop talking in the third person. I believe Murphy is one of the more talented comedians working in show biz, but in this movie he just tries too hard. His performance seems forced and overbearing, and it doesn't have the sense of spur of the moment improvisation like Wilson does.
This is basically an hour and a half of Wilson making fun of the spy genre, while Murphy just makes fun of himself. That's painful to watch.
The plot of the movie is far from interesting or new. A madman, played with no stretch of the imagination by Malcolm McDowell, has stolen a new kind of stealth bomber and is trying to sell it off. Wilson has the mission to stop him, but needs Murphy to get him entrance to the party.
While all this makes some small amount of sense, for a spy movie at any rate, what doesn't make any sense is Wilson bringing Murphy along to the parts of the mission that don't require party entrance. Had they both been secret agents, that would have meant something. Murphy is playing a civilian, and no suspension of disbelief can be applied to his continued presence in the movie.
Except, of course, there was one black guy and one white guy in the TV series. Obviously, for anyone to recognize it as a remake would need those kinds of criteria, no matter how forced it seems.
Ghost Ship (2002)
Just in time for Halloween
"Ghost Ship" is one of those movies that tries as hard as it can to rise above the mediocrity of its predecessors, but alas, the basics of its premise confine it to one dimensional characters, cheesy special effects and many predictable twists.
Its premise, which is painfully obviously, is basically about a ship full of ghosts. But the ghosts themselves must be boring or something, because all filmmaker's are concerned with are the live salvage team trying to fix the boat so they can make a profit.
The crew itself is an assembly of different stock characters. A black man, a Latin American, a blonde man, an Irishmen, only one woman, and the Outsider. The Outsider is an important plot device to movies like these. He sits in the back and asks tons of questions because he doesn't know anything about anything. Really, it's just a short cut the writers use to explain to the audience rudimentary concepts like how boats work or what international salvage laws are.
But on to the movies strengths, of which it has a few. The first five minutes looks and sounds like a remake of the Love Boat, which is scary in and of itself. There's cheery music and a dance out on the main deck of an Italian ocean liner, but anyone that's scene a commercial knows there's trouble afoot.
That opening serves as a fun contrast to minute six, which displays the more blood and gore than any other movie this year. And that's just first ten minutes. Personally, I find a senselessly violent and blood-ridden movie can be a good time. And in the past year, we've seen a detachment from excessively bloody scenes in movie in general. I guess thanks means we are to take this movie as a sign that, as a nation, we've healed.
Another thing done well, none of the stock characters are particularly stupid. Well, not as stupid as you'd expect with a movie called `Ghost Ship.' They don't voluntarily split up and search for missing crew members. They know the boat is dangerous and they don't want to stick around any longer than possible. You'd expect at least one member to stupidly suggest it's all in their imagination, but no. Everyone seems to understand the boat is bad, and they should probably leave.
One last thing I don't quite get. Now all the ghosts are stuck on the ship, and whatever has trapped them there wants the boat to stay afloat. Where is it written that a sunken ship can't retain a few souls?
The Ring (2002)
Scariest movie in a LONG time
One day, I will try and explain the difference between movies that are scary, and movies where stuff jumps out at you while the girl screams and tries to run. I would give examples of movies that make you cower in your seat, knowing you can't stop the movie as it marches on, each frame more nerve-racking than the last. I will cite works like "Poltergeist", "Sixth Sense" and "Blair Witch Project." These movies are scary. "Jason X" is cinema fodder.
Having said that, let me go on to confirm that "The Ring" is one scary mother of a movie. Don't expect any big money shots from this thriller, it goes for tense and it doesn't let go.
The film starts with the premise of an urban legend. There's a freaky Nine Inch Nails-esque video cassette, and after watching it, the phone rings. Answer it or not, you now have seven days before you die. Rachel Keller, a workaholic journalist, overhears some kids discussing it at the wake of Rachel's niece, a supposed victim of the tape.
The movie does a good job of hiding the true evil. Because its not the tape itself that's doing the killing. Its a power behind the tape, the force that created it that follows the victims. By watching the tape, whatever's on the other side watches right back.
There's a bizarre connection between the source of that power and any electronic device, puddles of ominous water, and a number of dead horses. It was either a convention of the filmmakers or a truly odd coincidence, but everyone under age 20 seemed to be either a little bit psychic, a little bit precognitive, or both.
Rachel's son, who I believe was in kindergarten, had the creepiest eyes and monotone voice. I wondered a few times if that wasn't just some amazing make-up applied to Christopher Walken, but no, the kid's really that good.
As far as the scarier elements go, its all about subtly here. When a conversation dies down, the phone will ring very, very loudly. TV's just turn on to static at full volume. In this movie, there's nothing scarier than what's waiting just around the corner. Using color, water, and almost miss able computer generated images, what's scary is the threat of what's coming.
What I liked most about this movie was its unconventional ending. When you think the movie's getting done, it's just building its energy for a terrifying and memorable finale.
I don't know what your preferences are as far as scary goes. I like nervously burying my face in my jacket. Some people like a guy with a knife jumping out of dark places with no explanation of how he got there. What I can tell you is that `The Ring' is scary. Enter at your own risk.
Red Dragon (2002)
Good, But Was This Necessary?
It's kind of funny knowing that Hannibal Lector has his own film genre. Like any good Bond movie, Hannibal brings with him a number of standards you won't necessarily find in other genres. Like the idiosyncratic killer no one can figure out, grotesque and violent tortures, flashlights traveling through pitch black rooms, and of course, Hannibal himself making numerous wisecracks about the people he has eaten. "Red Dragon" makes good on all these conventions and more.
The movie takes place before the events in "Silence of the Lambs." Hannibal is arrested at the beginning of the film, but he is not the central character. The story mostly follows Will Grahm, a retired FBI agent who arrested Hannibal, as he tries to find the killer dubbed "The Tooth Fairy."
The highlights of this film are most notably its performances, Edward Norton as Will Grahm, Raph Fiennes as the Tooth Fairy, and Hannibal veteran Anthony Hopkins as everyone's favorite cannibal. Unfortunately, Hopkins onscreen time is severely limited. The only time he appears is when Grahm is looking for some advice or Hannibal decides to exact some revenge. And Fiennes does a phenomenal job to paint a portrait of a man so violently cruel. His Tooth Fairy is horrified both at what he has done and what he feels he must do.
But all praises aside, I feel the need to mention that this film is a remake. The novel this movie was based on, also called "Red Dragon, was filmed in 1986 with the title "Manhunter." The original film was a bit of a box office disappointment, and lacked Hopkins particular demeanor as Hannibal, but there wasn't enough on screen in Red Dragon to justify such an elaborate remake.
The main difference here is "Red Dragon" gives considerable effort to explain the life of the Tooth Fairy. In "Manhunter" he's more of a stereotypical creepy weirdo, but in the modern version, the character is a more as a sympathetic one.
Overall, Red Dragon is a good movie. It scares when it wants to scare, it thrills when it wants to thrill, and it pretty much instills in us that scary people are out there, but the good guys always win, even though Manhunter does all these things as well.
If you're looking for a good story, save some money and rent "Manhunter." If you like the styles of Hopkins, Fiennes and Norton, "Red Dragon" won't disappoint.
The Tuxedo (2002)
Sad Day for Movies Everywhere
Hollywood really loves the mismatched pair. They're always finding a new stereotype to cast along side some old stereotype, and oh, how the hilarity ensues. I almost feel sorry for Jackie Chan, now probably the oldest of the old stereotypes. They paired him with Chris Tucker in the Rush Hour movies, they paired him with Owen Wilson in Shanghai Noon (a sequel is due out later this year) so by this standard, any young actor should hope they're quirky enough to be Chan's next partner.
Jennifer Love Hewitt, one of the rare gems whose beauty is inversely proportionate to her acting ability, tries to fill this crucial role in the new movie, `The Tuxedo.' But the benefit of having Owen Wilson or Chris Tucker in a Jackie Chan movie is that they're actually funny. They can tell a joke and convey to the audience a sense of whimsy and humor, Jennifer Love can not. Her performance was apparently modeled after Sandra Bullock's last movie, but Jennifer Love lacks the dignity, self respect and talent to do it with any level of realism.
What I find fun about a Jackie Chan movie is the bizarre fighting sequences. The man can use anything and everything and fight with it while jumping and blocking and kicking any number of opponents. And there's a chaotic nature to these fights, they almost always look like they're improvised at the moment they were filmed, and Chan himself seems powerless to control his body through the movements. This film goes one more step, by supplying Chan with the titular tux, a machine than turns its wearer into Mighty Mouse. Hence, Chan REALLY isn't in control of his body. His standard panicked expression almost looks genuine.
The problem with this movie, of which there are many, but the main one is the plot focuses too much energy on itself, never letting the action make it to that level of chaotic fury. There is some pretty standard Bond paraphernalia sprinkled here and there like croutons on a salad. The villain wants nothing less than world domination, but his brilliant scheme is wrought with holes bigger than the Viking defense. There are a few funky gadgets, and your standard car chase.
But even the car chase is weak. I mean, how intense can a car chase be when your hero is running from a remote controlled skateboard?
Although it is by no means a good movie, I can think of worse ways to spend my evening that seeing `Tuxedo.' Imagine your local sports team giving up three touchdowns in less than a minute, and you will know pain, my friends. At least Jennifer Love is hot, and worth looking at. Staring down Randy Moss might just get you run over.
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
See it. Just go. 'Nuff said.
If there's a reason Japanese animation is so popular in our American culture, I'd guess its something with the conventions. Anime doesn't have the same basic rules American animation has, and therefore it can show us things we've never dream of. For example: A witch with a head the size of a grocery cart that runs a day spa for demons and spirits.
Trying to describe the rest of Hayao Miyazaki's "Spirited Away" is like trying to describe a dream you can barely remember. There are key images you can't forget, specific emotions that felt too real, and for the life of you, you can never accurately explain how they all connected.
Now since this is an animated film from Japan, I feel I need to clarify one very specific thing. I am not a big fan of anime. There is only one anime movie on my shelf of movies, and its "Princess Mononoke." It's not a coincidence that this film was also directed by Miyazaki. He is the single best director of animated movies because his characters have depth, his stories tell about the most basic human emotions, and he draws or redraws a majority of the frames himself.
"Spirited" has been compared to Alice in Wonderland, and I can't think of a simpler way of explaining it. Chihiro, a wiry 10-year-old girl, is our Alice. The movie opens with her and her parents moving to a new town. A wrong turn brings them to an abandoned theme park. But when the sun sets, the exit disappears, and Chihiro finds her parents under a curse. She is alone in a world full of spirits, demons and really big headed old women.
Chihiro's quest is not an easy one. She must save herself, she must save her parents, and she must find a way home. These quests are side-tracked as she meets employees and guests at the day spa. There's the boiler room operator, a man with six arms whose mood lightens when Chihiro visits. There's a river spirit that's so polluting no one can stand the smell of him, Chihiro stops at nothing to help him. She befriends the misunderstood No Face, a demon that won't stop eating anything, including the not-so-lucky day spa staff.
What I find most amazing about the animation is how little computers were used throughout the production. There are a few backgrounds that are sparsely rendered, but they look more like moving oil paintings and are used as a contrast. All the onscreen action, all the character's faces and emotions, all the minute details of this Wonderland have been perfectly realized by the world's best animators and the great Miyazaki.
Go see this movie. It is a feast of sensational visuals; it is an amazing story of meager people doing epic things, and as long as you're outside, go rent "Princess Mononoke." Films such as these can not disappoint.
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)
Pointless violence, and not the entertaining kind
You can't judge a book by its cover, but you can judge a film by its title. This summer, we had a few misrepresentations, most prominently "Attack of the Clones," in which no clones attack anyone. Ever. Similarly, with a title like "Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever," we are lead to believe that these two people are on opposing sides of some kind of conflict. No, no, no. See, that would make sense, and we can't have that.
What it is about certainly isn't quite as interesting. Sever has kidnapped a high ranking official's child, and former FBI agent Ecks is called back into service to find her. There's a lot of tough talk, sounding like "We need him, he's the best," but it seems the only thing that gives him this title is the fact that he knows how to aim and fire a gun. All the other guys with guns in this movie sure couldn't.
I got the impression that Ecks was originally named "X" for this movie, and halfway through someone figured out how stupid that was, and had the even dumber idea to spell the letter out. I don't know if I would have figured it out, except that a guy sees Ecks popping some pills and asks, "Is that why they call you 'X?'" If Ecks really had a name at the time that scene was filmed, he would have said "People call me 'Ecks' because its my name," then slapped the bastard silly.
Ray Park, who played Darth Maul in "Star Wars I" has a fairly substantial role in this movie. After his third or forth scene, I figured out why he had his voice dubbed over in Star Wars. I always wondered why stuntmen do stunts and never act, and now I know.
What doesn't make sense to me is that Lucy Liu, who plays Sever, has fewer lines than Ray Park. All she does is the stunts and the fight scenes. Why is the actress doing the stunts and the stuntman doing the acting? Again, doing it the other way around would make sense, and therefore must not be done.
In closing, this movie was directed by a guy who wants to be credited Kaos. If chaos is what he wants, I suggest his next movie star Marlon Brando, Shannon Dorherty and Barbra Streisand. Now THATS chaos.
Feardotcom (2002)
they had to have done it on purpose
I wonder sometimes, when I see a movie of such little quality, if the filmmakers actually WANTED it to suck. I have a scenario playing out in my head, it takes place at one of those oft rumored closed-door Hollywood meetings where a series of executives are worried that audiences will catch on to the pattern of crappy movies that are filling the multiplexes. As an offering, or maybe a sacrifice, what have you, they green light a script with a director and a cast that is guaranteed to be so bad, to be the UBER-CRAP film of the year, that the rest of the cinematic fodder will seem mildly acceptable by comparison.
The UBER CRAP here is most definitely FearDotCom. It is so void of all original ideas and logical thinking, that such a void must have been created deliberately. From the script, to the casting, to the camera work, to the editing, even the special effects, all had to have been planned very intricately to provide us with a movie so very, very bad, Ed Wood is laughing in derision. This black hole is so dense, that surrounding theaters showing mildly entertaining movies actually lost some of their potency to entertainment.
The plot itself is so overly done I don't know how anybody could have thought "Yes, this will be cool." It involves a website that makes your eyes bleed, and yet there were no dancing hamsters anywhere on the site. After 48 hours from viewing the site, you die by your own worst fear. But these fears have no creativity or style. On guy is afraid of `car crashes' but we don't learn that until much later. Others include water, bugs, sharp things, and to fit this pattern I guess there has to be a guy afraid of trains, but if this is true, what the hell was he doing at train station? The main characters are a police officer and a public health worker trying to discover how the site works.
Now I didn't know enough about computers or the internet to scoff wildly at the screen confidently, but I still scoffed, knowing that ACTUALLY GOING TO THE SITE YOURSELF is probably the WORST IDEA EVER. Imagine a room with a hyena: anybody that goes in that room gets eaten. Says the police officer "I wonder why . . ?' and goes into the room himself. My opinion? They all deserve what they get at this point.
But the script isn't done being . . . well, stupid. It also involves a completely different website, where a serial killer broadcasts the murder of his victims. For about 90% of the movie there is absolutely no relation between this guy, who is essentially Hannibal Lector Lite, and all the victims of the OTHER website. It feels like you're watching two movies that have been spliced together, one accentuating how bad the other is like it was a science.
My only hope is the dolts in the closed-door meetings have had their laugh, and will soon go back to making bad movies by accident. Doing it on purpose seems to be the only thing they're good at.
One Hour Photo (2002)
Thoughtful, intelligent puzzle
Though you may not of heard of Mark Romanek, the writer/director of "One Hour Photo," you've probably seen a few of his music videos. One of his most famous is the video for "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails. Knowing this, would you be surprised to know that "One Hour Photo" is, in a nutshell . . . creepy?
Evoking a visual style reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick, Romanek's engrossing story tells the tale of the lonely photo clerk Sy Parrish. He obsesses over the smallest details of his job as though each photo was a work of art, and he is as proud of the pictures he develops as those who took them. Robin Williams' performance as the idiosyncratic and solitary Sy is breath-taking.
The plot of the movie isn't as important as its style. Sy spends about half the movie fantasizing of a better life. We are guiding very carefully through some of these dreams, both waking and unconscious. Other dreams we enter as they occur, and Sy's mind is our only guild. We are never too sure what is really happening and what is all in Sy's head.
Sy wants nothing more than a family that loves him, and if he had to choose, it'd be the Yorkins. Will, Nina and little Jakob, they are the, ahem, picture of suburban happiness. Sy should know; every time they get a role of film developed, Sy keeps a copy for himself.
But all is not well in the Yorkin house. There are fights over money, negligence, and other things that never make it to the one hour photo. When Sy discovers his ideal family is being torn apart, the movie gets a little .. . weird. Or should I say, weirder.
This is where a typical movie would turn Sy into a mass murderer or some kind of maniacal ranting loony. Instead, Sy chooses his actions and his words with more care. He hones his attention to detail like a conductor of a symphony and tracks down the people that are responsible for shattering his dream world.
His ultimate revenge is probably the hardest to understand. This is where the movie becomes the most difficult to watch, but where the most intrigue lays. To understand his actions in this scene, and indeed throughout the movie, we must try to understand Sy's entire life.
Romanek's skill as a director is that he gives us the tools to decode Sy's odder behavior, but doesn't spell it out in obvious terms. While it's not the greatest film in its genre, its certainly worth a look to anyone interested in some intense character study.
And as a foot note, I can't tell you how great it was to see the second movie in as many weeks that featured bleeding eyes. Ug. I need a shower.
Bad Company (2002)
Bad, Bad Movie
I'll tell you the exact moment I lost all believability in this film. No, it wasn't the casting of Chris Rock as a secret agent, nor was it the casting of Chris Rock as the secret agent's identical twin brother separated at birth. It wasn't the notion that Rock could actually PLAY chess, let alone hustle with it, and it wasn't the British Guy running around with a CIA badge. All of this is typical Hollywood fodder which I'm so used to ingesting, I didn't put up that much of a resistance.
The real failing is towards the end. There's a car chase, big surprise, where the British Guy shoots at whatever Euro-trash accent is trendy, and Rock sits behind the wheel swerving the car around and complaining that the British Guy can't hit anything. A bad guy jumps on the hood of the car, and Rock floors it. They are easily going 40 or 50 miles an hour. Rock screams and yells, "Get the guy of the hood!!" And I sat there, amazed, that everyone working on this picture forgot simple rules of physics.
I know from personal experience that if you're going 10 miles an hour and there's a guy on your hood (regardless of the Euro-trash accent) a simple jab to the breaks sends the poor fool flying.
I know this.
All my friends know this.
All the witnesses now know this.
How come Hollywood doesn't?
I really could continue an entire list of complaints about the rest of the movie with colorful analogies and clever one-liners, but instead, here they are in list form.
1. Chris Rock can't act.
2. Anthony Hopkins can act, but only when he plays a cannibal.
3. Garcelle Beauvais got to wear clothing. This is just criminal.
4. Chris Rock can't act.
5. Jerry Bruckhiemer cares about content like I care about Ricki Lake.
There were two hacks at Chris Rock because he technically had two roles.
And finally, who lets Joel "Let's Flush Batman Down the Crapper Because I'm Bored" Schumacher direct movies? Didn't any of those big time decision makers see 8MM? The man can direct a movie like Mike Tyson can preform acupuncture.
There, I said it. I feel better.
Cheers,
Jon
Minority Report (2002)
9.5, true entertainment
Few and fair between are films that indulge you with original visuals, a compelling storyline, strong preformances, and hardcore nudity. Minority Report lacks in that last criteria, but I'll let it go this time. It's an expertly crafted film.
For those living under a rock (but a rock equipped with a modem, no less) Tom Cruise, aka Penelope's Man-Bitch, leads this epic as Pre-Cop John Anderton. To those rock-dwellers who've avoided the ads and trailers and countless other reviews posted on IMDb and need the up-to-date, in this movie they can see murders before they happen, and its John's job to prevent that.
By "they" I mean a trio of "pre-cogs" who are so white they make Casper look like Richard Pryor. They lounge in a hot tub and are treated like kings. No, wait, no they're not. They're drugged into submission and live in a toliet (but a very nice toliet) and kept at just the right state of dreams to spew out these predictions. If there's a flaw in the system, is the treatment of the pre-cogs. One character says it verbatim: "It helps if you don't think of them as human." Um, hello Abolishment of Slavery, how's by you?
And you read it right, there's only three of them in the entire world. After 70 years or so, the entire world will collapse into murdering hordes again. I'm breathless with anticipation
But I digress. When Anderton himself is seen in a prevision, he goes on the lamb. One stunt spectacle after another, he's jumping from car to car, he's jumping from Jetpack Guy to Jetpack Guy (Chill! What else am I supposed to call them?) He's even jumping from catwalk to catwalk in a car factory that someone has inexplicably stockpiled with white vats of water whose only purpose is to fall on the guys doing the chasing. I figure its safer not to ask why, just sit back and enjoy.
I find the most clever of the films devises is a question pretty much left unasked. Some people may consider this a SPOILER, so stop reading and go enjoy the movie before you read further.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER, there, is that enough Mr. Alaska? He's probably not even reading.
Anderton finds the man in the prevision because he runs, BECAUSE he saw the prevision. He never would have ended up in that room had he not seen it as future event. Isn't this a paradox? Or is it one of those infinity loops where everything always comes full circle? Or have I just gone crossed-eyed. . .
But speaking logically, (which I know has no grounds in a Speilberg picture; leave it all to wonder and faith and ILM) why DO they lock up the would-be killers? Isn't preventing the murder enough? Of course, if they didn't threaten something horrific like life as vegetable, there'd be no reason for Anderton to do all that impressive jumping.
Cheers,
Jon
Jeepers Creepers (2001)
I guess I liked it
Let me try to explain why I liked this B-style creature feature.
Our resident baddie is the Creeper, and I'm not sure what it is exactly, but thats okay because neither does writer/director Victor Salva. At least he claims ambiguity toward the Creepers' true identity on the Special Edition DVD, but that simply means he doesn't know.
The Creepers drives around in a truck and runs folks off the road when he feels frisky. He carries around some kind of battle axe and at a certain moment, he lops off some guy's head.
Now here's my favorite part of the movie. He drags the body over to his truck and heaves it in the back with all his other bodies, slamming the door. Two or three seconds of darkness . . . then one door cracks open, and the Creeper just tosses the severed head in, like it was his backpack.
There's a kooky humor, dark and grizzly, but catchy and hilarious if it catches you in the right mood. This film isn't a great movie, and most of the time it tries pretty damn hard to be a good movie. But right when you get tired of the running and screaming, there comes along a moment of bizarre comedy thats unexpected, and those moments are worth the trip for me.
I like horror movies, and I love bad horror movies, and its nice that Hollywood hasn't forgotten the fun of a good creature feature after all the slasher movies ran their course in the late 90's. I guess if I could change anything, I'd want a creature who's design didn't so closely parallel a monster of the week from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but then I feel I'm asking too much from the creative team that brought us the crap-tacular Powder.
Jeepers Creepers ranks a 7 out of 10, but as a warning, you should know I'm somewhat biased to this genre.
Insomnia (2002)
Same old, same old
Someone forgot to warn seasoned detective Al Pacino that the sun never sets in most parts of Alaska at that time of year, and as result, the poor guy doesn't sleep a wink during the entire movie. The poor audience has to endure director Christpher Nolan's hyper-style version of the effect sleeplessness has on the most attention sensitive of minds.
That's right, Pacino is the cop of cops in this boring and a sadly typical cop movie. But its not the buddy-cop version, that would be too much just one month after "Showtime!." Instead of a mismatched partner, Pacino has one he genuinely likes as a person, which means he won't live that long, and he doesn't. Insomnia's twist is Pacino shoots him, and lies about it.
See, the two of them are called from LA (where all good cops come from . . . or . . . wait . . . ) when a seventeen year old is brutally murdered and naturally, the local police are baffled because no one ever kills anyone in Alaska. While on a stakeout, Pacino runs after the killer (an effectively creepy and all too convincing Robin Williams) through fog that appears out of no where thats so thick poor Al can't see three feet, and the second he sees anything moving, BAM! Direct Hit! And wouldn't you know the luck? Robin Williams sees everything.
And if you had just beaten a high school to death AND starred Bi-Centennial Man, you'd try to get away with it, too. So he blackmails Pacino, convincing him to help pin the murder on the girl's boyfriend; most of those silly Alaskan cops think he did it anyway. And Williams is incredibly effective as the soft-spoken and rational Walter Finch, who writes novels when he's not killing people or seducing jailbait. He's always calm, and he knows Pacino too well, probably because he writes about cliche detective work that Pacino is given to work with.
But there are nice touches. The first few scenes show blood falling on a cuff, and someone vigorously trying to remove those tiny spots. Throughout the film we're treated to super-duper close-ups of that blood soaking into the fabic and staining it; as are those same stains on our characters and consciences when we've comprosmised morality. My gripe with "Insomnia" is that here we have ANOTHER cop movie about cop morals (Los Angelas cop morals, to boot!) and the line between right and wrong.
Don't other people in our great and diverse society question their morals who AREN'T cops and attorneys? Do you have to ride the line everyday to be interesting or what?
Pearl Harbor (2001)
I didn't like it either
I realize that if you're reading this, you've either seen Pearl Harbor or plan on seeing it. And I can't really stop you, so I'm not going to try. I'm going to give you food for thought, maybe you'll ponder it over during the 3 hour tour-de-Bay/Bruckheimer epic, or while you're writing death threats to all of us that didn't like the film.
Was this movie made with a PG-13 rating because A) with minimal gore and language, the makers could more accurately depict the horrific attack, or B) a lower rating means higher box office gross?
Were the hospital scenes shot with soft-focus lenses A) for artistic purposes or B) because a hard focus would be too realistic, thus giving the film an R-rating, thus decreasing its box office gross?
Was the historical tragedy used as a backdrop for a love triangle because A) thats the story director Michael Bay just had to tell at $145 million line of credit or B) Titanic did the same thing and made about a half billion.
I can't do much to slam on the films leads. At least not in the clever questionnaire style. I enjoyed Ben Affleck's character about as much as I did in Reindeer Games. Up until now, I thought Josh Hartnet had a promising career. And Kake who? Excuse me, wasn't there another British Kate forcing out an American accent in that other boat-sinking spectacle of a movie? Hm?
The makers of this should have just dropped the other shoe and hired James Cameron as a screenwriter. At least his scripts have integrity.
I know Randal Wallace, who DID write this script, had help developing the shotty dialogue, so I don't blame him for the "I'll never look at another sunset without thinking of you" and so on. I'm sure these slappy dappy lines SOUND good when you're in ninth grade, but they crash faster than shot down Japanese fighters when put on the screen.
I do blame Wallace for the ludicrous situations he places his characters in. Air Force trainers and trainees do NOT play chicken right infront of their commanding officers. The two pilots that flew in the attack on Pearl Harbor were NOT in the Doolittle Raid.
By the way, the raid had about a twenty minute build up and 30 second payoff, and even for slick summer action flicks, there's gotta be a bigger ending.
I'm not saying it was a bad movie (although it was) I'm just pointing out that it's not a film based on real people or real situations. At the heart of this picture, there's only two very distinct sounds. The first is Bay and Bruckheimer high-fiving each other, which translates to KA-CHING to the Disney company. The second is that flushing sound you hear when you realize your $8 are really gone.
Angel (1999)
It's getting a lot better
I was a Buffy fan from nearly the beginning of the series, but I never liked Angel that much or his role. I was happy when he left the show, and didn't care much that there was some kind of spin-off. I mean, I didn't like him, right?
For the past few months, I just left the TV on after Buffy was over, and Angel would play itself out, I slowly started getting sucked in. It's a more complex and advanced series than I ever expected. It makes more sense for Angel to be in this sort of establishment, a world were he's actually seeking atonement for his deeds instead of helping out the slayer.
Buffy, these days, seems much more melodramatic than it needs to be. And the progression of the series is reliant on some new baddie showing up for Buffy to figure out how to kill. In "Angel," Angel is constantly seeking for answers, for the truth and for redemption.
I still LIKE Buffy, but Angel has been proving to be much more intelligent, and a smidge more enjoyable.
Cheers, Jon
Swingers (1996)
One of the best written movies ever
First, let me give you a scene from Doug Limen's "Swingers". Mikey, Trent, Sue, Rob and Charles are single actors trying to make it big in Los Angeles, but tonight they're playing poker and talking about their favorite movies before a night on the town. They talk about unforgettable moments like the kitchen follow-though shot in Goodfellas and the slow motion opener to Resevoir Dogs. One person comments "you gotta be nuts to shoot in a casino."
The brilliance of the writing lies in the subtext. All three of these scenes play out elsewhere in the film. At the beginning, Trent and Mikey are at a casino in Vegas; at the end, Trent, Mikey and Sue go to a club, entering the club through the kitchen; and immediately following the aforementioned poker game, the whole gang walk to their cars in slow-motion.
With a script so self-aware of its surroundings, how can we go wrong?
The story is focused on Mikey, as he tries to deal with the single life after a six year relationship ended aburptly after he moved to LA. He's been single for awhile, but he's still heartbroken and can't even look at another girl without thinking about his ex. Enter Trent, his friend and guide to the LA dating scene. Trent uses slang that is so addictive, I don't know anyone whose seen the movie and hasn't adopted phrases like "beautiful babies" and "you're so money." It's Trent's personal mission to break Mikey away from his tedium.
Another moment of great writing: Mikey is apprehensive of approaching a girl who was obviously flirting with him. Trent takes him aside and gives him this pep talk: "I don't want you to be like the guy in the PG-13 movie, you know, the one everybody's REALLY hoping makes it happen . . . I want you to be like the guy in the rated R movie, the guy you're not to sure about, you're not sure where he's coming from, you don't what to think . . . " What an amazing allegory to Mikey, who is from a PG-13 movie, and Trent himself, the epitome of the rated-R bad ass.
If you watch closely enough, if you look between all the parties and video games and bad golf, Mikey slowly progresses. It's an uphill battle, and Jon Favreau plays him with complete realism. As Mikey looks at the pictures of his ex after a long night, tears swell in his eyes. It's not really crying, its trying so hard not to cry that it happens anyway, a method Trent mentions while telling of his auditions.
There is nothing not to like about this movie. In the final stroke of genius, as Mikey attempts to tell Trent his sublime moment of clarity, Trent interrupts him to flirt with a girl at the far end of the restaurant. Trent bellyflops, and tries to return to the conversation. Mikey simply gazes out of the window, with a very clever smile. End of film.
10 out of 10.