Last week, I watched a movie that had Samuel L. Jackson in it, so I decided to continue with that theme and watch the 2008 movie Lakeview Terrace. Distributed by Screen Gems and co-produced by Will Smith, Lakeview Terrace was directed by Neil LaBute (The Wicker Man, Possession) and stars Jackson, Patrick Wilson, Kerry Washington, Jay Hernandez, Ron Glass, and Justin Chambers. In the movie, a young interracial couple, Lisa (Washington) and Chris (Wilson) Mattison, move into what they think is their dream house. Even better, Abel Turner, a 28-year veteran of the LAPD (Jackson) lives right next door, so they assume that this is a safe neighborhood. As it turns out, Abel is strongly against the Mattison's relationship, so he decides to terrorize them, leaving the Mattisons with few options because, well, he's a cop. Sure, I guess they could call the cops and hope for the best, but they never do.
As Abel Turner, Jackson plays a strong-willed veteran cop who is completely sure of his beliefs and totally unwilling to budge on his convictions. He's a man trying to do the right things, raising his kids in a nice neighborhood and teaching them morals and values. The problem is that Turner seems two seconds away from going berserk, and he is so inflexible that it affects his job and relationship with his kids. In Lakeview Terrace, Jackson walks a fine line between fine upstanding citizen and a man burning with rage towards the changes the world has made, and he does it quite well. Jackson's acting skill was the highlight of this film, and he was able to convey the role of Abel Turner with subtlety when needed while providing the necessary menace.
Meanwhile, Turner's foils in their neighborly feud are the Mattisons, a liberal and interracial couple who one could describe as 'yuppies'. As Chris Mattison, Wilson plays the part of a man that is unprepared to deal with the constant harassment of his cop neighbor. Whereas Turner is sure in his beliefs in actions, Chris isn't quite sure what to do, which gives the scenes between Jackson and Wilson a certain undertone. You can almost feel the unease between the two men whenever they're on screen together, which is a credit to both Jackson and Wilson. While Wilson is at least above average in his role, Washington, well, she was there. It wasn't like she was terrible or anything, but she seemed to be lost at times, especially when tensions were supposed to be high in her relationship with her husband.
However, Washington's flat acting wasn't the biggest problem the film had. Instead, it was the direction of Neil LaBute and screenplay of David Loughery and Howard Kohler. It didn't seem like they wanted this film to be a social commentary or a psychological thriller, so they just shot for something in between and hoped for the best. The first half of the movie was much superior to the second, as the relationship between Abel and the new neighbors was a lot more subtle and two-sided. Yes, Abel was a stick in the mud, but you could see why he would have problems with the new neighbors (what with there leaving cigarette butts in the yard and doing the horizontal boogy outside in full view of his kids, plus their friends were a bunch of liberal douchebags). After a while, the lines that were blurred are now completely black and white, as Turner just changes character and becomes the big evil cop going against the liberal suburbanites, helpless against the big blue machine. Then the film completely goes off the rails in the last 25 minutes or so, as there's a massive fire and a break-in and murder and a whole mess of other stuff.
At the end of the day (or film), Lakeview Terrace is a film with some decent performances from its top actors and raises a few social issues that will make you think. However, it had the potential to be a much more significant film instead of the ham-fisted thriller that it turned out to be. Overall, I'd give Lakeview Terrace a 4.85 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this film, or ideas for future posts, then feel free to leave a comment or to send me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Captain America: The First Avenger
Earlier tonight, My brother and I went up to the theater and took in the latest offering from Marvel Studios, Captain America: The First Avenger. Directed by Joe Johnston (Hidalgo, The Rocketeer), Captain America stars Chris Evans as the titular character, and includes a supporting cast of Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci, and Dominic Cooper. In Captain America, a young man named Steve Rogers wants nothing more than to enlist in the army and fight the Nazis in WWII. However, his small frame and a few medical problems cause the army to reject him, until he runs across a scientist named Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci). Erskine is looking for a man to become a 'super' soilder through a series of injections, and despite his small frame, he thinks Rogers is the perfect man for the job. Even though Colonel Chester Phillips (Jones) doesn't share Erskine's beliefs, Rogers is eventually chosen to receive the treatments, and he eventually becomes Captain America, the U.S.'s best hope against the evil Red Skull (Weaving).
Not surprisingly, the film is full of action sequences and CGI effects, the most impressive of which is the transforming of Evans into a little weakling. At the start of the movie, Rogers is all heart with hardly any muscle, and because of that he's a scrappy underdog that one can't help but to relate to. Once his transformation takes place, even though Rogers is the same guy, he just becomes a boring one-dimensional hero. I don't know if it was Evans or the screenwriters, but something was definitely lost in the transition of Rogers from zero to hero. It's not as if he's an arrogant jerk, but rather he's just dull. Rogers' main love interest in the film, a British solider named Peggy Carter (Atwell), looks the part, but I was never convinced that these two had any sort of sparks despite the fact that the story practically forces that down our throats. Actually, Peggy's also much more interesting in the first part of the film when she's a tough woman soilder in a man's world rather than the love stricken girl we see in the second part.
As for the rest of the cast, it's solid, but not spectacular. Tommy Lee Jones plays, well, himself as a no-nonsense army Colonel. I will say that some of his wisecracks were quite enjoyable. Weaving is also solid as the evil Johann Schmidt, who eventually becomes Red Skull, while Sebastian Stan was solid as Rogers' close friend, Bucky Barnes. I must say that I wasn't too impressed with Tucci's performance as Dr. Erskine, as his German accent was inconsistent at best. In the second half of the film, Rogers leads a team into various battles against Red Skull and his Hydra squad, which are full of action and explosions. The problem is, we never really learn anything about these guys and why they were chosen other than the fact that they just happened to be in the same unit as Rogers's buddy. Heck, they didn't even mention their names until the credits.
Director Joe Johnston does a nice job of recreating the 1940s in Captain America, from the 'World Fair' setting at the beginning of the film to the montage of Captain America shilling war bonds and starring in films. Although it may have seemed a little long and really didn't mean much to the overall story, it was a humorous look at the parading of Rogers as some sort of Uncle Sam type figure. The film looked great in some parts, although most of the action sequences kind of looked similar and featured so many explosions that they eventually lost all meaning. Plus, maybe it was because I was seated right next to the speakers, but I found the score of this film to be overwhelming and just plain annoying.
Overall, this is a decent flick that will provide entertainment for the time you're in the theater. However, it's not much more than that. The acting is decent at best, and the script could have used a little more in the way of character development. Plus you never really get the sense that Rogers is in any sort of peril in his battles, and they just rush through the second half of the film to get to the next action scene. Overall, I'd give Captain America: The First Avenger a 4.5 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this movie, then feel free to share them by leaving a comment.
Not surprisingly, the film is full of action sequences and CGI effects, the most impressive of which is the transforming of Evans into a little weakling. At the start of the movie, Rogers is all heart with hardly any muscle, and because of that he's a scrappy underdog that one can't help but to relate to. Once his transformation takes place, even though Rogers is the same guy, he just becomes a boring one-dimensional hero. I don't know if it was Evans or the screenwriters, but something was definitely lost in the transition of Rogers from zero to hero. It's not as if he's an arrogant jerk, but rather he's just dull. Rogers' main love interest in the film, a British solider named Peggy Carter (Atwell), looks the part, but I was never convinced that these two had any sort of sparks despite the fact that the story practically forces that down our throats. Actually, Peggy's also much more interesting in the first part of the film when she's a tough woman soilder in a man's world rather than the love stricken girl we see in the second part.
As for the rest of the cast, it's solid, but not spectacular. Tommy Lee Jones plays, well, himself as a no-nonsense army Colonel. I will say that some of his wisecracks were quite enjoyable. Weaving is also solid as the evil Johann Schmidt, who eventually becomes Red Skull, while Sebastian Stan was solid as Rogers' close friend, Bucky Barnes. I must say that I wasn't too impressed with Tucci's performance as Dr. Erskine, as his German accent was inconsistent at best. In the second half of the film, Rogers leads a team into various battles against Red Skull and his Hydra squad, which are full of action and explosions. The problem is, we never really learn anything about these guys and why they were chosen other than the fact that they just happened to be in the same unit as Rogers's buddy. Heck, they didn't even mention their names until the credits.
Director Joe Johnston does a nice job of recreating the 1940s in Captain America, from the 'World Fair' setting at the beginning of the film to the montage of Captain America shilling war bonds and starring in films. Although it may have seemed a little long and really didn't mean much to the overall story, it was a humorous look at the parading of Rogers as some sort of Uncle Sam type figure. The film looked great in some parts, although most of the action sequences kind of looked similar and featured so many explosions that they eventually lost all meaning. Plus, maybe it was because I was seated right next to the speakers, but I found the score of this film to be overwhelming and just plain annoying.
Overall, this is a decent flick that will provide entertainment for the time you're in the theater. However, it's not much more than that. The acting is decent at best, and the script could have used a little more in the way of character development. Plus you never really get the sense that Rogers is in any sort of peril in his battles, and they just rush through the second half of the film to get to the next action scene. Overall, I'd give Captain America: The First Avenger a 4.5 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this movie, then feel free to share them by leaving a comment.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Bolt
Here's a movie I decided to watch because, well I'm not sure exactly, the 2008 animated feature from Disney called Bolt. Directed by Byron Howard and Chris Williams, Bolt features the voices of John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Malcolm McDowell, James Lipton, Susie Essman, and the late, great Macho Man Randy Savage. In Bolt, a dog named Bolt (Travolta) that stars in a fictional sci-fi show starts to believe that his powers are real, and he also believes that his co-star Penny (Cyrus) was kidnapped by the evil Dr. Calico (McDowell). Somehow, Bolt falls in a box and is shipped to New York City, where he meets a stray cat named Mittens (Essman) and a hamster named Rhino (Mark Walton), who just happens to be Bolt's biggest fan. The three of them journey back to Hollywood in hopes of 'rescuing' Penny.
Bolt starts out with a bang, as Bolt and Penny race through a giant city escaping from Dr. Calico's army (the army seems as big as the Canadian army, btw). Bolt displays a wide array of super powers, including heat vision, super strength (he can flip a moving car over his head), super leaping abilities and his go to move, a super bark that can wipe out every building in a mile radius. Yes, Bolt is perhaps the most powerful dog in the history of fiction, but the problem is, he thinks it's all real, as he's trapped in a "Truman Show" type reality because the director believes that is the best manner for Bolt to deliver his best performance. This seems like it would take a lot of money and effort to pull off, but considering the Michael Bay-type action scene in the TV show, apparently this is a production company with an unlimited overhead. Plus, this seems to be an unethical and possibly illegal way of handling a dog, but that's beside the point.
Anyway, Bolt gets lost and takes Mittens as his prisoner because he believes that all cats are servants of Dr. Calico. Even though Bolt is completely oblivious to the world outside of him, he is rather resourceful and adapts somewhat quickly to his new surroundings, despite not having superpowers. Bolt and Mittens travel across the country, and eventually meet Rhino, a hamster in a ball who believes everything he sees on television is real, in an RV Park. The three make for an interesting trio, with Mittens serving as the voice of reason for the delusional Bolt and Rhino. Each of them are actually quite likeable in their own ways, with Bolt always showing loyalty to both Penny and Mittens and doing whatever he can to save them, Mittens being a streetwise, snarky feline who has seen too much to get her hopes up, and Rhino just happy to be hanging out with one of his heroes. Remarkably, each of them weren't annoying at all, even Rhino, who at first I thought I wouldn't like, but his constant optimism and gung-ho attitude won me over.
The movie explores a few themes, such as the evils that exist in Hollywood, what with the slimy agents, overbearing network executives and all. This coming from one of the biggest movie companies in the world. I guess somebody as Disney really hates talent agents, because the agent character here (voiced by Greg Germann) is a slimy character who would sell his own kids out (and admits this) and seems to be callous to the personal feelings of his clients. Overall, I'd say that the movie's satire of Hollywood was a bit heavy handed, but since it is a kid's movie, perhaps they felt that was the only way to get the point across. Something else I found interesting was that Penny seemed to feel trapped by starring in her own TV show and the lifestyle that goes with it, a situation that was not too different from her voice actor's situation with her show (Hannah Montana). Kind of ironic, no? Another theme that Bolt explores is the issue of pet abandonment, particularly in a heart-tugging tale told by Mittens that explains her cynical view towards humans.
Overall, even though you could guess the ending about 15 minutes in, Bolt is an entertaining film that features solid animation and some good voice acting, particularly by Travolta and Essman. While the story isn't revolutionary or anything, and the soundtrack included John Travolta singing, it is a solid tale and there a few laughs mixed in. Overall, I'd give it a 7.25 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this movie, or ideas for future reviews, then share those thoughts either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Bolt starts out with a bang, as Bolt and Penny race through a giant city escaping from Dr. Calico's army (the army seems as big as the Canadian army, btw). Bolt displays a wide array of super powers, including heat vision, super strength (he can flip a moving car over his head), super leaping abilities and his go to move, a super bark that can wipe out every building in a mile radius. Yes, Bolt is perhaps the most powerful dog in the history of fiction, but the problem is, he thinks it's all real, as he's trapped in a "Truman Show" type reality because the director believes that is the best manner for Bolt to deliver his best performance. This seems like it would take a lot of money and effort to pull off, but considering the Michael Bay-type action scene in the TV show, apparently this is a production company with an unlimited overhead. Plus, this seems to be an unethical and possibly illegal way of handling a dog, but that's beside the point.
Anyway, Bolt gets lost and takes Mittens as his prisoner because he believes that all cats are servants of Dr. Calico. Even though Bolt is completely oblivious to the world outside of him, he is rather resourceful and adapts somewhat quickly to his new surroundings, despite not having superpowers. Bolt and Mittens travel across the country, and eventually meet Rhino, a hamster in a ball who believes everything he sees on television is real, in an RV Park. The three make for an interesting trio, with Mittens serving as the voice of reason for the delusional Bolt and Rhino. Each of them are actually quite likeable in their own ways, with Bolt always showing loyalty to both Penny and Mittens and doing whatever he can to save them, Mittens being a streetwise, snarky feline who has seen too much to get her hopes up, and Rhino just happy to be hanging out with one of his heroes. Remarkably, each of them weren't annoying at all, even Rhino, who at first I thought I wouldn't like, but his constant optimism and gung-ho attitude won me over.
The movie explores a few themes, such as the evils that exist in Hollywood, what with the slimy agents, overbearing network executives and all. This coming from one of the biggest movie companies in the world. I guess somebody as Disney really hates talent agents, because the agent character here (voiced by Greg Germann) is a slimy character who would sell his own kids out (and admits this) and seems to be callous to the personal feelings of his clients. Overall, I'd say that the movie's satire of Hollywood was a bit heavy handed, but since it is a kid's movie, perhaps they felt that was the only way to get the point across. Something else I found interesting was that Penny seemed to feel trapped by starring in her own TV show and the lifestyle that goes with it, a situation that was not too different from her voice actor's situation with her show (Hannah Montana). Kind of ironic, no? Another theme that Bolt explores is the issue of pet abandonment, particularly in a heart-tugging tale told by Mittens that explains her cynical view towards humans.
Overall, even though you could guess the ending about 15 minutes in, Bolt is an entertaining film that features solid animation and some good voice acting, particularly by Travolta and Essman. While the story isn't revolutionary or anything, and the soundtrack included John Travolta singing, it is a solid tale and there a few laughs mixed in. Overall, I'd give it a 7.25 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this movie, or ideas for future reviews, then share those thoughts either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Proposal
Sorry about the delay. I would have done this earlier, but then the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup and I had to go out and everyone started rioting, so I chose to watch stupid people tip over cars and jump onto burning cars. Anyway, this is the last installment of the Ryan Reynolds Extravaganza, and after this I can say to all those that have shunned me before that yes, I have watched Ryan Reynolds movies. The movie featured today is not one that I would say is in my wheelhouse, so to speak, the 2009 romantic comedy The Proposal. Produced by Touchstone Pictures and directed by Anne Fletcher, The Proposal stars Reynolds, Sandra Bullock, Mary Steenburgen, the one and only Craig T. Nelson, Malin Akerman, and Betty White. In The Proposal, a pushy editor at a giant publishing company (Bullock) is shocked to find out that she's about to be deported back to Canada. In order to keep her job and stay in the country, she forces her assistant Andrew (Reynolds) to fake an engagement with her. During this facade, Andrew and his new fiance go back to his home in Alaska, where hijinks ensue. A few notes about this film.
- I'm trying to start this review on a positive note, so I will first mention that I thought the dog was the best part of the film. Kevin, a half Eskimo half Samoyed breed (which was actually played by several dogs), nearly managed to steal the show from his human costars. Heck, if it wasn't for Betty White, Kevin would have provided the few laughs this film had, although I guess I should give credit to Bullock for playing so well off of the dog.
- Now that I've tried to be positive, let's shift to the negative. I'm going to assume that most of you reading this probably have a good idea of what happens at the end, the mystery is just how the ending came about. Well, I'm still trying to figure that out to, because at no point in this movie was there a real turning point between Andrew and Margaret's (Bullock). Oh sure, they might have got to a point where they could stand each other instead of Andrew out and out despising Margaret after a rendition of Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock's "It Takes Two". But still, there was no point in this whole movie where you really saw the two of them connect. Then I guess you're supposed to suspend your disbelief that Andrew would start to fall for the woman he once referred to as "Satan's Mistress" over a wacky weekend. I guess we are left to assume that somewhere along the way, Andrew forgot about all the misdeeds this evil woman performed on him over the years, even holding him back as an editor for her own personal gain, and somehow fall head over heels for her.
- The scriptwriter for The Proposal is a man by the name of Peter Chiarelli. Well, I refuse to believe that he wrote a script as much as borrowed every romantic comedy cliche he could think of and ram it into one movie. Let's see, there's a grandmother who likes to talk about inappropriate subjects for comedic effect (White), there's a doting mother who desperately wants grandchildren (Steenburgen), and there's a gruff father that doesn't agree with his son's career choice and wants him to lead a lifestyle similar to the father's (Craig T. Nelson). The makers of this movie also throw in the old flame that's happy to see Andrew once again (Akerman), but at least her character is mature enough to know that life goes on and she has successfully moved on with her life instead of waiting like an obsessive ex-lover for her beau's return, which some other movies might have done. The most forced of these cliches was definitely the father-son feud between Andrew and Craig T. Nelson, as it seemed to be thrown in there just to introduce another obstacle.
- As far as the acting goes, White is easily the standout of this movie as Gammy, as she brings a few laughs to the table here. Steenburgen and Akerman weren't too bad in supporting roles, although they had little to do, while Craig T. Nelson is still Craig T. Nelson, so your mileage may vary. Meanwhile, the leads in The Proposal weren't able to overcome a shoddy script and a scatter shot premise. Bullock really didn't seem mean enough as the proverbial ice queen, and even though she was nominated for a Golden Globe for this movie, this was not one of her better performances. Meanwhile, Reynolds seemed to fall back to his typical sarcastic wise-ass character a bit too much in this film, and didn't seem to have a whole lot of chemistry with Bullock in the film.
- The town that the movie was set in (Sitka, Alaska) was supposed to be small, but was it so small that one guy has four different jobs? Well, I guess so, as Ramone (Oscar Nunez) is not only serving food at a party for the returning Andrew, he also runs to general store and is the priest at the wedding. Not only that, but he's also the town's lone male exotic dancer. I can honestly say that I could have gone my whole life without seeing Oscar from The Office shaking his ass in a thong in Sandra Bullock's face. Yeesh.
Overall, while I'm willing to admit that this film isn't exactly catered to people like me, there's not a lot in The Proposal that I would consider good or even average. Not to mention that I talked to other people who are big Ryan Reynolds fans about this movie, and they weren't very high on it either. The Proposal is a cliche ridden film where the two leads in the film show very little romantic spark and seem to fall for each other for no reason other than it was called for in the script. Even with Kevin the dog, I'd give this a 2.3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have thoughts about this movie or feedback on The Canon Review in general, then share those thoughts either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- I'm trying to start this review on a positive note, so I will first mention that I thought the dog was the best part of the film. Kevin, a half Eskimo half Samoyed breed (which was actually played by several dogs), nearly managed to steal the show from his human costars. Heck, if it wasn't for Betty White, Kevin would have provided the few laughs this film had, although I guess I should give credit to Bullock for playing so well off of the dog.
- Now that I've tried to be positive, let's shift to the negative. I'm going to assume that most of you reading this probably have a good idea of what happens at the end, the mystery is just how the ending came about. Well, I'm still trying to figure that out to, because at no point in this movie was there a real turning point between Andrew and Margaret's (Bullock). Oh sure, they might have got to a point where they could stand each other instead of Andrew out and out despising Margaret after a rendition of Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock's "It Takes Two". But still, there was no point in this whole movie where you really saw the two of them connect. Then I guess you're supposed to suspend your disbelief that Andrew would start to fall for the woman he once referred to as "Satan's Mistress" over a wacky weekend. I guess we are left to assume that somewhere along the way, Andrew forgot about all the misdeeds this evil woman performed on him over the years, even holding him back as an editor for her own personal gain, and somehow fall head over heels for her.
- The scriptwriter for The Proposal is a man by the name of Peter Chiarelli. Well, I refuse to believe that he wrote a script as much as borrowed every romantic comedy cliche he could think of and ram it into one movie. Let's see, there's a grandmother who likes to talk about inappropriate subjects for comedic effect (White), there's a doting mother who desperately wants grandchildren (Steenburgen), and there's a gruff father that doesn't agree with his son's career choice and wants him to lead a lifestyle similar to the father's (Craig T. Nelson). The makers of this movie also throw in the old flame that's happy to see Andrew once again (Akerman), but at least her character is mature enough to know that life goes on and she has successfully moved on with her life instead of waiting like an obsessive ex-lover for her beau's return, which some other movies might have done. The most forced of these cliches was definitely the father-son feud between Andrew and Craig T. Nelson, as it seemed to be thrown in there just to introduce another obstacle.
- As far as the acting goes, White is easily the standout of this movie as Gammy, as she brings a few laughs to the table here. Steenburgen and Akerman weren't too bad in supporting roles, although they had little to do, while Craig T. Nelson is still Craig T. Nelson, so your mileage may vary. Meanwhile, the leads in The Proposal weren't able to overcome a shoddy script and a scatter shot premise. Bullock really didn't seem mean enough as the proverbial ice queen, and even though she was nominated for a Golden Globe for this movie, this was not one of her better performances. Meanwhile, Reynolds seemed to fall back to his typical sarcastic wise-ass character a bit too much in this film, and didn't seem to have a whole lot of chemistry with Bullock in the film.
- The town that the movie was set in (Sitka, Alaska) was supposed to be small, but was it so small that one guy has four different jobs? Well, I guess so, as Ramone (Oscar Nunez) is not only serving food at a party for the returning Andrew, he also runs to general store and is the priest at the wedding. Not only that, but he's also the town's lone male exotic dancer. I can honestly say that I could have gone my whole life without seeing Oscar from The Office shaking his ass in a thong in Sandra Bullock's face. Yeesh.
Overall, while I'm willing to admit that this film isn't exactly catered to people like me, there's not a lot in The Proposal that I would consider good or even average. Not to mention that I talked to other people who are big Ryan Reynolds fans about this movie, and they weren't very high on it either. The Proposal is a cliche ridden film where the two leads in the film show very little romantic spark and seem to fall for each other for no reason other than it was called for in the script. Even with Kevin the dog, I'd give this a 2.3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have thoughts about this movie or feedback on The Canon Review in general, then share those thoughts either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Nines
The next movie featured in the Canon Review Ryan Reynolds movie extravaganza is the 2007 British film The Nines. Distributed by Newmarket Films and directed by John August, The Nines stars Reynolds, Hope Davis, Melissa McCarthy, Elle Fanning, and David Denman (Roy from The Office). The story of The Nines follows three different people, Gary, a troubled actor under house arrest, Gavin, a television show producer starring in his own reality show, and Gabriel, an accomplished video game designer. Somehow, these seemingly three different lifestyles are connected. A few notes about this film:
- The movie is basically split up into three parts. The first part is called The Prisoner and has television actor Gary (Reynolds) under house arrest after going on a crack binge and burning his house down. At first, this seems like a slightly humorous tale of a down-and-out actor trying to adjust to life confined in someone else's house 24/7. Then he meets one of his neighbors, a sultry housewife named Sara (Davis) comes around and the two make out. For some reason, Sara does a musical number during the middle of the scene, but whatever. However, Gary starts hearing noises around the house, and one day he gets so freaked out that he takes a walk outside, only to get arrested. After the arrest, Gary's publicist (McCarthy) moves in. The two seem to become close friends, which concerns Sara more than it should. Also, the number nine appears a lot in this part, as Gary keeps seeing it in the local paper and in a game of backgammon, he rolls nothing but nines, which I imagine would start to become inconvenient after a while.
- The second part of the movie is titled "Reality Television" and features Reynolds as a showrunner named Gavin who is trying to get his show 'Knowing' put on by a network. Also returning are Davis, this time as a cut throat executive producer named Susan, and Melissa McCarthy as herself. Gavin has cast his good friend McCarthy as the lead actress in his show, a choice that doesn't seem to sit well with Susan. After Gavin finishes shooting his pilot, he returns to his home, which just happens to be the same house Gary was holed up in (and just happens to be the actual home of the director John August). I must say that I have mixed feelings about this segment. Sure, the acting was fine, and it was compelling to see Gavin fight for his friend Melissa before ultimately choosing to save his own show. However, the segment was so focused on the backdoor shenanigans behind a television show that it kind of pushed aside the main storyline for a while. Also, there were some points where it seemed like August was more interested in letting off steam (he had a TV show cancelled a few years prior to the film) then advancing the story or the characters in any way.
- The third scene is titled "Knowing", and this time Reynolds plays a video game designer named Gabriel whose car dies in the middle of nowhere. Having to leave his wife Mary (McCarthy) and daughter Noelle (Fanning) behind, Gabriel runs into a mysterious stranger named Sierra (Davis) who offers to help but sure has an odd way of going about it. That's really all I can say about this part of the film without ruining the whole plot for you. As far as the connection between the three and the twists in the storyline go, I will say that the writers and August attempt to make everything perfectly clear, so even idiots like myself can figure out what's going on as long as you pay attention throughout the film. Actually, I wonder if August made it too easy to figure things out, although I'm sure that viewers still had a few questions about the movie and the 'nines' at the end of the film.
- With three different actors playing three different parts, the whole movie could fall apart if just one of these actors were unconvincing in their roles. Fortunately, this does not happen here, as all three main actors do rather well in this film. Reynolds was good in this movie, although oddly enough I felt his weakest acting came when he played the actor in the first part of the movie. But overall, I can't really complain about his performance. Davis turns in the best performance here, at least in my opinion, but McCarthy wasn't too far off either. I found it interesting that the film painted both Davis and McCarthy as a contrast of the other, each one fighting for what they believe is best for Reynolds's various characters.
Overall, The Nines is a good thriller mystery that sometimes seems to get in the way of itself by veering off into different subjects, such as the evils of television producers. Still, there's enough here so that most people will end up at least enjoying the film. Overall, I'd give The Nines a 6.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and remember that if you have a comment or a future idea for a post, then send those along to me either by reading a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- The movie is basically split up into three parts. The first part is called The Prisoner and has television actor Gary (Reynolds) under house arrest after going on a crack binge and burning his house down. At first, this seems like a slightly humorous tale of a down-and-out actor trying to adjust to life confined in someone else's house 24/7. Then he meets one of his neighbors, a sultry housewife named Sara (Davis) comes around and the two make out. For some reason, Sara does a musical number during the middle of the scene, but whatever. However, Gary starts hearing noises around the house, and one day he gets so freaked out that he takes a walk outside, only to get arrested. After the arrest, Gary's publicist (McCarthy) moves in. The two seem to become close friends, which concerns Sara more than it should. Also, the number nine appears a lot in this part, as Gary keeps seeing it in the local paper and in a game of backgammon, he rolls nothing but nines, which I imagine would start to become inconvenient after a while.
- The second part of the movie is titled "Reality Television" and features Reynolds as a showrunner named Gavin who is trying to get his show 'Knowing' put on by a network. Also returning are Davis, this time as a cut throat executive producer named Susan, and Melissa McCarthy as herself. Gavin has cast his good friend McCarthy as the lead actress in his show, a choice that doesn't seem to sit well with Susan. After Gavin finishes shooting his pilot, he returns to his home, which just happens to be the same house Gary was holed up in (and just happens to be the actual home of the director John August). I must say that I have mixed feelings about this segment. Sure, the acting was fine, and it was compelling to see Gavin fight for his friend Melissa before ultimately choosing to save his own show. However, the segment was so focused on the backdoor shenanigans behind a television show that it kind of pushed aside the main storyline for a while. Also, there were some points where it seemed like August was more interested in letting off steam (he had a TV show cancelled a few years prior to the film) then advancing the story or the characters in any way.
- The third scene is titled "Knowing", and this time Reynolds plays a video game designer named Gabriel whose car dies in the middle of nowhere. Having to leave his wife Mary (McCarthy) and daughter Noelle (Fanning) behind, Gabriel runs into a mysterious stranger named Sierra (Davis) who offers to help but sure has an odd way of going about it. That's really all I can say about this part of the film without ruining the whole plot for you. As far as the connection between the three and the twists in the storyline go, I will say that the writers and August attempt to make everything perfectly clear, so even idiots like myself can figure out what's going on as long as you pay attention throughout the film. Actually, I wonder if August made it too easy to figure things out, although I'm sure that viewers still had a few questions about the movie and the 'nines' at the end of the film.
- With three different actors playing three different parts, the whole movie could fall apart if just one of these actors were unconvincing in their roles. Fortunately, this does not happen here, as all three main actors do rather well in this film. Reynolds was good in this movie, although oddly enough I felt his weakest acting came when he played the actor in the first part of the movie. But overall, I can't really complain about his performance. Davis turns in the best performance here, at least in my opinion, but McCarthy wasn't too far off either. I found it interesting that the film painted both Davis and McCarthy as a contrast of the other, each one fighting for what they believe is best for Reynolds's various characters.
Overall, The Nines is a good thriller mystery that sometimes seems to get in the way of itself by veering off into different subjects, such as the evils of television producers. Still, there's enough here so that most people will end up at least enjoying the film. Overall, I'd give The Nines a 6.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and remember that if you have a comment or a future idea for a post, then send those along to me either by reading a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Buried
The second movie to be featured in The Canon Review's Ryan Reynolds week is the 2010 picture, Buried. Distributed by Lions Gate and directed by Rodrigo Cortes, Buried stars Ryan Reynolds, Samantha Mathis, Stephen Tobolowsky, and Erik Palladino. In Buried, Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, an American truck driver working in Iraq in 2006. One day, Conroy has the great misfortune of waking up in a coffin, with nothing but a cigarette lighter and a cell phone. While the cell phone gives him contact to the outside world, it doesn't help Conroy too much, as it proves to be hard to find a coffin buried in an Iraqi desert. So Conroy must find some way to get out of the coffin and emerge from the ground or else, he dies. A few notes about this film:
- Cortes, inspired by Alfred Hitchcock films, made the interesting decision of having every shot of the film take place in the coffin, with Reynolds being the only actor we see throughout the whole movie. So, throughout the entire movie, the audience is basically stuck in the coffin with Paul Conroy, adding more suspense to the film and a sense of frustration and powerlessness when it looks impossible for Conroy to get out. What also helps is that as a director, Cortes is talented enough to use what little light there is to work with in the coffin to add different emotions to each scene. Also, Cortes uses various camera angles to both show the isolation of Conroy and the claustrophobic, closed-off atmosphere in which Conroy is struggling to deal with. All in all, Cortes proves to be quite a talented director, getting every bit out of the limited scenery provided.
- Coming into this movie, I was skeptical about Reynolds's chances to pull off a role such as this one. After all, he's mainly been in comedy movies or flashy action features. However, Reynolds proves to be more than capable of playing the role of Conroy, delivering a gripping performance with great emotional range that makes the audience root for Conroy to eventually be rescued. Even though I must admit that I haven't seen a lot of Reynolds' work (which is the main reason I watched this film in the first place), I will say that this is easily the best work that I've ever seen him in. In a very demanding role, Reynolds pulls it off with aplomb.
- Luckily for Conroy, he was provided a cell phone, not only for his captors to reach him, but he can also call for help as well. This seems like a bit of a misstep for the kidnappers, but the main reason they leave the phone in there is so Conroy can make a hostage video to be sent out across the airwaves. I've got to say, even though Conroy is buried in a coffin, the cell phone gets some great coverage. I mean, I can't even pick up reception on my cell phone in my own house, and Conroy's able to call anywhere in the world with service only dropping out one time. I wonder what his cell phone carrier is?
- Not only does Buried attempt to recreate the experience of being buried alive, it also seems to be making a point about how frustrating it must be to be buried alive and having to rely on others to get you out. The first few minutes of the film is dedicated to Conroy trying to find someone, anyone, to believe his story and report it to the proper authorities. However, not everybody is so willing to believe that somebody could be buried in a coffin in Iraq. Conroy also has a frustrating conversation with a friend of his wife, who actually hangs up on him because she felt Conroy was a bit rude before finally giving him the number to the state department a second time. When Conroy finally reaches the proper authorities, he gets frustrated that they seem to be more interested in not letting the story leak to the press then rescuing Conroy or finding his captors. To make matters worse, Conroy actually gets fired by his employers for some violation of his contract in order to get out of paying his insurance. Now, I know that the writers were trying to display the greed of corporate America and the modern practice of companies covering their own butts instead of caring about their employees, but come on, this was a little too far. Imagine the PR nightmare that would take place after an employee got out of a terrorist situation and it comes out that he was fired by his contractor before hand for a petty and unrelated reason. That company would have employees quit on them left and right. I get what the filmmakers were going for, but for me, it felt like they were just piling on.
Overall, this is a movie that could have been an experimental disaster, but Cortes and Reynolds are able to pull it off and make Buried a compelling film. Buried is a film full of suspense and will tug at the audience's heart strings while making them think "what would I do in this situation" Overall, I'd give Buried a 7.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this movie, or future ideas for this blog, then send those along either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Cortes, inspired by Alfred Hitchcock films, made the interesting decision of having every shot of the film take place in the coffin, with Reynolds being the only actor we see throughout the whole movie. So, throughout the entire movie, the audience is basically stuck in the coffin with Paul Conroy, adding more suspense to the film and a sense of frustration and powerlessness when it looks impossible for Conroy to get out. What also helps is that as a director, Cortes is talented enough to use what little light there is to work with in the coffin to add different emotions to each scene. Also, Cortes uses various camera angles to both show the isolation of Conroy and the claustrophobic, closed-off atmosphere in which Conroy is struggling to deal with. All in all, Cortes proves to be quite a talented director, getting every bit out of the limited scenery provided.
- Coming into this movie, I was skeptical about Reynolds's chances to pull off a role such as this one. After all, he's mainly been in comedy movies or flashy action features. However, Reynolds proves to be more than capable of playing the role of Conroy, delivering a gripping performance with great emotional range that makes the audience root for Conroy to eventually be rescued. Even though I must admit that I haven't seen a lot of Reynolds' work (which is the main reason I watched this film in the first place), I will say that this is easily the best work that I've ever seen him in. In a very demanding role, Reynolds pulls it off with aplomb.
- Luckily for Conroy, he was provided a cell phone, not only for his captors to reach him, but he can also call for help as well. This seems like a bit of a misstep for the kidnappers, but the main reason they leave the phone in there is so Conroy can make a hostage video to be sent out across the airwaves. I've got to say, even though Conroy is buried in a coffin, the cell phone gets some great coverage. I mean, I can't even pick up reception on my cell phone in my own house, and Conroy's able to call anywhere in the world with service only dropping out one time. I wonder what his cell phone carrier is?
- Not only does Buried attempt to recreate the experience of being buried alive, it also seems to be making a point about how frustrating it must be to be buried alive and having to rely on others to get you out. The first few minutes of the film is dedicated to Conroy trying to find someone, anyone, to believe his story and report it to the proper authorities. However, not everybody is so willing to believe that somebody could be buried in a coffin in Iraq. Conroy also has a frustrating conversation with a friend of his wife, who actually hangs up on him because she felt Conroy was a bit rude before finally giving him the number to the state department a second time. When Conroy finally reaches the proper authorities, he gets frustrated that they seem to be more interested in not letting the story leak to the press then rescuing Conroy or finding his captors. To make matters worse, Conroy actually gets fired by his employers for some violation of his contract in order to get out of paying his insurance. Now, I know that the writers were trying to display the greed of corporate America and the modern practice of companies covering their own butts instead of caring about their employees, but come on, this was a little too far. Imagine the PR nightmare that would take place after an employee got out of a terrorist situation and it comes out that he was fired by his contractor before hand for a petty and unrelated reason. That company would have employees quit on them left and right. I get what the filmmakers were going for, but for me, it felt like they were just piling on.
Overall, this is a movie that could have been an experimental disaster, but Cortes and Reynolds are able to pull it off and make Buried a compelling film. Buried is a film full of suspense and will tug at the audience's heart strings while making them think "what would I do in this situation" Overall, I'd give Buried a 7.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this movie, or future ideas for this blog, then send those along either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Amityville Horror (2005)
This movie review is actually the start of a mini Ryan Reynolds marathon here at The Canon Review. See, the other day I was chilling in the pool with a few peeps, and when the topic of Ryan Reynolds came up, I mentioned that I had not seen many of his movies at all. Well, they laughed at me and called me names, and vowed to never speak to me again unless I watched at least four of his movies and wrote up a review on each one. So, in an effort to win back the respect I have lost, here is the first of four Ryan Reynolds movies to be reviewed this week, the 2005 remake The Amityville Horror. Distributed by MGM and Dimension Films, and directed by Andrew Douglas (a first time director who hasn't directed another film since), The Amityville Horror stars Reynolds, Melissa George, Phillip Baker Hall, Jesse James, Chloe Moretz, and Rachel Nichols. In The Amityville Horror, the Lutz family (with Reynolds as George Lutz and George as Kathy) stumble across what they consider to be their dream house. Despite hearing that a brutal murder took place in the same house years ago, the Lutzes decide to buy the house anyway, figuring what's the worse that can happen? Well, as the movie illustrates, a lot can happen. A few notes about this film:
- Although the book 'The Amityville Horror' is supposedly based on a true story, this version bears little resemblence to the original source material. Yes, the characters are still named the Lutzes and they live in a haunted house in Long Island, but this version has the father go crazy a la Jack Torrance in The Shining, to the point where I kind of expected Reynolds to chop through the door with an ax and yell "Here's Johnny!" The actual George Lutz wasn't really pleased with Reynolds' portrayal of him, so he decided to sue the makers of the movie. I don't really know what the result of the lawsuit was, but Lutz passed away not long after filing suit.
- The Amityville Horror was directed by Andrew Douglas, but it was also produced by Michael Bay, and this film has Bay's influence all over it. As such, the film looks sharp and there are lots of special effects thrown in there seemingly just to throw them in there. Since the movie's script was kind of thin, Douglas decided to compensate by throwing nearly every horror movie cliche in that he could think of. From maggots on the wall, to visions of blood spewing everywhere, to an attack by a bunch of flies, to George nearly being drowned in the bathtub for whatever reason, this film tries hard to fit in as much cliches as possible. Also, the script writers decided that a ghost of one of the murder victims, a little girl named Jodi, would make a great addition to the story, so they threw her in there so she could torture a mean babysitter from her life. What fun!
- As far as the acting goes, I'll be kind and say that it wasn't too bad. Reynolds was decent as George Lutz. Yes, he was basically doing an impression of Jack Nicholson in The Shining, but at least he was halfway convincing as a man that had lost his mind. Although I get the feeling that he was cast not only because of his acting talents, but because of his abs, as he is shirtless for almost half the movie. Also, for some reason, George begins to have an obsession with chopping firewood, which I guess is meant to be a sign that a man is losing his mind. As Kathy Lutz, Melissa George was competent enough, although the script mainly portrayed her as little more than a hapless victim throughout the majority of the film. The child actors (James, Moretz, and Jimmy Bennett), aren't too bad, I suppose.
- However, if I was George Lutz and I had inherited a brood like that after marrying Kathy, I might go insane after a while myself. Michael (Bennett) is a strange little kid, but he's the least of George's problems. The oldest one, Billy, is not very fond of George and spends most of the movie whining about how he's old enough to do this or that or whatever, while the daughter Chelsea is seemingly possessed by a dead girl to the point where she nearly jumps off the damn roof, and then screams at her mother after she denies the existence of the dead girl. Worse yet, the dang dog won't stop barking and somehow finds his way into the boathouse every night. Yeah, the house being haunted may not have helped George's state of mind, but the kids and the dog did him no favors either.
- One of the more ridiculous sideplots of the movie involved the babysitter (Nichols). It starts will Billy quibbling about not needing a babysitter to the point where you want George to send Billy out to cut some more firewood so he can get the hell off the screen, and then here comes the babysitter, looking as if she came out of the pages of Young Hooker Monthly. Instead of sending this girl away, George makes some crack to Billy about wanting a sitter now and the couple goes on their merry way. While at the house, the babysitter smokes some pot, hangs out on Billy's bed and seems to want to jump the little tyke's bones before telling Billy about the murders that took place here. She then goes up to Chelsea's room, and she's saying something about Jodi not liking her or something, and eventually Billy makes a dare with the sitter to go into the closet where Jodi was murdered. Well, she goes in there, and here's Jodi. Naturally, the door will not open, so the sitter's in there with a crazed Jodi, whom for some reason makes the sitter feel her bullet hole and causes all sort of fast-cut chaos before the sitter is wheeled out shaking on a stretcher. You know what? Describing it isn't enough, so WHO WANTS TO SEE IT?
Overall, I'm not a fan of this movie. At times, the movie jumped around at a breakneck pace, so you never got any real sense of what George and Kathy were like before all the craziness started happening. The movie relied way too much on special effects and horror cliches, and the actors had little to do but just react to whatever CGI madness they were supposed to react to. Also, for what is supposed to be a 'true story', there are way too many elements of the story that are too remarkable to be true. At the end of the day, what you get is a mediocre at best horror film that is short on story and horror, but not short of special effects. I'd give it a 3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any ideas for future posts on this blog, or thoughts about this movie, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Although the book 'The Amityville Horror' is supposedly based on a true story, this version bears little resemblence to the original source material. Yes, the characters are still named the Lutzes and they live in a haunted house in Long Island, but this version has the father go crazy a la Jack Torrance in The Shining, to the point where I kind of expected Reynolds to chop through the door with an ax and yell "Here's Johnny!" The actual George Lutz wasn't really pleased with Reynolds' portrayal of him, so he decided to sue the makers of the movie. I don't really know what the result of the lawsuit was, but Lutz passed away not long after filing suit.
- The Amityville Horror was directed by Andrew Douglas, but it was also produced by Michael Bay, and this film has Bay's influence all over it. As such, the film looks sharp and there are lots of special effects thrown in there seemingly just to throw them in there. Since the movie's script was kind of thin, Douglas decided to compensate by throwing nearly every horror movie cliche in that he could think of. From maggots on the wall, to visions of blood spewing everywhere, to an attack by a bunch of flies, to George nearly being drowned in the bathtub for whatever reason, this film tries hard to fit in as much cliches as possible. Also, the script writers decided that a ghost of one of the murder victims, a little girl named Jodi, would make a great addition to the story, so they threw her in there so she could torture a mean babysitter from her life. What fun!
- As far as the acting goes, I'll be kind and say that it wasn't too bad. Reynolds was decent as George Lutz. Yes, he was basically doing an impression of Jack Nicholson in The Shining, but at least he was halfway convincing as a man that had lost his mind. Although I get the feeling that he was cast not only because of his acting talents, but because of his abs, as he is shirtless for almost half the movie. Also, for some reason, George begins to have an obsession with chopping firewood, which I guess is meant to be a sign that a man is losing his mind. As Kathy Lutz, Melissa George was competent enough, although the script mainly portrayed her as little more than a hapless victim throughout the majority of the film. The child actors (James, Moretz, and Jimmy Bennett), aren't too bad, I suppose.
- However, if I was George Lutz and I had inherited a brood like that after marrying Kathy, I might go insane after a while myself. Michael (Bennett) is a strange little kid, but he's the least of George's problems. The oldest one, Billy, is not very fond of George and spends most of the movie whining about how he's old enough to do this or that or whatever, while the daughter Chelsea is seemingly possessed by a dead girl to the point where she nearly jumps off the damn roof, and then screams at her mother after she denies the existence of the dead girl. Worse yet, the dang dog won't stop barking and somehow finds his way into the boathouse every night. Yeah, the house being haunted may not have helped George's state of mind, but the kids and the dog did him no favors either.
- One of the more ridiculous sideplots of the movie involved the babysitter (Nichols). It starts will Billy quibbling about not needing a babysitter to the point where you want George to send Billy out to cut some more firewood so he can get the hell off the screen, and then here comes the babysitter, looking as if she came out of the pages of Young Hooker Monthly. Instead of sending this girl away, George makes some crack to Billy about wanting a sitter now and the couple goes on their merry way. While at the house, the babysitter smokes some pot, hangs out on Billy's bed and seems to want to jump the little tyke's bones before telling Billy about the murders that took place here. She then goes up to Chelsea's room, and she's saying something about Jodi not liking her or something, and eventually Billy makes a dare with the sitter to go into the closet where Jodi was murdered. Well, she goes in there, and here's Jodi. Naturally, the door will not open, so the sitter's in there with a crazed Jodi, whom for some reason makes the sitter feel her bullet hole and causes all sort of fast-cut chaos before the sitter is wheeled out shaking on a stretcher. You know what? Describing it isn't enough, so WHO WANTS TO SEE IT?
Overall, I'm not a fan of this movie. At times, the movie jumped around at a breakneck pace, so you never got any real sense of what George and Kathy were like before all the craziness started happening. The movie relied way too much on special effects and horror cliches, and the actors had little to do but just react to whatever CGI madness they were supposed to react to. Also, for what is supposed to be a 'true story', there are way too many elements of the story that are too remarkable to be true. At the end of the day, what you get is a mediocre at best horror film that is short on story and horror, but not short of special effects. I'd give it a 3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any ideas for future posts on this blog, or thoughts about this movie, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Sleepers
Earlier this evening, I watched a movie that depending on who you talk to may or may not be a true story, the 1996 film Sleepers. Directed by Barry Levinson, Sleepers has a deep cast, including Robert DeNiro, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Patric, Kevin Bacon, Billy Crudup, Minnie Driver, and others. Heck, John Williams even did the score for the film, so you know that Levinson went all out on this film. In Sleepers, a quartet of boys from Hell's Kitchen circa 1968 have their lives changed forever when a prank goes awry and nearly kills a man. For the prank, the boys are sent away to the Wilkinson Home for Boys, where they suffer many abuses by a team of guards led by Sean Nokes (Bacon). Thirteen years later, a chance meeting between Nokes and two of the boys he abused leads to the foursome taking out their revenge on the guards that wronged them while at Wilkinson, with some help along the way from an aging crime boss (Vittorio Gassman as King Benny), another friend of theirs from Hell's Kitchen (Driver), and the priest that has known them for most of their lives (DeNiro). A few notes from the film, and there probably will be SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- The movie's plot is basically told in three parts, the boys' childhood in Hell's Kitchen leading up to the incident that got them sent to Wilkinson, the incarceration period, and what happened 13 years after where the group got their revenge at the guards that abused them at Wilkinson. Of the three parts, the first part of the movie was the most compelling and well-done, at least to me. Levinson does an excellent job of bringing 1960s Hell's Kitchen to life, and the four boys (Shakes, Michael, John, and Tommy) are all quite interesting characters, with Shakes (played by Joseph Perrino) and John (Geoffrey Wigdor) especially standing out. The film also offers an interesting battle for the boys' souls, so to speak, as they have two mentors. One being the priest Father Bobby Carillo (DeNiro), a former criminal who reformed and found himself in the church, and the other being King Benny, the mob boss that runs Hell's Kitchen. While this part may have run a bit long, it does serve an important purpose as it introduces us to each character and makes the audience feel for them once the abuse at Wilkinson starts.
- Something I find interesting is that, in a film with two Academy Award winners (DeNiro, Hoffman) and one of the hottest young actors of the time (Pitt) in the film, that Kevin Bacon gets top billing. It's espcially odd since Bacon plays the main villain of the film. I will say, though, that Bacon is very convincing as the sadistic, perverted prison guard Sean Nokes. I wouldn't necessarily say it's Bacon's best performance, but it's in the top 5 for sure. DeNiro also does an excellent job in this movie as Father Carillo, playing the role very convincingly, while Hoffman does a convincing job as alcoholic lawyer Danny Snyder, even if he is somewhat underutilized. Overall, the acting is mostly well done, although I will say that I found Pitt's performance as the district attorney/mastermind of the whole plan to be a little flat. Maybe it's just me, but I think the role could have used a little more anger and intensity behind it, and at times I think Pitt was playing it too cool.
- There are a few cinematic themes to this movie, but the main one seems to be revenge. After all, it's hinted at early in the film when Shakes' father tells of King Benny getting revenge on a person that beat him up eight years ago, and the book The Count of Monte Crisco is brought up numerous times. Eventually, the four boys, now men, get the opportunity to take their revenge on Nokes and the rest of the guards, and the whole last half of the film or so is dedicated to that revenge. While it may be satisfying to see those guards get their comeuppance, it's done in such a way that lacks suspense. After all, you see Nokes get what was coming to him early on, and since he's the main guard, the revenge of all the other guards seem to be just icing on the cake. Plus, while the movie established Bacon as the main villian, it did very little to distinguish the other guards as separate villains, so you end up seeing a bunch of guys that you hardly knew about get their comeuppance. Then again, since it's based on a true story, maybe that's how it went down.
- Speaking of which, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding author Lorenzo Carcaterra's (who is called Shakes in the film and in the novel) claim that Sleepers is based on a true story. For one, the state of New York deny there ever being a case anything like the one described in the movie, where a juvenile detention center guard is murdered and the accused are found not guilty. The state also claims that there are no records of juvenile inmates being physically and sexually abused by guards, which would be a hard claim to completely prove, but that's their position. Carcaterra claims that, although the names have been changed, the story is true and he lived through it. From what I can tell by crudely researching the subject, I kind of have my doubts about his claim, and the story as a whole, especially everything that happened after Nokes' murder, seems a bit too clean to have happened in real life. Then again, I could be wrong and Carcaterra's being completly honest.
Whether or not Sleepers is based on a true story, this is a good film that borders on greatness. Levinson does a great job as a director, keeping the viewer interested and the plot fast-paced despite the film being nearly 2 and a half hours long. Williams' score and Michael Ballhaus's cinematography are also top-notch, and the acting is at a high level overall. While the plot had a couple of holes, (for example, the character of Carol Martinez was hardly mentioned in the first hour, but all of a sudden she's playing a major role and being presented as a direct peer to the quartet of boys featured earlier) overall it was a compelling story. The ending seemed kind of 'too perfect', though. Overall, Sleepers is a very good film that will make you think about a variety of subjects, although I would not recommend this film for children. I'd give Sleepers a 7.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment on the blog or sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- The movie's plot is basically told in three parts, the boys' childhood in Hell's Kitchen leading up to the incident that got them sent to Wilkinson, the incarceration period, and what happened 13 years after where the group got their revenge at the guards that abused them at Wilkinson. Of the three parts, the first part of the movie was the most compelling and well-done, at least to me. Levinson does an excellent job of bringing 1960s Hell's Kitchen to life, and the four boys (Shakes, Michael, John, and Tommy) are all quite interesting characters, with Shakes (played by Joseph Perrino) and John (Geoffrey Wigdor) especially standing out. The film also offers an interesting battle for the boys' souls, so to speak, as they have two mentors. One being the priest Father Bobby Carillo (DeNiro), a former criminal who reformed and found himself in the church, and the other being King Benny, the mob boss that runs Hell's Kitchen. While this part may have run a bit long, it does serve an important purpose as it introduces us to each character and makes the audience feel for them once the abuse at Wilkinson starts.
- Something I find interesting is that, in a film with two Academy Award winners (DeNiro, Hoffman) and one of the hottest young actors of the time (Pitt) in the film, that Kevin Bacon gets top billing. It's espcially odd since Bacon plays the main villain of the film. I will say, though, that Bacon is very convincing as the sadistic, perverted prison guard Sean Nokes. I wouldn't necessarily say it's Bacon's best performance, but it's in the top 5 for sure. DeNiro also does an excellent job in this movie as Father Carillo, playing the role very convincingly, while Hoffman does a convincing job as alcoholic lawyer Danny Snyder, even if he is somewhat underutilized. Overall, the acting is mostly well done, although I will say that I found Pitt's performance as the district attorney/mastermind of the whole plan to be a little flat. Maybe it's just me, but I think the role could have used a little more anger and intensity behind it, and at times I think Pitt was playing it too cool.
- There are a few cinematic themes to this movie, but the main one seems to be revenge. After all, it's hinted at early in the film when Shakes' father tells of King Benny getting revenge on a person that beat him up eight years ago, and the book The Count of Monte Crisco is brought up numerous times. Eventually, the four boys, now men, get the opportunity to take their revenge on Nokes and the rest of the guards, and the whole last half of the film or so is dedicated to that revenge. While it may be satisfying to see those guards get their comeuppance, it's done in such a way that lacks suspense. After all, you see Nokes get what was coming to him early on, and since he's the main guard, the revenge of all the other guards seem to be just icing on the cake. Plus, while the movie established Bacon as the main villian, it did very little to distinguish the other guards as separate villains, so you end up seeing a bunch of guys that you hardly knew about get their comeuppance. Then again, since it's based on a true story, maybe that's how it went down.
- Speaking of which, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding author Lorenzo Carcaterra's (who is called Shakes in the film and in the novel) claim that Sleepers is based on a true story. For one, the state of New York deny there ever being a case anything like the one described in the movie, where a juvenile detention center guard is murdered and the accused are found not guilty. The state also claims that there are no records of juvenile inmates being physically and sexually abused by guards, which would be a hard claim to completely prove, but that's their position. Carcaterra claims that, although the names have been changed, the story is true and he lived through it. From what I can tell by crudely researching the subject, I kind of have my doubts about his claim, and the story as a whole, especially everything that happened after Nokes' murder, seems a bit too clean to have happened in real life. Then again, I could be wrong and Carcaterra's being completly honest.
Whether or not Sleepers is based on a true story, this is a good film that borders on greatness. Levinson does a great job as a director, keeping the viewer interested and the plot fast-paced despite the film being nearly 2 and a half hours long. Williams' score and Michael Ballhaus's cinematography are also top-notch, and the acting is at a high level overall. While the plot had a couple of holes, (for example, the character of Carol Martinez was hardly mentioned in the first hour, but all of a sudden she's playing a major role and being presented as a direct peer to the quartet of boys featured earlier) overall it was a compelling story. The ending seemed kind of 'too perfect', though. Overall, Sleepers is a very good film that will make you think about a variety of subjects, although I would not recommend this film for children. I'd give Sleepers a 7.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment on the blog or sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Moon
In honor of tonight's 'super moon', and because my brother has been asking me to watch this movie for months, I decided to watch the 2009 film Moon. Directed by first-time director Duncan James, Moon stars Sam Rockwell, Robin Chalk, Kaya Scodelario, and Kevin Spacey as the voice of GERTY. In the movie, Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an astronaut working for an energy company on the moon to help harvest helium-3 for use on Earth. Bell's only contact on the station is with a supercomputer called GERTY, and as such he leads an existence of near solitude. But things are looking up for Bell, as the end of his three year stint is coming soon, and Bell looks forward to reuniting with his family on Earth. However, a crash in a lunar car complicates things, and Bell is left to wonder whether he will ever return to Earth. A few notes about this film, and there probably will be SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- From the start of the film, you can tell that Jones was greatly inspired by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. For one thing, both films are set on the moon, with space stations that look somewhat similar to each other. Also, the sense of loneliness in space is a theme explored in both movies. But the most obvious similarity is that both films have a super computer running the space station, as GERTY is quite similar to 2001's HAL 9000. In interviews after the film, Jones admits that he was greatly inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey (and other films). Also, Jones's father was inspired in his musical career by the same film. Jones's father, by the way, is David Bowie.
- GERTY, voiced by Spacey, is not just a simple HAL 9000 clone. True, the computer has a giant glowing light (blue in GERTY's case, compared to the red light in HAL 9000), but GERTY also comes with a smiley face emoticon screen that can mimic emotions based on how Sam is feeling at the moment. At one point, GERTY even sheds an imaginary tear. More importantly, whereas HAL became self aware and started doing things to serve it's own purposes, GERTY remains completely loyal to Sam throughout the movie, even if its action hurts the company that designed him. A question for those that have seen this movie: Do we ever find out what GERTY stands for? I mean, I just watched the film, then tried to look it up on the internet, but I've come up empty. How peculiar.
- With only eight actors in the entire film, and every other actor either only supplying a voice or on the screen for less than two minutes, this is a vehicle entirely driven by the acting skill of Sam Rockwell. Whereas some actors may take a role like this and drive the movie off a cliff, Rockwell not only stays on the road, but he also wins the big race with his performance here (enough driving references for you?). Rockwell is given a challenging role, with little or no on-screen help, and excels at it. Rockwell's so good in this film that it makes me wonder just how in the world he didn't get at least a Best Actor nomination from the Academy in 2009. I mean, surely Rockwell did better in this film than Morgan Freeman in Invictus or George Clooney in Up In The Air? Besides, they already have their Oscars.
- Despite a budget of only $5 million, Jones and his special effects crew did a fantastic job of showing their vision of a moon populated by an energy plant. Jones and crew are able to create a setting that looks both futuristic and realistic, and use the blank surfaces of the moon and the empty feeling of the space station to add tension to the film. As for the plot, Jones and writer Nathan Parker come up with a story that is kind of hard to follow at the beginning, but ultimately starts to make sense towards the middle of the film. However, there are a couple of plot holes that I found somewhat unexplained, which I won't discuss here because I don't want to spoil the film too much.
- Here's another question for people that have seen this movie: Is it just me, or did anybody else find the ending to be a bit rushed and anticlimactic? Personally, I was kind of interested in what would happen after the climatic event, but other than a few voices gabbing, we don't really get a whole lot of answers. Also, did anyone else find that song that they kept using in every major scene a bit annoying? I know I started to get tired of it after the seventh time I heard it.
Overall, Moon's not the perfect movie, but it is a movie definitely worth seeing. Jones did a heck of a job as director, especially considering this was his first feature film, and Rockwell gives the best performance of his career as Sam Bell. Overall, I'd give Moon a 7.95 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review, or ideas for a future review, then please feel free to share those thoughts either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- From the start of the film, you can tell that Jones was greatly inspired by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. For one thing, both films are set on the moon, with space stations that look somewhat similar to each other. Also, the sense of loneliness in space is a theme explored in both movies. But the most obvious similarity is that both films have a super computer running the space station, as GERTY is quite similar to 2001's HAL 9000. In interviews after the film, Jones admits that he was greatly inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey (and other films). Also, Jones's father was inspired in his musical career by the same film. Jones's father, by the way, is David Bowie.
- GERTY, voiced by Spacey, is not just a simple HAL 9000 clone. True, the computer has a giant glowing light (blue in GERTY's case, compared to the red light in HAL 9000), but GERTY also comes with a smiley face emoticon screen that can mimic emotions based on how Sam is feeling at the moment. At one point, GERTY even sheds an imaginary tear. More importantly, whereas HAL became self aware and started doing things to serve it's own purposes, GERTY remains completely loyal to Sam throughout the movie, even if its action hurts the company that designed him. A question for those that have seen this movie: Do we ever find out what GERTY stands for? I mean, I just watched the film, then tried to look it up on the internet, but I've come up empty. How peculiar.
- With only eight actors in the entire film, and every other actor either only supplying a voice or on the screen for less than two minutes, this is a vehicle entirely driven by the acting skill of Sam Rockwell. Whereas some actors may take a role like this and drive the movie off a cliff, Rockwell not only stays on the road, but he also wins the big race with his performance here (enough driving references for you?). Rockwell is given a challenging role, with little or no on-screen help, and excels at it. Rockwell's so good in this film that it makes me wonder just how in the world he didn't get at least a Best Actor nomination from the Academy in 2009. I mean, surely Rockwell did better in this film than Morgan Freeman in Invictus or George Clooney in Up In The Air? Besides, they already have their Oscars.
- Despite a budget of only $5 million, Jones and his special effects crew did a fantastic job of showing their vision of a moon populated by an energy plant. Jones and crew are able to create a setting that looks both futuristic and realistic, and use the blank surfaces of the moon and the empty feeling of the space station to add tension to the film. As for the plot, Jones and writer Nathan Parker come up with a story that is kind of hard to follow at the beginning, but ultimately starts to make sense towards the middle of the film. However, there are a couple of plot holes that I found somewhat unexplained, which I won't discuss here because I don't want to spoil the film too much.
- Here's another question for people that have seen this movie: Is it just me, or did anybody else find the ending to be a bit rushed and anticlimactic? Personally, I was kind of interested in what would happen after the climatic event, but other than a few voices gabbing, we don't really get a whole lot of answers. Also, did anyone else find that song that they kept using in every major scene a bit annoying? I know I started to get tired of it after the seventh time I heard it.
Overall, Moon's not the perfect movie, but it is a movie definitely worth seeing. Jones did a heck of a job as director, especially considering this was his first feature film, and Rockwell gives the best performance of his career as Sam Bell. Overall, I'd give Moon a 7.95 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review, or ideas for a future review, then please feel free to share those thoughts either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Sting
This review comes from a suggestion by reader Ben W., who suggested that I watch the 1973 Oscar Winner for Best Picture, The Sting. Directed by George Roy Hill, The Sting stars Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Robert Shaw, Ray Walston, Charles Durning, and Eileen Brennan. Along with the Best Picture Oscar, The Sting also won Oscars for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Musical Score. In The Sting, which is set in 1930s Chicago, a pair of drifters named Johnny Hooker (Redford) and Luther Coleman (Robert Earl Jones) inadvertently fleece 11,000 dollars from a crime boss named Doyle Lonnegan (Shaw), and Lonnegan has Coleman killed in retaliation. Just before Luther's death, he tells Johnny to meet a former big-time con man in Henry Gondorff (Newman), and the two come up with a complicated scheme to con Doyle out of a lot of money in retaliation for Luther's death. Along the way, Johnny must also dodge hitmen out to kill him, and a cop named Snyder (Durning) who wants a cut of Johnny's action. A few notes about this film, and there will probably be SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- The first thing that came to my mind when starting this film is how great it looks. From the costume design that was not only sharp but spot-on for that era, to the gritty setting of the streets of 1930s Chicago, to the interiors of the betting house and the amusement park/brothel where Henry is holed up at, the setting and backdrop of The Sting really adds a lot to the movie. Kudos to the art department, cinematographers and costume designer, as they did a top notch job and their work was almost as impressive as the acting of Newman and Redford.
- Speaking of Newman and Redford, each man does an excellent job in their second film together (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid being the first). Newman is entirely convincing as a master of the con, as he plays Gondoff as a cool, collected character who always seems one step ahead of everyone else. However, the main focus of the film revolves around Redford's Johnny Hooker, a skilled con-man in his own right who doesn't have the experience that Gondoff has in pulling off the big con. Redford does an excellent job in portraying Hooker as a multi-dimensional character whom, even though we know he's on the wrong side of the law, we root for anyway due in large part to the compassion he shows for Luther at the beginning of the film and the vulnerability he displays throughout the film. Whereas other actors may have portrayed Johnny as a 'too cool for school' type character, Redford is both able and willing to add humanity to the role, and does an excellent job in doing so.
- While Newman and Redford were both great, perhaps the best acting performance turned in in The Sting was Robert Shaw's portrayal as crime boss Doyle Lonnegan, a cunning and clever man who wants to be seen as a legitimate buisnessman, but is not above cheating at poker or killing to get his way. As Lonnegan, Shaw is perfectly cast as the foil of the con, exuding a sense of menace with every sneer he makes onscreen. Even though he is the mark for this con, Shaw is able to make Lonnegan look like a sharp cookie who is not one to be trifled with. A great performance from a great actor.
- Even though there is a lot going on in the script, with twists and turns in every direction, The Sting is not a muddled mess but rather moves quite smoothly and is relatively easy to follow. A lot of credit for that goes to director George Roy Hill, who does an excellent job of pacing the film and keeping the suspense level high. As director, Hill doesn't use a lot of fancy camera tricks to create the action, but he does use different angles throughout the film to heighten the drama. One scene in particular that is well done is Lonnegan's first entrance into the betting shop, where we are treated to a bird's eye view from a second floor window following Lonnegan and his minions into the building, walking in without noticing that they're being watched. Also of note is the poker game on the train between Lonnegan and Gondorff, which is a great scene not only due to the talents of Shaw and Newman, but the pacing and camera shots which the director used.
- The score of The Sting contains a lot of ragtime music from Scott Joplin, and due to the success of the movie, Joplin's 'The Entertainer' briefly became a hit again. Even though the movie is set in the 1930s and the music was from the 1900s and 1910s, the score actually fits in perfectly with the whole motif of the film, giving the film a breezy feel to it in contrast with the grittiness of the setting. The music also fit in perfectly with the 'cards' that introduced each scene in the movie, which also was a nice touch by Hill.
Overall, there's not really anything negative I can say about The Sting. Sure, a couple of plot points seemed to be a little too convinent, but this is a great film by a great director with great actors. I suggest that if you haven't seen it, then make an effort to see The Sting. Overall, I'd give it a 9.15 out of 10. Well, it's getting late, so I'm going to bed. Hopefully, you've enjoyed this mini blast from the past. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- The first thing that came to my mind when starting this film is how great it looks. From the costume design that was not only sharp but spot-on for that era, to the gritty setting of the streets of 1930s Chicago, to the interiors of the betting house and the amusement park/brothel where Henry is holed up at, the setting and backdrop of The Sting really adds a lot to the movie. Kudos to the art department, cinematographers and costume designer, as they did a top notch job and their work was almost as impressive as the acting of Newman and Redford.
- Speaking of Newman and Redford, each man does an excellent job in their second film together (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid being the first). Newman is entirely convincing as a master of the con, as he plays Gondoff as a cool, collected character who always seems one step ahead of everyone else. However, the main focus of the film revolves around Redford's Johnny Hooker, a skilled con-man in his own right who doesn't have the experience that Gondoff has in pulling off the big con. Redford does an excellent job in portraying Hooker as a multi-dimensional character whom, even though we know he's on the wrong side of the law, we root for anyway due in large part to the compassion he shows for Luther at the beginning of the film and the vulnerability he displays throughout the film. Whereas other actors may have portrayed Johnny as a 'too cool for school' type character, Redford is both able and willing to add humanity to the role, and does an excellent job in doing so.
- While Newman and Redford were both great, perhaps the best acting performance turned in in The Sting was Robert Shaw's portrayal as crime boss Doyle Lonnegan, a cunning and clever man who wants to be seen as a legitimate buisnessman, but is not above cheating at poker or killing to get his way. As Lonnegan, Shaw is perfectly cast as the foil of the con, exuding a sense of menace with every sneer he makes onscreen. Even though he is the mark for this con, Shaw is able to make Lonnegan look like a sharp cookie who is not one to be trifled with. A great performance from a great actor.
- Even though there is a lot going on in the script, with twists and turns in every direction, The Sting is not a muddled mess but rather moves quite smoothly and is relatively easy to follow. A lot of credit for that goes to director George Roy Hill, who does an excellent job of pacing the film and keeping the suspense level high. As director, Hill doesn't use a lot of fancy camera tricks to create the action, but he does use different angles throughout the film to heighten the drama. One scene in particular that is well done is Lonnegan's first entrance into the betting shop, where we are treated to a bird's eye view from a second floor window following Lonnegan and his minions into the building, walking in without noticing that they're being watched. Also of note is the poker game on the train between Lonnegan and Gondorff, which is a great scene not only due to the talents of Shaw and Newman, but the pacing and camera shots which the director used.
- The score of The Sting contains a lot of ragtime music from Scott Joplin, and due to the success of the movie, Joplin's 'The Entertainer' briefly became a hit again. Even though the movie is set in the 1930s and the music was from the 1900s and 1910s, the score actually fits in perfectly with the whole motif of the film, giving the film a breezy feel to it in contrast with the grittiness of the setting. The music also fit in perfectly with the 'cards' that introduced each scene in the movie, which also was a nice touch by Hill.
Overall, there's not really anything negative I can say about The Sting. Sure, a couple of plot points seemed to be a little too convinent, but this is a great film by a great director with great actors. I suggest that if you haven't seen it, then make an effort to see The Sting. Overall, I'd give it a 9.15 out of 10. Well, it's getting late, so I'm going to bed. Hopefully, you've enjoyed this mini blast from the past. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Canon Movie Review: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Since the Oscars are going to be awarded later on today, I figured I'd watch an Oscar Best Picture winner. So I decided to watch the 1975 classic One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, mainly because it was on Turner Classic Movies and I had never seen it before. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was one of only three movies to win the Oscar for best picture, best director (Milos Forman), best actor (Jack Nicholson), best actress (Louise Fletcher) and best adapted screenplay. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is based on a book by Ken Kesey, and stars Nicholson, Fletcher, William Redfield, Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Brad Dourif, and Will Sampson as Chief. In this movie, a criminal named R.P. McMurphy (Nicholson) fakes his way into getting transferred from a prison work-farm into an insane asylum, figuring that he would have an easier time in the asylum. Instead he runs into a cold and seemingly heartless woman in Nurse Ratched (Fletcher), and McMurphy's new goal seems to be to free his fellows in the ward like Chief, Billy Bibbit (Dourif), Martini (DeVito), and the rest from the control of Ratched. A few notes about this movie, and there will probably be SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- As R.P. McMurphy, Jack Nicholson put in perhaps the finest performance of his distinguished career. As McMurphy, Nicholson is not only able to portray the rebellious, optomistic dimension of McMurphy, but is also able to subtly portray how the asylum and the people in it have changed McMurphy as the film progresses. There's a great scene towards the end of the film, after McMurphy is just about to break out of the place, where he sits back and seemingly comes to the realization that this place has changed him and he will never be the same. In this scene, Nicholson's face expresses amusement, fear, and even a bit of sadness over leaving this place and his fellow inmates behind, all without saying a word. Just an excellent performance all around from Nicholson here from beginning to end, and I can't see anybody else being able to portray R.P. McMurphy as well as Nicholson did here.
- There were a few other actors considered for the role of McMurphy besides Nicholson. Kirk Douglas had actually portrayed McMurphy in a play based on the book years ago and really wanted to take the story to the big screen, but by the time the movie was to be made, Douglas was considered to be too old for the part. Interestingly enough, his son Michael was one of the executive producers, but at the time he was filming the TV show Streets of San Francisco, and to the best of my knowledge never really considered taking the part for himself. Other actors considered were James Caan, Marlon Brando (note: if Kirk Douglas was considered too old for the part, wouldn't Brando also be too old for the part as well), Gene Hackman, and Burt Reynolds. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time seeing Reynolds and Caan as the lead in this movie. Nothing against those actors, but the role seems a bit different than the roles that those men usually excel at. Also, there were many actresses considered for the role of Nurse Ratched, including Angela Lansbury, Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Page, and Ellen Burstyn. Lily Tomlin was originally cast in the role, but turned it down to star in the Robert Altman film, Nashville. In an odd twist, Tomlin took the role in Nashville that was orginally meant for Louise Fletcher, who then was later cast as Nurse Ratched. At the end of the day, both actresses were nominated for Academy Awards (Tomlin for best supporting actress) with Fletcher eventually winning best actress.
- Speaking of Nurse Ratched, Fletcher definitely deserved her Oscar with her performance of the cold-hearted nurse. Ratched is almost the polar-opposite of McMurphy, as while McMurphy is an outgoing, rambunctious guy who seems to crave change, Ratched is a distant, nearly emotionless figure who is very scrict about routine. When McMurphy threatens the control of the ward that Ratched has cultivated over time, Ratched seems to become determined to break McMurphy, even calling for him to stay in the ward when other asylum officials were willing to send McMurphy on his way. By breaking McMurphy, Ratched can increase her control over the rest of the inmates in the ward, and that control is seemingly the only thing that she really cares about. Basically, the story paints Nurse Ratched as the evil, cold-hearted face of the establishment who controls the people for 'their own good'. In a lot of ways, Fletcher is portraying a symbol more than she is a character, but to her credit she does a great job of making Nurse Ratched human, who does what she does not just to be evil, but because ultimately she thinks it's right.
- Although One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won a lot of Oscars and considered one of the great films of all time, one person in particular didn't care for it too much. That person was the author of the book, Ken Kesey. Kesey disagreed with the direction that director Milos Forman took the film in. For one, while Chief is a major focal point of the book and serves as the narrator of the story, in the movie the Chief is mainly a background character up until the end of the film. Also, Kesey didn't feel that Forman included much of the subtext of the novel, including the political undertones of the asylum as communist Russia. As a result, Kesey refused to have anything to do with the film, and has never even bothered to watch the movie.
- As far as Forman's directing goes, I thought that for the most part he did an excellent job. The story was paced just right, as it neither moved too fast nor were there a lot of wasted scenes in the film. Forman also plays to the strengths of his actors and lets Nicholson and company tell the story, instead of relying on camera tricks and other effects to increase drama. Forman also includes a lot of reaction shots, primarily from Nicholson and Fletcher, that serve to further develop each character. If there was one misfire in this film, it was the inclusion of the fishing boat scene. Yes, it did serve to give the inmates a slight taste of freedom and increase their regard for McMurphy, but it went on too long and seemed forced in just to lighten the mood after being in the asylum for so long. As a result, it's a jarring departure from the main storyline of the film and there's really too much going on at once.
- To increase the realism of the film, the producers decided to make the setting an actual insane asylum, the Oregon State Hospital in Salem, Oregon. Also, some of the actual asylum detainees were extras in the film, and the part of asylum head Dr. Spivey was played by the head of the state hospital, Dean Brooks. The actors were also forced to stay in the asylum during the entire filming process. As a result, some of the actors began to exhibit the early stages of paranoia and other mental illnesses. But I will say, it did add a lot of realism to the film.
Overall, this is a great film, and there's very little bad to be said about it. The acting from Nicholson on down was tremendous and spot-on, the story was compelling, and the direction of Forman was nearly perfect. I'd give this film a 9.1 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- As R.P. McMurphy, Jack Nicholson put in perhaps the finest performance of his distinguished career. As McMurphy, Nicholson is not only able to portray the rebellious, optomistic dimension of McMurphy, but is also able to subtly portray how the asylum and the people in it have changed McMurphy as the film progresses. There's a great scene towards the end of the film, after McMurphy is just about to break out of the place, where he sits back and seemingly comes to the realization that this place has changed him and he will never be the same. In this scene, Nicholson's face expresses amusement, fear, and even a bit of sadness over leaving this place and his fellow inmates behind, all without saying a word. Just an excellent performance all around from Nicholson here from beginning to end, and I can't see anybody else being able to portray R.P. McMurphy as well as Nicholson did here.
- There were a few other actors considered for the role of McMurphy besides Nicholson. Kirk Douglas had actually portrayed McMurphy in a play based on the book years ago and really wanted to take the story to the big screen, but by the time the movie was to be made, Douglas was considered to be too old for the part. Interestingly enough, his son Michael was one of the executive producers, but at the time he was filming the TV show Streets of San Francisco, and to the best of my knowledge never really considered taking the part for himself. Other actors considered were James Caan, Marlon Brando (note: if Kirk Douglas was considered too old for the part, wouldn't Brando also be too old for the part as well), Gene Hackman, and Burt Reynolds. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time seeing Reynolds and Caan as the lead in this movie. Nothing against those actors, but the role seems a bit different than the roles that those men usually excel at. Also, there were many actresses considered for the role of Nurse Ratched, including Angela Lansbury, Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Page, and Ellen Burstyn. Lily Tomlin was originally cast in the role, but turned it down to star in the Robert Altman film, Nashville. In an odd twist, Tomlin took the role in Nashville that was orginally meant for Louise Fletcher, who then was later cast as Nurse Ratched. At the end of the day, both actresses were nominated for Academy Awards (Tomlin for best supporting actress) with Fletcher eventually winning best actress.
- Speaking of Nurse Ratched, Fletcher definitely deserved her Oscar with her performance of the cold-hearted nurse. Ratched is almost the polar-opposite of McMurphy, as while McMurphy is an outgoing, rambunctious guy who seems to crave change, Ratched is a distant, nearly emotionless figure who is very scrict about routine. When McMurphy threatens the control of the ward that Ratched has cultivated over time, Ratched seems to become determined to break McMurphy, even calling for him to stay in the ward when other asylum officials were willing to send McMurphy on his way. By breaking McMurphy, Ratched can increase her control over the rest of the inmates in the ward, and that control is seemingly the only thing that she really cares about. Basically, the story paints Nurse Ratched as the evil, cold-hearted face of the establishment who controls the people for 'their own good'. In a lot of ways, Fletcher is portraying a symbol more than she is a character, but to her credit she does a great job of making Nurse Ratched human, who does what she does not just to be evil, but because ultimately she thinks it's right.
- Although One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won a lot of Oscars and considered one of the great films of all time, one person in particular didn't care for it too much. That person was the author of the book, Ken Kesey. Kesey disagreed with the direction that director Milos Forman took the film in. For one, while Chief is a major focal point of the book and serves as the narrator of the story, in the movie the Chief is mainly a background character up until the end of the film. Also, Kesey didn't feel that Forman included much of the subtext of the novel, including the political undertones of the asylum as communist Russia. As a result, Kesey refused to have anything to do with the film, and has never even bothered to watch the movie.
- As far as Forman's directing goes, I thought that for the most part he did an excellent job. The story was paced just right, as it neither moved too fast nor were there a lot of wasted scenes in the film. Forman also plays to the strengths of his actors and lets Nicholson and company tell the story, instead of relying on camera tricks and other effects to increase drama. Forman also includes a lot of reaction shots, primarily from Nicholson and Fletcher, that serve to further develop each character. If there was one misfire in this film, it was the inclusion of the fishing boat scene. Yes, it did serve to give the inmates a slight taste of freedom and increase their regard for McMurphy, but it went on too long and seemed forced in just to lighten the mood after being in the asylum for so long. As a result, it's a jarring departure from the main storyline of the film and there's really too much going on at once.
- To increase the realism of the film, the producers decided to make the setting an actual insane asylum, the Oregon State Hospital in Salem, Oregon. Also, some of the actual asylum detainees were extras in the film, and the part of asylum head Dr. Spivey was played by the head of the state hospital, Dean Brooks. The actors were also forced to stay in the asylum during the entire filming process. As a result, some of the actors began to exhibit the early stages of paranoia and other mental illnesses. But I will say, it did add a lot of realism to the film.
Overall, this is a great film, and there's very little bad to be said about it. The acting from Nicholson on down was tremendous and spot-on, the story was compelling, and the direction of Forman was nearly perfect. I'd give this film a 9.1 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Brothers Grimm
The Brothers Grimm is a 2005 film that was directed by Terry Gilliam and stars Matt Damon and Heath Ledger as the titular brothers. The Brothers Grimm also stars Lena Heady, Peter Stormare, Jonathan Pryce, and Monica Bellucci. In this film, brothers Will (Damon) and Jake (Ledger) are paranormal investigators who pull off elaborate hoaxes of legends to fool villagers in 18th century Germany. However, the French capture the Grimm brothers, and force them to investigate the disappearance of many young girls in an enchanted forest of a small French village. They receive some assistance from a villager named Angelika (Headey), who knows the forest better than anyone and also has a personal stake in this, as two of her sisters were amongst the girls abducted. As it turns out, the forest is enchanted, and the girls are being used in a spell to restore the youth of a 500 year-old queen (Bellucci) who wants to regain her beauty and rule the land again. So, it's up to the Grimm brothers to save the day. A few notes about this film, and there are SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- This film wastes very little time before diving right in to the story. There's a quick scene at the beginning where a young Jake buys magic beans to cure their sick sister, and Will gets angry and fights him because of it. All of a sudden, the film moves to the future and the Grimms are trying to catch a witch. Other than that one scene that shows Jacob as a believer in folklore and Will as a realist, there isn't exactly a lot of depth to the Grimm brothers' characters. Will's just a generic dashing womanizer type character, while Jacob is your typical bookworm type who's always in Will's shadow. Also, while I like both Damon and Ledger, there seems to be something a little off about their performance. In my view, I think the movie may have been better had they switched roles, as they were originally slated to do.
- The Brothers Grimm is about a pair of German brothers and set primarily in France. So naturally it would make sense that Stormare (who played Cavaldi, the person assigned to keep the Grimms in check) to speak in an Italian accent while Ledger, Damon, and Heady all adapted British accents. Oh wait, that doesn't make sense at all. My fault.
- It may have been just me, but I thought that Will was kind of a jerk throughout the whole movie. He's constantly berating his brother for having his head in the clouds, refuses to believe that anything in the forest could be enchanted, tries to woo Angelika while a) knowing that Jake has feelings for her and b) doing so just seconds after kicking Jake out of the room, and generally acts as if he's somehow above everyone else. Even in the scene where he expresses concern about watching over Jake, it comes off as if Will thinks that Jake is too stupid to live without him. I don't know, I just really didn't dig Will as a character at all.
- Even though The Brothers Grimm features an original story, the story does heavily borrow some elements made famous by the tales of the actual Grimm Brothers. There's references to Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel & Gretal, Snow White, and other tales, and I found it somewhat interesting how the writers were able to blend all these pieces into the narrative. Or at least attempted to, as the actual plot itself was decent at best with many holes and a lot of unexplained elements to the tale.
- Even though I've been mostly negative about this movie thus far, I will say that The Brothers Grimm looked great. The enchanted forest setting in particular was a highlight of the film, along with its trees with extending vines and the queen's large castle in the middle. Gilliam is a master of creating larger than life worlds in some of his movies, and this is no exception. Also of note is the costuming and the cinematography, which was done quite well despite the fact there were two different cinematographers hired for the role.
- A story almost more interesting than the movie itself was the behind-the-scenes machinations of The Brothers Grimm. The film was delayed due to a lack of financial backing, then MGM decided not to distribute the film, so the Weinsten brothers over at Dimension films stepped in as distributors. They also drove Gilliam crazy with their constant suggestions, and the two sides developed a rift that not only delayed the release of the shooting, but really did a number on the film itself. In Gilliam's own words: [I]t's not the film they wanted and it's not quite the film I wanted. It's the film that is a result of [...] two groups of people, who aren’t working well together." Really sums it up right there, doesn't it.
At the end of the day, The Brothers Grimm is the result of having too many cooks in the kitchen, and as such is a directionless film that isn't funny enough to be a comedy, scary enough to be a suspense film, and epic enough to be a true fantasy film. It's also too violent to be a kids movie, yet too hokey to be an epic drama. There are some positives to The Brothers Grimm, but overall this movie is less than the sum of its parts. One only wonders what Gilliam would have done had he not felt so compromised, but it is what it is. Overall, I'd give this film a 4.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- This film wastes very little time before diving right in to the story. There's a quick scene at the beginning where a young Jake buys magic beans to cure their sick sister, and Will gets angry and fights him because of it. All of a sudden, the film moves to the future and the Grimms are trying to catch a witch. Other than that one scene that shows Jacob as a believer in folklore and Will as a realist, there isn't exactly a lot of depth to the Grimm brothers' characters. Will's just a generic dashing womanizer type character, while Jacob is your typical bookworm type who's always in Will's shadow. Also, while I like both Damon and Ledger, there seems to be something a little off about their performance. In my view, I think the movie may have been better had they switched roles, as they were originally slated to do.
- The Brothers Grimm is about a pair of German brothers and set primarily in France. So naturally it would make sense that Stormare (who played Cavaldi, the person assigned to keep the Grimms in check) to speak in an Italian accent while Ledger, Damon, and Heady all adapted British accents. Oh wait, that doesn't make sense at all. My fault.
- It may have been just me, but I thought that Will was kind of a jerk throughout the whole movie. He's constantly berating his brother for having his head in the clouds, refuses to believe that anything in the forest could be enchanted, tries to woo Angelika while a) knowing that Jake has feelings for her and b) doing so just seconds after kicking Jake out of the room, and generally acts as if he's somehow above everyone else. Even in the scene where he expresses concern about watching over Jake, it comes off as if Will thinks that Jake is too stupid to live without him. I don't know, I just really didn't dig Will as a character at all.
- Even though The Brothers Grimm features an original story, the story does heavily borrow some elements made famous by the tales of the actual Grimm Brothers. There's references to Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel & Gretal, Snow White, and other tales, and I found it somewhat interesting how the writers were able to blend all these pieces into the narrative. Or at least attempted to, as the actual plot itself was decent at best with many holes and a lot of unexplained elements to the tale.
- Even though I've been mostly negative about this movie thus far, I will say that The Brothers Grimm looked great. The enchanted forest setting in particular was a highlight of the film, along with its trees with extending vines and the queen's large castle in the middle. Gilliam is a master of creating larger than life worlds in some of his movies, and this is no exception. Also of note is the costuming and the cinematography, which was done quite well despite the fact there were two different cinematographers hired for the role.
- A story almost more interesting than the movie itself was the behind-the-scenes machinations of The Brothers Grimm. The film was delayed due to a lack of financial backing, then MGM decided not to distribute the film, so the Weinsten brothers over at Dimension films stepped in as distributors. They also drove Gilliam crazy with their constant suggestions, and the two sides developed a rift that not only delayed the release of the shooting, but really did a number on the film itself. In Gilliam's own words: [I]t's not the film they wanted and it's not quite the film I wanted. It's the film that is a result of [...] two groups of people, who aren’t working well together." Really sums it up right there, doesn't it.
At the end of the day, The Brothers Grimm is the result of having too many cooks in the kitchen, and as such is a directionless film that isn't funny enough to be a comedy, scary enough to be a suspense film, and epic enough to be a true fantasy film. It's also too violent to be a kids movie, yet too hokey to be an epic drama. There are some positives to The Brothers Grimm, but overall this movie is less than the sum of its parts. One only wonders what Gilliam would have done had he not felt so compromised, but it is what it is. Overall, I'd give this film a 4.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Ocean's Twelve
This movie review is of the sequel to the 2001 flick Ocean's Eleven (which I thought was a pretty good movie, although it has been a while since I've seen it), the 2004 film appropriately titled Ocean's Twelve. The movie was directed by Steven Soderbough and has an all-star cast including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, Andy Garcia, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Carl Reiner. In Ocean's Twelve, Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his gang of eleven are tracked down by Terry Benedict (Garcia), who is asking for the money that Ocean stole from his casino at the end of the first movie, with interest. To further complicate matters, the gang is also being targeted by a master thief known only as The Night Fox, and also by a Europol detective named Isabel Lahiri (Zeta-Jones), who had a previous relationship with Ocean's right hand man Rusty Ryan (Pitt). A few notes about this movie, and there are probably SPOILERS ahead, so read with caution.
- In Ocean's Eleven, it was clear that Clooney was the main star of the film. Well in Ocean's Twelve, the main star seems to be Brad Pitt, as his character is the focal point around which everything revolves. Pitt also got the most screen time, while Clooney almost seemed to be a background character for much of the film. Also, Bernie Mac and Don Cheadle has hardly any time at all on screen, especially Mac, whose character spent most of the movie in an Amsterdam jail cell. At least Matt Damon gets more screen time here, and his performance as the hoplessly naive Linus Caldwell is the highlight of the movie in my opinion.
- Even though Terry Benedict's demand for his money back is the impetus for getting the group back together, Benedict isn't really a big part of the film after the first few minutes or so, which seems to me to be a waste of Andy Garcia's talents but that's the way they went with the film. Instead, the group now has two adversaries. One is the thief known as The Night Fox, Baron Francois Toluar (Vincent Cassel). While Cassel does a fine job in his role, the reasons behind the Night Fox's involvement in the story seem somewhat convoluted at best. The other adversary is Rusty's old flame Isabel, and her relationship with Rusty becomes the focalpoint of the film at times. While Pitt and Zeta-Jones are capable actors, the two just don't seem to have enough chemistry in this film to carry it, and the script does them no favors, as Isabel is written as too one-dimensional of a character.
- Ocean's Twelve was primarily set in European locales, and Soderbough does an excellent job of shooting the Eurpoean locales such as Rome and Amsterdam. However, his directing of this movie relied on too much gimmicks and too many scenes where the camera was shaking, which I guess is supposed to have a deeper meaning but to me it was just too annoying. I will say that the score provided by David Holmes was excellent and really added a lot to the film as a whole.
- While Ocean's Eleven had a great story that wasn't too confusing and tied together all the loose ends, Ocean's Twelve's scrpit left something to be desired. In some scenes, it seems like there was no script, and Pitt and Clooney were just improving their scenes (which actually wasn't too bad). Overall, the plot was too muddled and relied heavily on moments that seemed way too convenient and unfathomable. the pace is too uneven (as every big event seems to happen in the last 15 minutes, and the movie takes forever to get going after Benedict's scenes) and all the confusing camera tricks make the story harder to follow, adding to the confusion of the movie.
- Ocean's Twelve has a couple of interesting cameos in this film. Bruce Willis plays himself in the film, and inadvertantly plays a role in one of the capers the gang tries. While Willis's cameo is good, Topher Grace's cameo as himself in Rusty's hotel is quite humorous. Also, Julia Roberts plays herself, or plays a character that has to play herself. Trust me, it would make sense if you see the movie.
Overall, Ocean's Twelve is a decent enough film that is plagued by a confusing script, but the acting is good enough in some places to carry this film to a respectable showing. If you're in the mood for a great film, well this probably isn't it. But if you want to see a breezy film with big name actors that passes the time by quickly, then you could do a lot worse then Ocean's Twelve, although Ocean's Eleven would probably be better. Overall, I'd give it a 5.4 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- In Ocean's Eleven, it was clear that Clooney was the main star of the film. Well in Ocean's Twelve, the main star seems to be Brad Pitt, as his character is the focal point around which everything revolves. Pitt also got the most screen time, while Clooney almost seemed to be a background character for much of the film. Also, Bernie Mac and Don Cheadle has hardly any time at all on screen, especially Mac, whose character spent most of the movie in an Amsterdam jail cell. At least Matt Damon gets more screen time here, and his performance as the hoplessly naive Linus Caldwell is the highlight of the movie in my opinion.
- Even though Terry Benedict's demand for his money back is the impetus for getting the group back together, Benedict isn't really a big part of the film after the first few minutes or so, which seems to me to be a waste of Andy Garcia's talents but that's the way they went with the film. Instead, the group now has two adversaries. One is the thief known as The Night Fox, Baron Francois Toluar (Vincent Cassel). While Cassel does a fine job in his role, the reasons behind the Night Fox's involvement in the story seem somewhat convoluted at best. The other adversary is Rusty's old flame Isabel, and her relationship with Rusty becomes the focalpoint of the film at times. While Pitt and Zeta-Jones are capable actors, the two just don't seem to have enough chemistry in this film to carry it, and the script does them no favors, as Isabel is written as too one-dimensional of a character.
- Ocean's Twelve was primarily set in European locales, and Soderbough does an excellent job of shooting the Eurpoean locales such as Rome and Amsterdam. However, his directing of this movie relied on too much gimmicks and too many scenes where the camera was shaking, which I guess is supposed to have a deeper meaning but to me it was just too annoying. I will say that the score provided by David Holmes was excellent and really added a lot to the film as a whole.
- While Ocean's Eleven had a great story that wasn't too confusing and tied together all the loose ends, Ocean's Twelve's scrpit left something to be desired. In some scenes, it seems like there was no script, and Pitt and Clooney were just improving their scenes (which actually wasn't too bad). Overall, the plot was too muddled and relied heavily on moments that seemed way too convenient and unfathomable. the pace is too uneven (as every big event seems to happen in the last 15 minutes, and the movie takes forever to get going after Benedict's scenes) and all the confusing camera tricks make the story harder to follow, adding to the confusion of the movie.
- Ocean's Twelve has a couple of interesting cameos in this film. Bruce Willis plays himself in the film, and inadvertantly plays a role in one of the capers the gang tries. While Willis's cameo is good, Topher Grace's cameo as himself in Rusty's hotel is quite humorous. Also, Julia Roberts plays herself, or plays a character that has to play herself. Trust me, it would make sense if you see the movie.
Overall, Ocean's Twelve is a decent enough film that is plagued by a confusing script, but the acting is good enough in some places to carry this film to a respectable showing. If you're in the mood for a great film, well this probably isn't it. But if you want to see a breezy film with big name actors that passes the time by quickly, then you could do a lot worse then Ocean's Twelve, although Ocean's Eleven would probably be better. Overall, I'd give it a 5.4 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Sleepless in Seattle
Today I watched a movie that I had seen some 18 years ago, but did not remember one single detail about it. Yes, as you can guess by the title, that movie was the 1993 film Sleepless in Seattle, although as it turns out that title isn't completely accurate because there were a couple of scenes in which people were sleeping. Directed by Nora Ephron, Sleepless in Seattle is a romantic comedy that stars Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Bill Pullman, David Hyde-Pierce, Rosie O'Donnell, and has Jack Bauer working on the crew as the best boy grip. In Sleepless in Seattle, a widower named Samuel Baldwin (Hanks) has moved he and his son to Seattle after the death of his wife. On one Christmas Eve, his son Jonah (Ross Malinger) calls into a talk radio show to wish for his dad to find a new wife. Well, eventually Sam gets on the air and tells his whole story, which affects millions of women nationwide including a writer from Baltimore named Annie (Meg Ryan). Despite being engaged to Walter (Bill Pullman), Annie starts to pursue Samuel in belief that somehow they are destined to be with each other. Is she right? Well, I'm not telling you, go watch the movie :). Anyway, here are a few thoughts about this film, and there are going to be SPOILERS, so proceed with caution.
- Man are the kids in this film annoying or what. Jonah doesn't seem to be that bad at first, as he's concerned enough about his dad to call into a national radio show. That may be a little misguided, but at least his heart's in the right place. But as the movie goes along and Jonah doesn't quite get his way, he becomes an annoying jerk, which is pretty realistic considering he's eight, but it doesn't make it any less annoying. To make matters worse is Jonah's little friend Jessica, who seems to communicate by using only initials and is basically a rude little girl who acts as if she's too cool for school, so to speak.
- As for Annie, is it just me or is she a crazy stalker? For one, she has a perfectly fine relationship with her fiance Walter, but instead of just being happy, she decides to go on a wild goose chase after some guy she has heard on the radio one time. To do this, she finds the man on a search database (which was a bit harder to do back in 1993 than it is now, as all you have to do now is Google whoever you want to find), then once she finds him, she hires a private investigator to get more information and pictures of him. Heck, she even finds out the kid's name. After all of that, she decides to just jet out to Seattle (on company dime, no less) to chase down some ideal of the perfect romance, which is all well and good, but to me it seems just a bit over the top. Then she spends most of her trip spying on the poor guy and his son playing at the beach, peering around the corner of a building. I guess it's supposed to be charming, but imagine for a moment if the roles were reversed and it was the man doing all this to meet a woman. That would be quite creepy, wouldn't it? Then again, maybe I'm just not that romantic of a person, I don't know.
- You have to feel for Samuel in this film, as Hanks does an excellent job of conveying his character's grief over the loss of his wife and really makes you feel for him. But another person I felt sorry for was Annie's fiance Walter. For one, Walter seems to be allergic to everything under the sun, from strawberries to weeds to peanut butter and all sorts of other stuff. Because of this, Walter is portrayed as a rather boring guy in this movie, which for some reason is a bad thing in this movie, as the main lesson of the film seems to be that spontaneous moves that make no sense is the best way to go through life, but I digress. Anyway, Walter thinks he's found the woman of his dreams, but ever so surely, Annie starts to drift further and further apart from Walter, even though he's the exact same person she was so crazy about just a month ago. Worst of all, he can't eat strawberries, the poor guy.
- Have you seen the 1957 Cary Grant movie An Affair to Remember? Well, if you haven't, then make sure not to watch this film as they basically give away the entire plot during the film. Just a warning. Actually, I wasn't too upset about that, as the writers used the story of that film as a major plot point that sort of tied everything together, but I digress.
Overall, even though the storyline makes no sense and some of the characters are not very likeable, I can't really say that I dislike this movie too much. The acting was top-notch all around, even from Rosie O'Donnell who played Annie's friend/boss. In lesser hands, this movie may have came off a lot worse than it did, but both Hanks and Ryan are able to play their characters with enough conviction to pull it off. Also, even though you kind of figure out the ending 10 minutes in, the plot is full of twists and turns that will keep you guessing as to just how everything starts to tie into place, so to speak. While Sleepless in Seattle may not be my cup of tea, and in my mind is more of a fantasy movie than Harry Potter, it was at least well executed for the most part. Overall, I'd give Sleepless in Seattle a 6.2 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about Sleepless in Seattle, or you have an idea for a future review, then I would like to hear about them, so either leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- Man are the kids in this film annoying or what. Jonah doesn't seem to be that bad at first, as he's concerned enough about his dad to call into a national radio show. That may be a little misguided, but at least his heart's in the right place. But as the movie goes along and Jonah doesn't quite get his way, he becomes an annoying jerk, which is pretty realistic considering he's eight, but it doesn't make it any less annoying. To make matters worse is Jonah's little friend Jessica, who seems to communicate by using only initials and is basically a rude little girl who acts as if she's too cool for school, so to speak.
- As for Annie, is it just me or is she a crazy stalker? For one, she has a perfectly fine relationship with her fiance Walter, but instead of just being happy, she decides to go on a wild goose chase after some guy she has heard on the radio one time. To do this, she finds the man on a search database (which was a bit harder to do back in 1993 than it is now, as all you have to do now is Google whoever you want to find), then once she finds him, she hires a private investigator to get more information and pictures of him. Heck, she even finds out the kid's name. After all of that, she decides to just jet out to Seattle (on company dime, no less) to chase down some ideal of the perfect romance, which is all well and good, but to me it seems just a bit over the top. Then she spends most of her trip spying on the poor guy and his son playing at the beach, peering around the corner of a building. I guess it's supposed to be charming, but imagine for a moment if the roles were reversed and it was the man doing all this to meet a woman. That would be quite creepy, wouldn't it? Then again, maybe I'm just not that romantic of a person, I don't know.
- You have to feel for Samuel in this film, as Hanks does an excellent job of conveying his character's grief over the loss of his wife and really makes you feel for him. But another person I felt sorry for was Annie's fiance Walter. For one, Walter seems to be allergic to everything under the sun, from strawberries to weeds to peanut butter and all sorts of other stuff. Because of this, Walter is portrayed as a rather boring guy in this movie, which for some reason is a bad thing in this movie, as the main lesson of the film seems to be that spontaneous moves that make no sense is the best way to go through life, but I digress. Anyway, Walter thinks he's found the woman of his dreams, but ever so surely, Annie starts to drift further and further apart from Walter, even though he's the exact same person she was so crazy about just a month ago. Worst of all, he can't eat strawberries, the poor guy.
- Have you seen the 1957 Cary Grant movie An Affair to Remember? Well, if you haven't, then make sure not to watch this film as they basically give away the entire plot during the film. Just a warning. Actually, I wasn't too upset about that, as the writers used the story of that film as a major plot point that sort of tied everything together, but I digress.
Overall, even though the storyline makes no sense and some of the characters are not very likeable, I can't really say that I dislike this movie too much. The acting was top-notch all around, even from Rosie O'Donnell who played Annie's friend/boss. In lesser hands, this movie may have came off a lot worse than it did, but both Hanks and Ryan are able to play their characters with enough conviction to pull it off. Also, even though you kind of figure out the ending 10 minutes in, the plot is full of twists and turns that will keep you guessing as to just how everything starts to tie into place, so to speak. While Sleepless in Seattle may not be my cup of tea, and in my mind is more of a fantasy movie than Harry Potter, it was at least well executed for the most part. Overall, I'd give Sleepless in Seattle a 6.2 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about Sleepless in Seattle, or you have an idea for a future review, then I would like to hear about them, so either leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Canon Movie Review: White Noise
The final movie of the Halloween weekend Horror Movie mini-marathon (even though Halloween is technically over, but nevertheless) is White Noise. This movie was suggested to be by my sister Maggie, and since I couldn't think of any reason not to watch it, I decided to check it out for myself. White Noise is a 2005 film directed by Geoffrey Sax and stars Michael Keaton (Batman), Chandra West, Deborah Kara Unger, and Ian McNeice. In White Noise, architect Jonathan Rivers (Keaton) is distraught after his wife Anna (West) passes away in a tragic accident. One day, a man named Raymond Price (McNeice) tells Rivers that he can hear his late wife Anna through electric voice phenomena or EVP, where supposedly the voices of the dead can be heard through the white noise of static on televisions and radios. Rivers is skeptical at first, but after a mysterious phone call from his late wife's cell phone, he meets up with Price and Rivers gets deeper and deeper into EVP, which produces some rather surprising results. A few notes about this movie, and there will be SPOILERS, so proceed with caution.
- Before I start slamming the movie and its incredibly thin plot full of holes, I'd like to take time to point out some of the things this movie did right. The cinematography was nicely done, and whoever decided on the lighting should be commended, as the settings of the film did more to add suspense than anything else. As Rivers gets deeper and deeper into his EVP studies, the movie becomes darker and darker, and it adds a layer of suspense to the film. The actors, particularly Keaton, weren't too bad. To be honest, I kind of expected Keaton to mail in his performance, but to his credit, he did try his best and he and the other actors almost made this a decent film.
- Now that I've complimented the film, let me start in on some of the problems this film has. One is that the pacing for White Noise is about as slow as Cecil Fielder. It seems as if half the movie is showing Micheal Keaton either sitting on his bed, sitting in front of his computer and television screens, standing in his house, or just staring out into space. Both the director Sax, and the script writer Niall Johnson have done most of their work in television, and to be honest, the story seemed to be a 60 minute TV episode stretched to 90 minutes, with nothing but filler put in for the remaining half hour.
- This movie does not seem to know what direction it wants to go in. The first half of the movie is devoted entirely to Rivers distraught over missing his wife and trying EVP just to communicate with his late wife and get some closure. Then in the second half, Rivers becomes some kind of crusader or something, trying to save people from dying because all of a sudden he can see living people in danger before they die through EVP. This sudden leap in logic is frustrating at the very least, as the movie expects the audience to accept that a relative neophyte at EVP like Rivers not only can see nearly clear images of the dead, but he also gets visions of future events all of a sudden. Um, ok then.
- The person that got a raw deal in this movie was Johnathan's son Mikey. First, his stepmother is missing for three weeks and eventually dies. Then, instead of his father becoming closer to his son, he gets so obsessed with EVP that he becomes neglectful of his son, sending Mikey to live with his mother and largely ignoring him during their weekend visits. Poor kid, even the movie doesn't spend much time on him.
- As I stated before, the actors did their best with the material presented, but other than Rivers and Price, none of the other characters in the film get any development. This is particularly true of Sara (Unger). At first, she's just a customer and friend of Price, but all of a sudden, she becomes a key part of the story with little explanation as to why. After Price passes, Sara becomes close with Rivers, although it's anyone's guess as to why she felt compelled to help Rivers instead of one of the hundred or so other people that Price had met with. As for her role in the ending, well, I'm not going to get into that only to say that it seemed utterly ridiculous.
Overall, the producers of this movie seemed to forget that it was supposed to be a horror movie, so they added in a whole bunch of plot twists that made no sense whatsoever and were quite dull to boot. The last 20 minutes or so of this film made little to no sense, and the climax of the film was disappointing. Yes, the film had a few strengths, and the whole EVP phenomenon could definitely be the basis of a good horror film, but unfortunately, this wasn't a good horror film. Overall, I'd give White Noise a 3.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or the movie White Noise, then feel free to tell me about them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review or article, then send it to me via e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com or leave a comment.
- Before I start slamming the movie and its incredibly thin plot full of holes, I'd like to take time to point out some of the things this movie did right. The cinematography was nicely done, and whoever decided on the lighting should be commended, as the settings of the film did more to add suspense than anything else. As Rivers gets deeper and deeper into his EVP studies, the movie becomes darker and darker, and it adds a layer of suspense to the film. The actors, particularly Keaton, weren't too bad. To be honest, I kind of expected Keaton to mail in his performance, but to his credit, he did try his best and he and the other actors almost made this a decent film.
- Now that I've complimented the film, let me start in on some of the problems this film has. One is that the pacing for White Noise is about as slow as Cecil Fielder. It seems as if half the movie is showing Micheal Keaton either sitting on his bed, sitting in front of his computer and television screens, standing in his house, or just staring out into space. Both the director Sax, and the script writer Niall Johnson have done most of their work in television, and to be honest, the story seemed to be a 60 minute TV episode stretched to 90 minutes, with nothing but filler put in for the remaining half hour.
- This movie does not seem to know what direction it wants to go in. The first half of the movie is devoted entirely to Rivers distraught over missing his wife and trying EVP just to communicate with his late wife and get some closure. Then in the second half, Rivers becomes some kind of crusader or something, trying to save people from dying because all of a sudden he can see living people in danger before they die through EVP. This sudden leap in logic is frustrating at the very least, as the movie expects the audience to accept that a relative neophyte at EVP like Rivers not only can see nearly clear images of the dead, but he also gets visions of future events all of a sudden. Um, ok then.
- The person that got a raw deal in this movie was Johnathan's son Mikey. First, his stepmother is missing for three weeks and eventually dies. Then, instead of his father becoming closer to his son, he gets so obsessed with EVP that he becomes neglectful of his son, sending Mikey to live with his mother and largely ignoring him during their weekend visits. Poor kid, even the movie doesn't spend much time on him.
- As I stated before, the actors did their best with the material presented, but other than Rivers and Price, none of the other characters in the film get any development. This is particularly true of Sara (Unger). At first, she's just a customer and friend of Price, but all of a sudden, she becomes a key part of the story with little explanation as to why. After Price passes, Sara becomes close with Rivers, although it's anyone's guess as to why she felt compelled to help Rivers instead of one of the hundred or so other people that Price had met with. As for her role in the ending, well, I'm not going to get into that only to say that it seemed utterly ridiculous.
Overall, the producers of this movie seemed to forget that it was supposed to be a horror movie, so they added in a whole bunch of plot twists that made no sense whatsoever and were quite dull to boot. The last 20 minutes or so of this film made little to no sense, and the climax of the film was disappointing. Yes, the film had a few strengths, and the whole EVP phenomenon could definitely be the basis of a good horror film, but unfortunately, this wasn't a good horror film. Overall, I'd give White Noise a 3.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or the movie White Noise, then feel free to tell me about them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review or article, then send it to me via e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com or leave a comment.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Psycho
Since it is Halloween weekend, I have decided to watch a few horror films and review them. When I told my brother Ben about wanting to watch some horror movies this weekend, he suggested a few, and the only one I could remember was the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho. While I debated watching the 1998 remake instead, I decided against it and watched the original, which was probably the smart thing to do. The Hitchcock version of Psycho is considered to be not only one of the greatest horror films of all time, but one of the greatest movies period. The movie stars Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, John Gavin, and Mitchell's main villian, Martin Balsam. Psycho was nominated for four Academy Awards, although it did not win any and was not even nominated for best picture. The plot is as follows: an officeworker named Marion Crane (Leigh) is asked to take $40,000 to the bank before leaving for the weekend. Instead of taking it to the bank, she takes it for herself in the hopes of paying her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Gavin) debts so they can wed and live happily ever after. While on here way to meet Sam, a driving rainstorm forces Marion to pull over and stop at the Bates Motel, which proves to be a bad idea. A few notes about this film, and there are SPOILERS ahead.
- If you didn't know better and watched the first 20 minutes or so of this movie, you might think that this movie will be solely about Marion's theft of the money and her attempts to avoid the law. Heck, the whole first part of this movie is all about establishing Marion's character, explaining the motives behind her actions and making her relatable to the audience so the impact of her demise will be felt all the much more.
- During the first part of the film, Marion is suspected by a local cop of something because she fell asleep in her car on the side of the road and acted as if she was in a major hurry, which she was. After the cop follows her to a car lot and watches her drive off with a new car, he becomes more suspicious and starts to question the car dealer. After that, the cop is never shown again, which leaves a rather big plot point unfinished. Normally, this type of thing bothers me, but in this case, well it does bother me a little. I mean, wouldn't it be normal for the PI Arbogast (Balsam) to check with the police forces along Marion's route to see if they had seen her? Or to check where her car might have been? At the very least, we could have got a 30 second scene of Arbogast asking the cop about her whereabouts. Then again, perhaps I'm being a bit too picky.
- While Norman Bates is truly a 'psycho', Marion seemed to go off the deep end herself for a while. After ten years of working at the same office, she all of a sudden goes off and steals 40 grand and takes off to California, all in the hopes of marrying Sam, throwing away her previous life in the hopes of achieving something just a little better. As it turns out, Marion realized her mistake and had planned on returning the money back to the bank on Sunday, thanks in large part to her conversation with the one and only Norman Bates. How ironic, as Norman basically convinced Marion to save her own life only to take it just hours later.
- For its time, Psycho was a very controversial film, what with a naked woman being stabbed to death in a shower and all. One of the most controversial aspects of the film was the use of the word transvestite. Today, that word is tossed around in movies like baseballs are tossed around in the World Series but back then, it was a very big deal. Just goes to show how much things have changed over the years.
- In a film full of top-notch performances, nobody's performance comes close to Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates. Perkins did such a great job of portraying Bates that it ended up hurting his career, as he ended up being typecast as a psychotic of some sort. But, as Vince Vaughn proved in the 1998 remake, not everyone can pull off the multi-faceted role of Norman Bates, and very few actors, if any, could have made Norman so psychotic and yet sympathetic the way Perkins does in this film. In contrast, although most of the actors did a fine job, John Gavin's portrayal of Sam Loomis is kind of dull, as he portrays Sam as a one-dimensional bore. Hitchcock himself has been rumored to be upset with Gavin in this movie, and to be honest, I can kind of see why.
At the end of the day, there may have been better movies than Psycho, but you can count on one hand the number of films that had the impact on the movie industry that Psycho had. From its revolutionary cinematography to it's profound use of blood to the haunting score to the establishment of a regular human like Norman Bates as the embodiment of terror, there have been hundreds of films that have borrowed from Psycho in some way. This is the original 'slasher' film, so to speak, and it's also a darn good film. Overall, I'd give Psycho an 8.8 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about Psycho or my review, or you have an idea for a future review, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- If you didn't know better and watched the first 20 minutes or so of this movie, you might think that this movie will be solely about Marion's theft of the money and her attempts to avoid the law. Heck, the whole first part of this movie is all about establishing Marion's character, explaining the motives behind her actions and making her relatable to the audience so the impact of her demise will be felt all the much more.
- During the first part of the film, Marion is suspected by a local cop of something because she fell asleep in her car on the side of the road and acted as if she was in a major hurry, which she was. After the cop follows her to a car lot and watches her drive off with a new car, he becomes more suspicious and starts to question the car dealer. After that, the cop is never shown again, which leaves a rather big plot point unfinished. Normally, this type of thing bothers me, but in this case, well it does bother me a little. I mean, wouldn't it be normal for the PI Arbogast (Balsam) to check with the police forces along Marion's route to see if they had seen her? Or to check where her car might have been? At the very least, we could have got a 30 second scene of Arbogast asking the cop about her whereabouts. Then again, perhaps I'm being a bit too picky.
- While Norman Bates is truly a 'psycho', Marion seemed to go off the deep end herself for a while. After ten years of working at the same office, she all of a sudden goes off and steals 40 grand and takes off to California, all in the hopes of marrying Sam, throwing away her previous life in the hopes of achieving something just a little better. As it turns out, Marion realized her mistake and had planned on returning the money back to the bank on Sunday, thanks in large part to her conversation with the one and only Norman Bates. How ironic, as Norman basically convinced Marion to save her own life only to take it just hours later.
- For its time, Psycho was a very controversial film, what with a naked woman being stabbed to death in a shower and all. One of the most controversial aspects of the film was the use of the word transvestite. Today, that word is tossed around in movies like baseballs are tossed around in the World Series but back then, it was a very big deal. Just goes to show how much things have changed over the years.
- In a film full of top-notch performances, nobody's performance comes close to Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates. Perkins did such a great job of portraying Bates that it ended up hurting his career, as he ended up being typecast as a psychotic of some sort. But, as Vince Vaughn proved in the 1998 remake, not everyone can pull off the multi-faceted role of Norman Bates, and very few actors, if any, could have made Norman so psychotic and yet sympathetic the way Perkins does in this film. In contrast, although most of the actors did a fine job, John Gavin's portrayal of Sam Loomis is kind of dull, as he portrays Sam as a one-dimensional bore. Hitchcock himself has been rumored to be upset with Gavin in this movie, and to be honest, I can kind of see why.
At the end of the day, there may have been better movies than Psycho, but you can count on one hand the number of films that had the impact on the movie industry that Psycho had. From its revolutionary cinematography to it's profound use of blood to the haunting score to the establishment of a regular human like Norman Bates as the embodiment of terror, there have been hundreds of films that have borrowed from Psycho in some way. This is the original 'slasher' film, so to speak, and it's also a darn good film. Overall, I'd give Psycho an 8.8 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about Psycho or my review, or you have an idea for a future review, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Canon Movie Review: The Hills Have Eyes
First off, sorry for the lack of activity the past couple of days, I meant to watch and review this film last night, but circumstances forced me to delay this review another day. Anyway, since this is Halloween weekend, I decided to watch a couple of horror movies this weekend. Normally, I don't really care for horror films, as I have found most of them to be dumb and most of the films sacrifice an interesting story for lots of blood and gore. So, yes, I am biased against horror films in general, but I did try to keep an open mind with this film. The Hills Have Eyes is a 2006 remake of the 1977 Wes Craven film of the same name. Directed by Alexandre Aja (Haute Tension, Piranha 3-D), The Hills Have Eyes stars Ted Levine, Aaron Stanford, Kathleen Quinlan, Vinessa Shaw, and Emilie De Raven, among others. The plot is simple enough, as a family traveling through the desert to San Diego is led astray by a gas station attendant, and take a detour that proves to be a fatal mistake, as the car breaks down and the family is attacked by mutated people who have become mutants thanks to the U.S. Government's nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s, which effected their entire genetic code and now all of the people and their descendants are mutants of some sort. Buckets full of blood and a lot of grisly killings follow. A few notes from this film, and there are SPOILERS, so be careful.
- One of the problems I usually have with films of this genre is that the supposed 'good guys' are oftentimes either annoying or just plain jerks to the point where you root for the monster to kill them as quickly as possible. Well, these people were far from the worst characters in cinematic history, but there were a couple of characters I was annoyed with. Bob the patriarch of the family (played by Levine), comes to mind, as he comes off as a gruff know-it-all who is too damn stubborn for his own good, his son-in-law Doug (Stanford) is a technofile d-bag, while the youngest daughter Brenda (de Raven) spends the entire first half of the movie complaining. As it turns out, the only sympathetic characters in the family, the mother (Quinlan) and the oldest daughter (Shaw) end up dead anyway. Well, that sucks.
- The family has (or had) two dogs, German Shephard named Beauty and Beast. Beauty gets killed off about 10 minutes in, but Beast more than lives up to his name. That dog was just awesome, saving Doug on more than one occasion from getting killed and being a total badass, and yes, it is possible for a dog to be a badass.
- For the first half of the movie or so, there is very little violence or gore, as the director decides to take his time setting everything up, introducing the main characters and their personalities and building suspense. While the story seemed to drag at times, I think this was the right way to go, as by the time the cannibals attack, the audience is fully introduced to the family and the total brutality of their attacks over a quick time period really makes an impact on the viewer. At least it did in my case.
- Yes there is a lot of blood and gore and a bunch of mutated freaks and whatnot. In fact, I felt there may have been a bit too much, because after a while you tend to get desensitized after one grizzly scene after another. By the time Doug stuck a pick axe and some mutant's eye, it just really didn't matter as I had seen a whole bunch of other brutal scenes before that. Also, and this is a spoiler, I don't know much about radiation posining, but I doubt it gives people the ability to survive multiple point-blank shotgun blasts or being right in the middle of a giant gas explosion. Plus, is it me, or did Doug seem to lose a lot of blood throughout his battle with the cannibals, to the point where he would hardly be able to stand. But time and time again, Doug found the strength to do superhuman feats. I guess they expect me to excuse that because of his anger and the fact that he wants to get his baby back, but still.
- In spite of all the blood and gore, the two most disturbing scenes to me didn't have a lot of either of that. The first scene that got to me was the opening credits, where clips of bombs being used in the desert is mixed in with pictures of humans with extreme deformities. It's actually quite disturbing and really sad, especially the kids and babies shown. The second scene was the rape scene involving both Brenda and her sister. That scene, by far, was the most uncomfortable to watch, to the point where seeing a man being burned alive intercut with that scene is almost a relief.
Overall, this film seems to accomplish what it sets out to do, to show a whole bunch of grisly death scenes and scare the crap out of its viewers. The cinematography and the score of the movie aids tremendously in bringing a sense of fear and trepidation to the film, and for the most part the acting was well done. Yes, the plot has a whole bunch of holes in it, but no more than the usual horror fare. I admit that the movie is well done for the most part, but after awhile, all the blood and guts just have no impact whatsoever, and the ambiguous ending does no favors for this film (I'd discuss it some more, but I'd like to keep a little bit of mystery in this film review). If you like your horror films full of grisly scenes, well this one is right up your alley. Overall, I'd give it a 5.2 out of 10, as I can see why others may enjoy this film, but I just couldn't get into it.
Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or The Hills Have Eyes in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- One of the problems I usually have with films of this genre is that the supposed 'good guys' are oftentimes either annoying or just plain jerks to the point where you root for the monster to kill them as quickly as possible. Well, these people were far from the worst characters in cinematic history, but there were a couple of characters I was annoyed with. Bob the patriarch of the family (played by Levine), comes to mind, as he comes off as a gruff know-it-all who is too damn stubborn for his own good, his son-in-law Doug (Stanford) is a technofile d-bag, while the youngest daughter Brenda (de Raven) spends the entire first half of the movie complaining. As it turns out, the only sympathetic characters in the family, the mother (Quinlan) and the oldest daughter (Shaw) end up dead anyway. Well, that sucks.
- The family has (or had) two dogs, German Shephard named Beauty and Beast. Beauty gets killed off about 10 minutes in, but Beast more than lives up to his name. That dog was just awesome, saving Doug on more than one occasion from getting killed and being a total badass, and yes, it is possible for a dog to be a badass.
- For the first half of the movie or so, there is very little violence or gore, as the director decides to take his time setting everything up, introducing the main characters and their personalities and building suspense. While the story seemed to drag at times, I think this was the right way to go, as by the time the cannibals attack, the audience is fully introduced to the family and the total brutality of their attacks over a quick time period really makes an impact on the viewer. At least it did in my case.
- Yes there is a lot of blood and gore and a bunch of mutated freaks and whatnot. In fact, I felt there may have been a bit too much, because after a while you tend to get desensitized after one grizzly scene after another. By the time Doug stuck a pick axe and some mutant's eye, it just really didn't matter as I had seen a whole bunch of other brutal scenes before that. Also, and this is a spoiler, I don't know much about radiation posining, but I doubt it gives people the ability to survive multiple point-blank shotgun blasts or being right in the middle of a giant gas explosion. Plus, is it me, or did Doug seem to lose a lot of blood throughout his battle with the cannibals, to the point where he would hardly be able to stand. But time and time again, Doug found the strength to do superhuman feats. I guess they expect me to excuse that because of his anger and the fact that he wants to get his baby back, but still.
- In spite of all the blood and gore, the two most disturbing scenes to me didn't have a lot of either of that. The first scene that got to me was the opening credits, where clips of bombs being used in the desert is mixed in with pictures of humans with extreme deformities. It's actually quite disturbing and really sad, especially the kids and babies shown. The second scene was the rape scene involving both Brenda and her sister. That scene, by far, was the most uncomfortable to watch, to the point where seeing a man being burned alive intercut with that scene is almost a relief.
Overall, this film seems to accomplish what it sets out to do, to show a whole bunch of grisly death scenes and scare the crap out of its viewers. The cinematography and the score of the movie aids tremendously in bringing a sense of fear and trepidation to the film, and for the most part the acting was well done. Yes, the plot has a whole bunch of holes in it, but no more than the usual horror fare. I admit that the movie is well done for the most part, but after awhile, all the blood and guts just have no impact whatsoever, and the ambiguous ending does no favors for this film (I'd discuss it some more, but I'd like to keep a little bit of mystery in this film review). If you like your horror films full of grisly scenes, well this one is right up your alley. Overall, I'd give it a 5.2 out of 10, as I can see why others may enjoy this film, but I just couldn't get into it.
Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or The Hills Have Eyes in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Breaker Morant
I was in the mood to watch a movie tonight, so I decided to watch Australia's Best Picture Award winner of 1980, Breaker Morant. Actually, Breaker Morant won 10 Australian Film Institute awards in 1980, and was nominated for an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay. Breaker Morant is the story of a court-martial of three Australian volunteers for the British in the Boer War. The men were serving for a special forces group known as the Bushveldt Carbineers, a group created to counter to guerrilla tactics of the Boers with guerrilla tactics of their own. The three men, George Witton, Peter Handcock, and the titular character Harry "Breaker" Morant, are charged with the murder of both war prisoners and German missionary Rev. Hesse. The movie was based upon an Austrailian play of the same name and was directed by Bruce Beresford (Driving Miss Daisy). Breaker Morant stars Edward Woodward (The Equalizer) as Morant, Bryan Brown (Cocktail, F/X) as Handcock, Lewis Fitz-Gerald as Witten, and Jack Thompson (The Good German, Attack of the Clones) as the man called on to defend the three, J.F. Thomas. A few notes about this film, and there will probably be SPOILERS.
- Breaker Morant may be a war movie, but most of the movie does not take place on the battlefield. Rather, the majority of the movie is set in a small room where the court-martial takes place. It is there where the majority of the drama takes place. Also, flashbacks are used the illustrate the actions of the three men on trial, as well as getting a deeper look at the soilders. For example, we see a scene of Handcock, a bit of a wild man who was having affairs with two women while in South Africa, explaining to his wife that he doesn't write letters, and that if you hear something from him, something bad has happened. This serves to give another dimension to Handcock's character.
- Ultimately, the film is seemingly trying to convince the viewer that Breaker Morant and his two fellow soilders were pawns sacrificed by the English government for what they felt was a greater good. In fact, the commander of the British Army, Lord Kitchner, admits as much in the film. This theme is played up throughout the movie, as men just as guilty as Morant and the other on trial, such as Capt. Alfred Taylor, is cleared of their charges in exchange for their testimony in this case. However, the film also does not make the British prosecutors out to be monsters. Rather, they are painted as a group of men who are basically sacrificing these three in order to appease the Boers for possible peace talks as well as preventing the Germans to get involved after one of their missionaries is murdered. The commanders of the British Army are mainly concerned with covering their own butts, so they basically sacrifice three Austrailians in exchange for a possible end to the war. so what's On the one hand, you can somewhat see their point, but on the other hand, it is not right to sacrifice the lives of three men in exchange for a hope of political gain and harmony.
- Morant and Handcock were guilty of their crimes. However, it is unclear whether or not they are being punished for following orders, as Morant and Thomas both repeatedly claim in their defense. According to Thomas, Morant and his men were ordered to a) shoot any Boer wearing a British soilder's uniform, and b) not to bring any prisoners to their base in South Africa, doing with them as they see fit. Although the film presents Morant as being accurate in this regard, it is also hard to prove because Morant's commanding officer, Capt. Hunt, was brutally murdered by the Boers during a skirmish, and that most of the men that knew of this order had conveniently been sent to India just before the trial.
- The guy that got a raw deal in this movie was George Witton. For one, Witton did not participate in the firing squads involved with killing the prisoners and had no knowledge of who killed the missionary. Yes, he did kill a Boar prisoner, but only in self defense after the prisoner attacked Witton and reached for his gun. Yet here he is being tried for a bunch of charges that he had little to no involvement in.
- The acting in this movie is top notch, as Edward Woodward does an excellent job as Breaker Morant. However, I think the real star was Jack Thompson as the defender J.F. Thomas. At first, Thompson is able to portray Thomas as a bit of an inexperienced attorney, which really he was, as the British saw it fit to provide the three with a defender who never tried a court-martial and had a whopping total of one day to prepare. But as the film progresses and Thomas becomes more and more of a thorn in the British's side with a passionate defense, Thompson really begins to shine, and stands out amongst a crowd of very talented actors. Of particular excellence was Thompson's performance during the closing statement of the court-martial, which is one of the better monologues I have seen in any film.
Overall, this is a very good film, deserving of its Oscar nomination and probably meriting a few more. The script is very well written and plays to the actors' strengths, and the actors are more than able to hold their own. Everything about this film is well done, and although it starts out a bit slow, the movie picks up and provides a very interesting tale of a very interesting historic event. Overall, I'd give Breaker Morant an 8.7 out of 10. Thanks for reading, and if you have ever seen this movie, than feel free to share your comments about the film or this post. Also, if you have any ideas for future reviews, then share them either by leaving a comment or by e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com
- Breaker Morant may be a war movie, but most of the movie does not take place on the battlefield. Rather, the majority of the movie is set in a small room where the court-martial takes place. It is there where the majority of the drama takes place. Also, flashbacks are used the illustrate the actions of the three men on trial, as well as getting a deeper look at the soilders. For example, we see a scene of Handcock, a bit of a wild man who was having affairs with two women while in South Africa, explaining to his wife that he doesn't write letters, and that if you hear something from him, something bad has happened. This serves to give another dimension to Handcock's character.
- Ultimately, the film is seemingly trying to convince the viewer that Breaker Morant and his two fellow soilders were pawns sacrificed by the English government for what they felt was a greater good. In fact, the commander of the British Army, Lord Kitchner, admits as much in the film. This theme is played up throughout the movie, as men just as guilty as Morant and the other on trial, such as Capt. Alfred Taylor, is cleared of their charges in exchange for their testimony in this case. However, the film also does not make the British prosecutors out to be monsters. Rather, they are painted as a group of men who are basically sacrificing these three in order to appease the Boers for possible peace talks as well as preventing the Germans to get involved after one of their missionaries is murdered. The commanders of the British Army are mainly concerned with covering their own butts, so they basically sacrifice three Austrailians in exchange for a possible end to the war. so what's On the one hand, you can somewhat see their point, but on the other hand, it is not right to sacrifice the lives of three men in exchange for a hope of political gain and harmony.
- Morant and Handcock were guilty of their crimes. However, it is unclear whether or not they are being punished for following orders, as Morant and Thomas both repeatedly claim in their defense. According to Thomas, Morant and his men were ordered to a) shoot any Boer wearing a British soilder's uniform, and b) not to bring any prisoners to their base in South Africa, doing with them as they see fit. Although the film presents Morant as being accurate in this regard, it is also hard to prove because Morant's commanding officer, Capt. Hunt, was brutally murdered by the Boers during a skirmish, and that most of the men that knew of this order had conveniently been sent to India just before the trial.
- The guy that got a raw deal in this movie was George Witton. For one, Witton did not participate in the firing squads involved with killing the prisoners and had no knowledge of who killed the missionary. Yes, he did kill a Boar prisoner, but only in self defense after the prisoner attacked Witton and reached for his gun. Yet here he is being tried for a bunch of charges that he had little to no involvement in.
- The acting in this movie is top notch, as Edward Woodward does an excellent job as Breaker Morant. However, I think the real star was Jack Thompson as the defender J.F. Thomas. At first, Thompson is able to portray Thomas as a bit of an inexperienced attorney, which really he was, as the British saw it fit to provide the three with a defender who never tried a court-martial and had a whopping total of one day to prepare. But as the film progresses and Thomas becomes more and more of a thorn in the British's side with a passionate defense, Thompson really begins to shine, and stands out amongst a crowd of very talented actors. Of particular excellence was Thompson's performance during the closing statement of the court-martial, which is one of the better monologues I have seen in any film.
Overall, this is a very good film, deserving of its Oscar nomination and probably meriting a few more. The script is very well written and plays to the actors' strengths, and the actors are more than able to hold their own. Everything about this film is well done, and although it starts out a bit slow, the movie picks up and provides a very interesting tale of a very interesting historic event. Overall, I'd give Breaker Morant an 8.7 out of 10. Thanks for reading, and if you have ever seen this movie, than feel free to share your comments about the film or this post. Also, if you have any ideas for future reviews, then share them either by leaving a comment or by e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)