Staggering drama...

Posted : 14 hours, 54 minutes ago on 20 August 2008 12:58 (A review of The Road to Guantanamo)

[rapping] "My name's Shafiq Rasul, and I'm from Tipton, I tell them I ain't Taliban, but they don't wanna listen. You won't believe I just came out here, for my mate's wedding, do you? I never thought my ass, would be heading for Cuba."

The Road to Guantánamo combines fact and fiction to create a staggering and riveting docu-drama that potently illustrates horrifying events currently transpiring in our present-day world. Its relevance to today's existing society is overwhelming. The film's directors won an award at the Berlin Film Festival of 2006 for their powerful illumination of the little-known happenings in that tiny corner of Cuba known as Guantánamo Bay. Presently the United States government has refused to shed light on their activities in Guantánamo Bay camps that contain hundreds of suspected terrorists still held without charge. On that note, the filmmakers must be commended for undertaking this subject matter and even presenting it from the perspective of the victims enduring the inhumane torture.

Personally I feel that the world has witnessed enough American propaganda, and The Road to Guantánamo must be held in high admiration for depicting the American army as more brutal, unfair and callous. Even after this film's global release the United States government still refuses to tell their version of the story. Their pride means that they will never admit to being wrong, and will persist in accusing imprisoned detainees of crimes they didn't commit using forged evidence and faux testimonies. Furthermore, as the torture is carried out on the hopeless victims it appears that the soldiers enjoy their jobs...they take pleasure in verbally and physically abusing the prisoners. Their superiors as well commit atrocious actions, such as threatening a prisoner's entire family. Even when a prisoner's alibi clears them of all charges, they're still incarcerated unless they admit to being part of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Too long have we seen Muslims as the stereotyped villains in such American creations as TV's 24.

Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross' The Road to Guantánamo opens our eyes and demonstrates that Muslims aren't the evil terrorists we’ve been lead to believe that they are.
Inspired by true events of British Muslims known as the Tipton Three, the directors create a dramatisation of the horrifying experiences of these young men inadvertently caught in the heart of the 'war on terror'. These aforementioned British Muslims travelled to Pakistan for a wedding and to visit their families. In the urge of idealism motivated by massive rallies, they travel into Afghanistan with intentions of assisting the war-torn country. They are eventually captured by the Northern Alliance who ultimately hand the prisoners over to the Americans. Before long they're shipped to the harsh camps of Guantánamo Bay. We follow their experiences as prisoners when they are forced to endure dreadful conditions. For two years they're held captive under false charges.

For a moderately low-budget and low-key production, the creative team responsible for The Road to Guantánamo effectively complete their objective. The documentary-style approach is gritty and realistic. The scenes of torture and terrible conditions are relentless and profoundly effective. The editing, though, is what makes the film work so well. The re-enactments are edited together with actual news footage and interviews with the survivors. It lends the film a significant degree of credibility. The gritty camera techniques also place us in the action. Unfortunately the interviews occasionally remove us from the emotionally-straining happenings and the effect is weakened.

It's also worth mentioning that the story of the young men until their capture is extraordinarily difficult to believe. All credibility is thrown to the wind when the protagonists continue travelling into the devastated country of Afghanistan despite looking like befuddled tourists constantly concerned about expenses. It's even less believable that they move closer to the fighting and combat even when they feel uncomfortable about it...I mean why don't they just turn around? They're putting their lives in significant danger for the sake of an adventure and because they believe they should help the Afghani people. Not good enough, because the character motivations aren't explored adequately. The events leading up to their capture move at too much of a brisk pace, for the most part leaving us confused and disorientated...wondering how they've moved from A to B. Things only settle down when they're incarcerated and we're compelled to empathise with them. Still, the terrific work behind the camera is almost enough to keep us believing the proceedings.

On top of these production values, the acting is standard. Considering the low-budget origins the acting is quite impressive, however there always seemed to be something missing. With such wonderfully primed locations and filming techniques, it had the potential to be far more powerful. Even after saying that, the depictions of torture and the horrible conditions will haunt you due to the realism.

Overall, The Road to Guantánamo is an important, confronting contemporary film that relentlessly depicts the horrible happenings in Guantánamo Bay. It's undeniable that the film was initially fairly controversial and it will continue to spark controversy. It's still unclear as to whether these events are actually true or if it was actually all a work of fiction. Nevertheless the brutal treatment of prisoners is convincing and staggering. If the filmmakers didn't injure the film's integrity in the opening 20 minutes, and if the acting was a little better, this could have been a superior film.

7.7/10

1 comments, Reply to this entry

Decent Stephen King horror adaptation

Posted : 1 day, 12 hours ago on 19 August 2008 03:17 (A review of The Mist)

"As a species we're fundamentally insane. Put more than two of us in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up ways to kill one another. Why do you think we invented politics and religion?"

When it comes to adapting narratives from the maestro of horror literature, Stephen King, the outcomes have proved to be largely diverse. Stephen King's original novella of The Mist carries a fascinating premise and it was destined to be adapted for the big screen. King's largest fanatics must have breathed a collective sigh of relief when it was announced that the cinematic rendering of The Mist would be helmed by writer/director Frank Darabont. This prolific screenwriter-come-director earned his reputation after creating two successful film adaptations of Stephen King novels (The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile). On top of this, Darabont's career started in horror when he wrote A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (one of the franchise's best), The Fly II and The Blob. Hence The Mist marks Darabont returning to form.

In the long run, the film received a varying critical reception. Darabont's fanboys of course faithfully lapped up the production while others couldn't grapple everything on offer. Darabont's The Mist possessed mountains of potential, but it's clear Darabont has passed his golden years (those familiar with Darabont's version of Indiana Jones 4 will undoubtedly agree). His script here strives too hard to impart sophistication in the backdrop of a standard horror movie. At the end of the day this challenging amalgamation tries to master too many things at once with limited success.

Following a ferocious storm in the town of Maine, a mysterious mist cloud begins to congregate the next morning. David Drayton (Jane) is an artist residing in Maine whose house is severely damaged by the violent storm. David travels into town with his son (Gamble) and neighbour (Braugher). As the dense, mysterious mist starts enveloping the entire area, David and his son are among a large group of terrified townspeople that become trapped in the local grocery store. David soon ascertains that there are things lurking in the mist...horrifying creatures that aren't of this world. As these said creatures surround the grocery store, residents must band together for a chance at survival. However, due to the disposition of human nature, David begins to wonder what is more threatening: the deadly creatures prowling in the mist, or those inside the store...the human kind that David has always thought of as his friends and neighbours.

The provocative and masterful screenplay penned by Frank Darabont explores and examines the dangers of human nature in our existing culture. He keeps the scares taut and frightening: when a large creature appears it's usually enshrouded in the thick mist. However the greatest aspect of the script is also the film's greatest flaw: the use of conventional characters. Darabont's intention was to essentially construct a social commentary to display the consequences of human nature in the worst of situations. He uses these character stereotypes as a way to hold up a mirror in order for us to see our modern society. The philosophical discussions play a profound role in the dialogue as well. However, using clichéd characters also retracts from the entire experience. As an audience it's easy to predict what will transpire next. By all means it's admirable to arrange a social commentary in the precincts of a mainstream horror movie, but it simply doesn't work as well as Darabont had intended.

That said, the people within the grocery store are ostensibly divided into two diverse categories - extras and protagonists. The extras do absolutely nothing useful while the protagonists, established early in the picture, do all the work. There's no dimension between the two types of characters.

Furthermore, it initially appears that Darabont is completely in control of the material. When the mist covers the grocery store, the mystery of what's lurking outside will incite fear in his audience and will send a chill down your spine. The drama is executed in completely believable detail as well. Although clichéd, the characters are credible creations who take sides, get on each other's nerves, try their best and make mistakes. Darabont perceptibly aspired for this to be an extremely smart horror movie, one that isn't entirely B-Grade when one sits back and chortles as victims are picked off singularly. The brilliance dims when the monsters appear. The CGI is decent at best, but hardly a visceral or convincing experience nor are they anything to brag about. Then Darabont's crime is damaging the credibility. As the loading bay doors close, the tentacles that crawl through are obviously abundantly strong: too strong, in fact, for the metal door. In effect we realise that the creatures can break into the store at any time, and their hesitance is only on the part of the screenwriting.

Unfortunately Darabont appears incapable of orchestrating the mayhem in the horror scenes as the creatures attack. Everything just happens in one big mess. While realistic in the sense that plenty of things would occur during an attack, it's the unrealistic time management on the part of the editor that destroys the effect. For example we see someone set on fire. He starts burning, then we cut away to different situations for a few minutes before returning to the flaming man as if only a few seconds later.

The Mist is virtually devoid of a soundtrack until the conclusion nears. This effective approach allows the ambient noises to play a primary role in setting the atmosphere. The roar of the creatures provokes intense fear, and by the end even a sudden noise is petrifying. Darabont is also capable of manufacturing a hook that keeps one immersed in the film until its conclusion. Despite dodgy editing, the mayhem and horror is wholly engaging. Of course the characters act like idiots at times, but again it comes back to the natural consequences of human nature during a perilous situation.

The film is almost completely redeemed by its ending. This ending left me absolutely speechless. It's a courageous, bold and un-Hollywood move to create an ending of this kind. It's powerful, hard-hitting and absolutely amazing. The ambiguous religious symbolism is played with throughout the running time, and the possible relevance to religion is left open for interpretation. For a horror movie, Darabont must get credit for this audacious conclusion.

The film is also well performed by a mostly ensemble cast. Thomas Jane will forever, through my eyes, be seen as The Punisher. However, he offers arguably his greatest performance here. At first calm and friendly as well as being a family man, we watch as his morals and attitude descends and eventually creates a different person. The final scene in particular is emotionally-straining.
Marcia Gay Harden offers a convincing performance as a religious nut, obsessed with proving that the mist is the will of God. Her character grows highly irritating, which is predominantly the point so Harden did her job correctly.
Laurie Holden believably plays alongside Thomas Jane in a character that is, surprisingly, not very clichéd. There is no predictable love story at all.
I must give a brief mention to William Sadler, who I remember for his performance in Die Hard 2. Here, Sadler is a clichéd bumpkin who displays a deep side as well.
Toby Jones is also among the finest members of the cast whose character is appealing and fascinating.

Bloodcurdling and confronting in the correct degree, Frank Darabont's The Mist is an apocalyptic visualisation of humanity's devolution as doom descends in the form of a thick cloud of mist. His penetrating screenplay fascinatingly conveys a hard-hitting, horrific morality play about the clashing of archetypes in the most extraordinary of circumstances. The creature designs are sublime although the special effects are barely passable.
All in all, The Mist has the right mixture of intrigue and horror to create a spellbinding, albeit flawed horror movie.

Cal's favourite highlight: the old lady with one heck of a badass attitude who uses weapons in the form of cans of peas and flames!

7.3/10

2 comments, Reply to this entry

Glossy crap!

Posted : 2 days, 13 hours ago on 18 August 2008 02:27 (A review of Jumper)

"Let me tell you about my day so far. Coffee in Paris, surfed the Maldives, took a little nap on Kilimanjaro. Oh, yeah, I got digits from this Polish chick in Rio. And then I jumped back for the final quarter of the N.B.A. finals--courtside of course. And all that was before lunch. I could go on, but all I'm saying is, I'm standing on top of the world."

During the 85 minutes (approximately) that occupy the running time of Jumper, director Doug Liman degrades his once promising career. Liman earned his chops when he helmed the successful first instalment of the Bourne series, The Bourne Identity. You may also remember Liman behind the camera of other films such as Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Liman's Jumper is pure science fiction action tosh that borders on the superhero genre. In early 2008, the film crept out and died due to the appallingly negative feedback from both critics and audiences alike. Not to mention the meagre box office earnage. This film is a lesson on how to create a disaster from a fairly promising premise. It fails to reach its lofty objectives due to the shoddy screenplay, gross miscasting and the lack of brains. Consequently the film is a mound of senseless garbage with fancy polishing.

David Rice (Christensen) discovers as a child that he possesses an incredibly unique ability: he can teleport. David learns of the special gift as a teenager when he nearly drowned. Following this occurrence he disappeared and let even his closest buddies believe that he was dead, including his father. David moves to the city where he makes his fortune by utilising his ability to rob banks. He begins living in desolation, using his teleporting abilities and stolen funds to create a luxurious existence for himself and live life to the fullest. David is soon entangled in a war that has raged for centuries between the jumpers and the Paladins that have sworn to kill them.

Jumper is an irretrievably flawed, stupid sci-fi action movie. Why is the film so flawed, I hear you think? Well, it's difficult to decide where to start, really. First of all, the plot is extremely thin. It's difficult to outline the plot because it's hard to establish the difference between a plot and a concept when it comes to this film. There's no sense of direction...it's a disjointed succession of worthless dialogue with action attached. It also never explains anything. Obviously the filmmakers were relying on a sequel being a definite thing, because here there's little explication to be found.

The character of David Rice is an awful protagonist. He's self-indulgent, arrogant, narcissistic and selfish. He cares only for himself and wants to dispatch the Paladins in order to continue living life to the fullest. He even breaks laws to impress his female friend! David always remains an arrogant, selfish prick. By the end he doesn't learn anything and never develops an ounce of human compassion. David's hedonistic personality makes him therefore a hero we don't want to root for. This is further exemplified when David is watching the news near the beginning of the movie. He sees people trapped in a flood who will surely die. Does he do anything to prevent people suffering horrible deaths in a watery grave? No, instead he continues being egotistical. The "hero" approach is probably too clichéd anyway, but it again begs the question of why should we empathise with David and hope he survives? Besides, the filmmakers take a different, far more clichéd approach...the cringe-worthy love story.

Driving the film is a dreadfully constructed screenplay. One would expect more from this trio of writers (one of which worked on Fight Club!). The central problem is the mounds of plot holes (of the "Why don't they just?" category) and inconsistencies. For plot holes, there are things like Jamie Bell's Griffin continually doing brainless things. If he didn't want David to pursue him, why search for David in the first place? To warn him of the Paladins? Due to David's stifled knowledge of the Paladins, it's quite commonsensical that David would want to seek his help which Griffin is not prepared to offer. Griffin also never tells David of several things (like the machines that the Paladins use to open the wormholes the jumpers leave), yet David's lack of knowledge infuriates Griffin when David's wormhole leads the Paladins straight to their secret lair. There are countless opportunities for the Paladins to use this machine of theirs as well, but they only decide to use it as the film nears its conclusion as one more surprise is necessary.

Furthermore, there are too many loose ends. Like we see David bring his wounded father into the hospital...after a five second display of emotionality, the scene ends and David leaves. We never hear anything further regarding David's father. Other loose ends include David's old school friend whom he leaves rotting in prison. Inconsistencies continually plague the frame as well. For example the craters the jumpers ostensibly leave that only rarely occur. When they do, the damage appears to repair itself quite quickly as well. Alrighty...

Then there's also the lack of brains in the script as well. The several different locations around the world are there for the sake of being there. David pursues Griffin to various global locations in one sequence. Firstly, if David can easily trace him then what's the point in fleeing anyway? Secondly, why not transport to a certain location on the planet and actually hide?! Instead of obeying logic, the filmmakers continually travel around the world. Worse yet, there is precious little variety. We see them in Egypt and Japan quite frequently and almost no-where else...even when David had a wall full of jump sites.

The acting is terribly below par as well. Hayden Christensen is most familiar as Anakin Skywalker in two of the Star Wars prequels. Once again he demonstrates his inability to portray a leading character. His monotonous accent and contrived facial expressions are truly atrocious. Everything about his performance is dull and dreary.
Samuel L. Jackson turns in his worst performance to date. Back in the days of Die Hard - With a Vengeance his foul-mouthed attitude and snappy lines made him a household name. Now he's tame, has no reason for what he's doing, and that white hair is just creepy.
Rachel Bilson is there solely for her looks. She brings no intensity to her character at all. Worse yet, there is zero chemistry between her and Christensen. Their love story is boring, trite and clichéd.
Jamie Bell appears to be the only actor who's trying. He offers an energetic portrayal of a character who's granted some clever dialogue to work with. He provides the film with its only moments of solid acting and quality script lines. Bell is among the film's redeeming features. If only his character of Griffin was the film's central hero. It's a shame that he's so underused. Another underused actress who shows potential is Kristen Stewart. Blink and you'll miss her!

The special effects are at least top notch. There's no denying that the teleporting and the various global locations looks spectacular despite not much reasoning behind them. Jumper also mildly succeeds in showing the jumpers teleporting from place to place. On that note, the subtle bank robberies are clever despite the further illogical facets behind them (why would there be a bathroom right next to the bank's central vault for customers to see?). The action is in tragically short supply unfortunately. The first half of the roughly 85-minute duration is dedicated to establishing David's selfish persona. Things then become terribly rushed. Instituting David's character is also fairly disappointing. The film opens with an embarrassingly bad narration courtesy of Christensen. This narration points out the bleeding obvious and Christensen's voice is like nails against a chalkboard.

Apparently director Doug Liman wanted Jumper to be the first entry in a new franchise that was to be the Bourne series of the superhero genre. With the film being only marginally successful, a sequel is probably never going to happen. And if it does, people will be far less inclined to watch it (however it must be noted that at the time of this review being written, a sequel has been announced but nothing much has happened in the film's development thus far). Jumper had a wonderfully hopeful concept and showed great potential behind the camera. Even with that in mind they still managed to screw it up. Apart from the impressive special effects there isn't a single remarkable thing to be noted about this movie. It's a mindless glossy science fiction action/adventure film. It's also so incredibly dumb, stupid, ridiculous and vapid that it numbs your brain.

3.6/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Chilling, white-knuckle thriller

Posted : 2 days, 13 hours ago on 18 August 2008 01:54 (A review of Misery)

"I am your number one fan. There is nothing to worry about. You are going to be just fine. I am your number one fan."

Rob Reiner's Misery is a remarkably gripping, edge-of-your-seat thriller from the pages of Stephen King's novel of the same name. Several of prolific author Stephen King's novels have been adapted for the screen, yielding mixed results. Misery can be undoubtedly considered among the greatest film adaptations based on a Stephen King novel.
Director Rob Reiner is continually capable of tackling diverse genres with magnificent results. With this film, Reiner is coupled with one of the industry's greatest screenwriters: William Goldman. Goldman is admirably recognised for penning such films as Heat, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and several others. On top of this, the stunning locations have been captured wonderfully by the overwhelmingly talented cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld. Misery was indeed Sonnenfeld's final film as a Director of Photography - he then went on to direct Men in Black and Get Shorty among others.

Misery is a white-knuckle horror movie that follows trashy, successful novelist Paul Sheldon (Caan). Paul is responsible for the lucrative series of eight books exploring the escapades of character Misery Chastain. Paul realises that the novels are pure pulp that will stereotype his writing. With his latest Misery adventure, he decides to simply kill the character and move on to writing more adult material. Up in the snowy terrain of Silver Creek, Paul completes his latest manuscript (one that doesn't feature the character of Misery Chastain). En route to his publisher's office, Paul is caught in a terrible blizzard and is involved in a dangerous car accident. Broken, bruised and injured, Paul is rescued by an fanatical fan named Annie Wilkes (Bates). She's obsessed with Paul's writing and moreover idolises the character of Misery as if she were a real person. Annie's obsession grows dangerous...and as Paul recovers he must rely on his wits and imagination to survive.
I've been intentionally vague in outlining the story as the film is far more confronting if you don't have a clue what will happen next.

In a nutshell: Misery is a Stephen King horror creation of a different kind. It never relies on supernatural forces, action or over-the-top spiritual nonsense...this is a frightening cautionary tale of fame, dangerous obsession and precarious hyperbolic idolisation. The ideal creative team have transformed King's stunning literary masterpiece into a mainstream tour de force of escalating tension and impeccable atmosphere.

Director Reiner is probably best known for his work behind the camera on Stand By Me (another adaptation of a Stephen King novel), The Princess Bride, This Is Spinal Tap, A Few Good Men, When Harry Met Sally and numerous others. Reiner frequently tries different genres and continues to master them as additionally exemplified with Misery. The locations are absolutely remarkable, with immaculately constructed sets that are wonderfully filmed with Reiner's lens. The feeling of claustrophobia grows uncontrollably intense throughout.

Kathy Bates rightfully earned an Academy Award for her top-notch portrayal of a thorough psychopath. The beauty of Bates' performance is that she masters the character's duality: competently alternating between charming and evil. At times her screen presence is petrifying due to her facial expressions or the wonderful use of lighting employed by those behind the camera. Although evil, one must feel sorry for her. An Oscar well deserved!
James Caan is another brilliant addition to the cast. His screen persona perfectly captures that of a dedicated novelist. He possesses the correct charm and charisma for such a role.
Richard Farnsworth is exceptional as the cynical, wise-cracking sheriff, and the brief appearance of the wonderful Lauren Bacall is very welcome.

Overall, Misery ranks with the greatest Stephen King film adaptations. In my opinion it's almost in the league of The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption. Granted the film has its weak spots, like plot holes (of the "Why didn't he just?" variety) and unbelievable situations, as well as a few technical faults that haven't dated well (the obvious dummy during the finale is embarrassing). Misery is nevertheless a gripping, haunting, tense and entertaining thriller that's capable of sending chills up your spine.

8.2/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Average horror fest

Posted : 3 days, 18 hours ago on 16 August 2008 09:52 (A review of The Strangers)

Kristen: "Why are you doing this to us?"
Dollface: "Because you were home."

In a nutshell, The Strangers is an innocuous addition to the modern horror genre. The film is a creepy, atmospheric thriller that opts for effective jolts and scares as an alternative for a mindless gore-fest. Films such as these thankfully assist in the dissipation of the gory torture porn genre. It's relieving and refreshing to witness an attempt to rebirth the golden days of horror like John Carpenter's original Halloween.

With The Strangers, writer/director Bryan Bertino employs a simple concept as a foundation for a bone-chilling thriller. Naturally the film is silly, clichéd, and we've probably seen it all before. Bertino nevertheless manages to present his audience with edge-of-your-seat thrills and a moderately convincing set of events. Even better, the taut scares get under your skin. Nothing is ever dwelled upon...when something happens, there's no repetition or extensive staring. This keeps the audience immersed and vulnerable to the next slab of scares.

Writer/director Bertino apparently pieced together a few details from actual violent crimes to use as a basis for the story. The film opens with the following disclaimer (with a voice-over narration):
"What you are about to see is inspired by true events.
According to the F.B.I. there are an estimated 1.4 million violent crimes in America each year.
On the night of February 11, 2005 Kristen McKay and James Hoyt went to a friend's wedding reception and then returned to the Hoyt family's summer home.
The brutal events that took place there are still not entirely known."

Kristen McKay (Tyler) and James Hoyt (Speedman) are a young couple who depart a wedding reception and head back to an isolated vacation house. Before long, Kristen and James are faced with a night of psychological terror. Three deranged psychopaths donning peculiar masks begin stalking the young couple and unleash their horrific agenda.

The Strangers generates an atmosphere of dread and complete isolation. At one stage a character points out the lack of typical suburban ambiance. Hence the initial character development is set to almost complete silence except for voices and the music they play. It's unexpected and unpredictable when the terror begins. Bryan Bertino shows potential as both a screenwriter and a director. The atmosphere is unflinching and undeniably terrifying at times. His script is just marred by the overuse of clichés and, of course, the film's conclusion is predictable due to the initial disclaimer (and the epilogue that's regrettably tagged onto the opening sequence). Things do get extremely silly as well when the film nears its conclusion. The final scene clearly screams "sequel!" (At the time of writing this review, a sequel has been announced but nothing further has developed). In addition to this, there are a few plot holes and illogical moments. The character development is also embarrassing in all aspects. We just don't feel for the characters when they're exposed to intense peril.

Driving the standard script is a solid cast. Liv Tyler does remarkable things with a customary stock character. At first glance she seems like the simple "horror babe" who cries frequently, isn't capable of fending for herself and does silly things. Be that as it may, Tyler brings depth to her role and the fear is palpable in her convincing facial expressions.
Scott Speedman is also believable as the standard horror hero of the piece. He yells conventional lines such as "Run!" and "It's okay" while being the clichéd hero on a mission to protect his beloved lady companion. Similar to Tyler's performance, Speedman can capably bring emotional depth and credible character traits to overshadow the abundance of clichés.
In the supporting cast we have three actors portraying the masked psychopaths. These three actors turn in fabulous performances. The psychotic nature of their characters is truly palpable.

Overall, The Strangers is flawed by all accounts but it delivers a decent dosage of thrills and chills. It's also overflowing with atmosphere. At the end of the day, The Strangers is concise and succinct: running at a brisk 80 minutes, the pacing is kept tight. You'll watch it, you'll get scared, you'll easily forget. It's relieving to witness an American horror film that does not rely on the gore in a disillusioned attempt to create suspense. If more talented screenwriters are given a shot at this genre, the torture porn phase will steadily die.

6.25/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A heart-breaking experience

Posted : 4 days, 7 hours ago on 16 August 2008 08:12 (A review of An American Crime)

"...every situation God always has a plan. I guess I'm still trying to figure out what that plan was."

An American Crime recounts a dreadful event that occurred merely a few decades ago in a typical, unsuspecting American suburban community. Many will collectively concur that this film is an imperative modern tour de force that addresses its subject matter relentlessly and explicitly. This is a heart-wrenching film that chills its audience to the bone. By witnessing the happenings unfold, you will be gasping in horror. Personally, I was sick to the stomach and felt severely disturbed. By the film's conclusion I was crying, not solely due to the portrayed events but because it's all true.

Following the actual occurrence in the 1960s, the nation was irretrievably rocked and traumatised. Those who've studied the case (or simply conducted research on Wikipedia) will have anticipated this film version with baited breathe, and its limited release would have been eagerly devoured. An American Crime is a harrowing, haunting, compelling and powerful illustration based on actual court transcripts (as the film's opening disclaimer states). Its solitary flaw is that amongst the unnerving and profoundly disconcerting incidences, the filmmakers never told the whole story and altered a number of vital facts. Of course this is just a movie, so they probably couldn't tell the complete unadulterated story. Still, it isn't the definitive version of its subject matter hence the film is sadly quite flawed.

This bone-chilling, compelling drama retells a horrific piece of American history that shocked the nation. This occurrence is a shocking felony and the most devastating series of crimes ever committed against in single victim.
Set in the mid-1960s, the film introduces us to two travelling carnival workers: Betty Likens (Rosemont) and hubby Lester (Searcy). The two decide to leave their two daughters, Sylvia (Page) and Jennie (McFarland), with a complete stranger: single mother Gertrude Baniszewski (Keener). On the condition that she receives frequent payments, Gertrude agrees to take care of Sylvia and Jennie. However, the extensive Baniszewski clan do not kindly welcome their two newest additions. Times are tough, and the overload of children burden Gertrude's emotional state. What materialises are three terrifying months of riveting and horrific torture: Sylvia is kept in the basement...constantly tortured by the family or neighbourhood kids that had little hesitation in burning her or branding her using hot wire. These three months of escalating horror leaves one child dead and the other mentally scarred for life.

For a moderately low-key production, An American Crime adeptly tackles its subject matter. It's a period piece that accurately captures the atmosphere, look and panorama of a standard American community. The costumes, sets, props, character traits and music all reflect the 1960s with overwhelming authenticity. Furthermore, the scenes depicting Sylvia's torture are absolutely heart-wrenching. Not so much relying on explicit imagery, the director instead insinuates what's occurring. We hear Sylvia's piercing scream as a flaming cigarette butt is brushed against her tender skin, or we see a metal wire being heated with a lighter before being pressed into Sylvia's stomach. The images that are conjured up will haunt and disturb you for a very long time.

Director Tommy O'Haver (yes, that guy who directed Ella Enchanted) is also never afraid to adopt an artistic license. Towards the end, a straightforward dream sequence succeeds in conveying the director's view of a person's final moments when their mind is disorientated and they're close to death. Like I stated before, though, the film could have been far superior had the script stayed closer to the events.

Full credit must be given to the entire cast who offer superb performances. Catherine Keener was reluctant to accept the role of mentally unstable Gertrude Baniszewski. She eventually accepted the role...and produced impeccable results. Keener's screen presence is terrifying. Worse yet she's incredibly nonchalant while torturing Sylvia, and continually acts innocent. Keener's Gertrude ostensibly never realises the full impact of her disciplining as she encouraged neighbourhood children to torture Sylvia.
Ellen Page is best known for her break-out performances in Juno and Hard Candy. However, this could be Page's finest hour. She's in her early 20s, yet she always feels like a 16-year-old teenager. If one examines photos of the real Sylvia Likens, Page's portrayal seems even better.
Rounding out the cast are a few famous faces, such as an underused James Franco. All the supporting characters wonderfully embody the components of a 1960s suburban district.

Overall, An American Crime is an important film that puts forth a ruthless depiction of an astonishing occurrence. The entire creative team should be extolled for their courage in undertaking the subject matter. The film isn't for everyone. Due to the heavy material, it's extremely hard to stomach and will stick with you forever. The filmmakers made no attempt to dilute an innocent teenage girl being murdered in a cold, maniacal, calculated manner, although there are a few additional things that should have been included.

8.1/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A breathtaking epic...

Posted : 4 days, 19 hours ago on 15 August 2008 08:24 (A review of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford)

"Yeah, just ain't no peace with old Jesse around. You ought to pity my poor wife."

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is an eloquently artistic, poignant portrait and eulogy of the notorious 19th century American outlaw, Jesse James. The film bears an extraordinarily (and unnecessarily) long title, much like the picture it has been slapped on. This grandiose piece of filmmaking clocks at approximately 150 minutes. It's a grand achievement in contemporary filmmaking that merges visual artistry with historical storytelling.

Director Andrew Dominik is no foreigner to films that depict iconic thugs, as his previous directorial outing was the Australian film Chopper. Dominik adopts an expressive approach with this production, essentially mirroring the works of Terrence Malick who's recognised for films such as The New World and The Thin Red Line. Dominik (who adapted the screenplay from Ron Hansen's book) and his director of photography Roger Deakins have consciously striven to accentuate aesthetics, character relationships, atmosphere and tone over pure action. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford desires for its audience to witness and admire the mood, the panorama and the scenery, all whilst you cogitate on the vagaries of the dialogue.

If you're searching for a definitive classification of "post-production hell", then Dominik's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford wears it with aplomb. The movie wasn't finally released until roughly 2 years after filming concluded. No studio agreed to fund the film's worldwide release as they weren't confident it was going to generate much of a box office return. Studios feared the film's running time was not going to please a mainstream audience. Dominik's original cut wore a running time of almost 4 hours. Preceding the film's eventual release, years passed by as people were hired to trim the film down to a more serviceable length. The concerns, the reasoning behind delay and the decision to only grant the film a limited release is understandable. The studio pushed for more action as only one robbery was depicted; however it was Dominik's intention to explore the philosophy behind the characters with dialogue as opposed to action.

In the long run, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a magnificently filmed picture, and it articulates a meticulous and edifying story. The film works hard in bequeathing accurate insight into both the mindset and the multi-faceted existence of the legendary outlaw. The film illustrates the duality of Jesse James' character: he was a family man who used an alias around his family, but was a psychotic bandit who slaughtered without remorse and made his living by robbing trains and banks with his loyal gang. The timidity and paranoia that surrounded Jesse James is elucidated in a protracted and prolonged manner. A mainstream Hollywood audience would yearn for action and more robberies to unfold, but the majority of this 150-minute production delves into the psychological facets of Jesse James and his killer Robert Ford. That said, the film's highest point is the initial train robbery. It's an artistic achievement boasting expressive angles, crisp complexion and a fantastic use of lighting. Perhaps more of Jesse's robberies scattered throughout the film could have guaranteed stronger viewing.

The tale commences on September 7th, 1881, just before the James boys staged their final railroad hold-up. At this time Jesse James (Pitt) was 34 years of age, and it was one year before Robert Ford would gun him down in a famous act of cowardice. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford chronicles the final year of Jesse James as we deeply examine his increasing paranoia and reluctance to trust even his closest comrades in fear they would kill him for the reward money and the glory. Robert Ford (Affleck) idolised Jesse James in his early youth, and desires to join the James gang to become a somebody. As the months pass by and Jesse grows increasingly paranoid, Robert Ford becomes resentful of the Missouri outlaw. Moreover, Ford believes his days are limited and that Jesse would soon shoot him. These facts become the motivation for Ford to pull the trigger on a man he once revered.

The critical reception for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a mixed bag. Only a selected few could recognise the sheer brilliance underneath a cloak of visually striking images. The film isn't anything further than a unique visual splendour: the exquisite photography impeccably captures the breathtaking locations and sets. Several particular shots continue to haunt me due to the framing. One such instance is Jesse James appearing out of a cloud of smoke. I remember seeing this shot in the trailer back in 2006. Two years on, and it stuck in my mind when I finally watched the film. This is a testament to the wonderful filmmaking being offered.
The music is also evocative and memorable. There are various particular segments of music (composed by Nick Cave) that are repeated at different times. The music is perfect...an intriguing creation to perfectly compliment the photography.

The film's title could easily have been trimmed down to half its length. Coincidentally, the same can be said about the film itself. This only provides the definitive history of Jesse James in his final year. However the narrative grows too convoluted and the dialogue too stilted. While the visuals are striking and the acting stellar, several scenes appear unnecessary and out of place. Much of this Jesse James saga never adds to the story being told. The film could have worked had it not been so long. At the end of the day, 95% of it is talk. Certainly, there are a few remarkable conversations, the landscape is elegant and the silences are telling. But ultimately, we're left with the feeling that the filmmakers have spent a dreadfully long time telling a straightforward and proverbial tale, offering few or no groundbreaking insights. And furthermore, the final 30 minutes appear to be milking the plot as Robert Ford boasts about the assassination. Most of this should have been removed as things grow tedious and boring.

The cast deserve lauding of the highest honour for their delicate portrayals. Brad Pitt is absolutely sensational as the title's namesake. Pitt gives the character everything he can, but could have been far better had the script allowed him something more to say. The script offers nothing but excessive character banter, and the narrative should have been far more succinct.
Casey Affleck is nothing short of amazing. With fantastic performances like this, it's a wonder why his brother Ben is more well-known. Casey Affleck's character is young, naïve and displays a clear-cut traitorous side where he is completely intent on becoming his own celebrity. Affleck demonstrates intelligence in his portrayal as Ford as well as a deep emotional side that was essential for the film's success.
Sam Shepard is amazing, as is Sam Rockwell and the rest of the supporting cast. If there's one compelling reason to view this film, it's for the performances from the entire cast.

Overall, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is an essential contemporary masterpiece. The film feels like a history lesson with magnificent paintings telling the tale. Jesse James was an inimitable personality and one of the legends of American history. This movie paints a faithful story of James' undoing, and final days. It also supplies the reasoning why he was assassinated by an individual whom he considered a friend. Both Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck put forth excellent performances that denote the high water mark of this film. The film is a leisurely paced, ponderous Western that occasionally transcends its gawky determinations to create memorable cinema. Perhaps with a more concise running time or reasoning for its length, this majestic film could have been further improved.

8.1/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Terrific sleeper action movie!!

Posted : 5 days, 11 hours ago on 15 August 2008 04:08 (A review of Taken)

"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let me daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."

Taken is an exhilaratingly riveting and entertaining sleeper action movie. Due to its low-key marketing and delayed global release dates, it practically materialised out of no-where. Keeping in tradition with contemporary action movies such as the Jason Bourne series, Taken is a film that employs gritty realism in its frequent action sequences and depicts a badass central character dishing out retribution to those who deserve it.
Revenge movies are tricky beasts to master without falling into bullshit territory. With capable screenwriter Luc Besson involved, we can be assured of intelligent and adroit handling of the genre. Consequently, this is among 2008's best action movies. It rises above the standard action fare simply due to the terrific script and heightened creativity.

The plot is based on the concept of human trafficking which has become a major issue in today's society. Fundamentally, this concept is moulded into the story of a revenge-driven, fast-paced action thriller.
Bryan Mills (Neeson) is a former United States government operative. Now retired and separated from his estranged family, Bryan is trying to get his life back in order. The desolate and emotionally sheepish divorced father now spends his time creating scrapbooks of daughter Kim (Grace) who now lives with her mother (Janssen) and rich step-father (Berkeley). Bryan has developed into a particularly overprotective father since his career made him more vigilant, and is reluctant when his daughter asks for his permission to travel to Paris. Despite his scepticism, he grants his permission. Kim and her friend are soon kidnapped with plans to be sold into the slave trade. Bryan, who describes himself as "retired, not dead", travels to Paris and employs his skills to rescue his daughter...as he leaves carnage and corpses in his wake.

Taken is an action movie that effectively draws inspiration from Death Wish and Man on Fire among several others. It's undeniable that the film is largely clichéd and formulaic. This is the action genre after all, so these obvious clichés can be comfortably overlooked for the sake of entertainment. It's also worth noting that, while the film isn't a profound social commentary, it adeptly spreads awareness of global happenings in relation to the human slave trade as girls are sold into prostitution. (In fact the film encouraged actress Famke Janssen to take action in the real battle against corruption. Janssen now serves as the Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Office against Drugs and Crime)

Furthermore, with this realistic edge the story is far easier to believe. The filmmakers also take a page from the Jason Bourne series. With a plausible story comes action grounded in realism and filled with impressively choreographed close combat battles. Director Pierre Morel also displays proficiency when it comes to filming the action. Utilising quick cuts and effective close-ups, the action is always kept exciting and taut. The deafening sound mix effectively conveys the viciousness of each punch. The violence is concise and pulse-pounding. Even with a PG-13 rating from the MPAA, there are still gunshot wounds and a relentless body-count. The stunts are absolutely amazing as well. Couple this with fantastic filmmaking and the film is indisputably riveting. As a result, it's a guilty pleasure.

Driving the film is a sublime screenplay penned by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Besson enjoyed profound success with his 1994 film Léon (also known as The Professional). Hence, he's capable of using the clichés to his advantage. There's a predictable conclusion at the end of the tunnel, but there is an extremely fun ride to take especially with the inclusion of a hint of uncertainty. Surprisingly, there were a number of clichés that the script manages to avoid, such as never treating characters with any sentimentality, and when the central villains are revealed there are no preposterously long speeches or special deaths...Neeson just pulls the trigger or cleverly improvises with surrounding objects. Even better, the action begins once a story has been established. There's effective character development before the descent into violence and carnage initiates.

For the most part, the acting is top notch. Liam Neeson has found his calling as an action hero. We've seen him in Star Wars and 2005's Batman Begins, but he quickly masters this diverse character. The American accent is actually believable as well. Even in his 50s, Neeson has a badass screen presence and can certainly dispatch his intended targets efficiently.
Famke Janssen is passable as Neeson's estranged wife, and Maggie Grace delivers an exceedingly convincing performance as Neeson's kidnapped daughter. Her role called for profound depth, and the young actress pulls it off.
The villains, though slightly stereotyped, are terrific as well.

Overall, Taken is a little-known action movie that I thoroughly enjoyed. Saturated with intense action, credible characters and a pragmatic story, this is simply an essential movie for the action lovers. Many have classified the film as The Bourne Retirement and this is understandable. Neeson's aging action hero persona is equally as skilled as Matt Damon's Jason Bourne.
Taken is an exhilarating, thrilling action movie that deserves to be seen. Granted, there are dumb bad guys and cheesy dialogue...but the action is highly satisfying. Face it, it's why you purchased a ticket in the first place. You come here looking to be entertained with action aplenty, you want to see villains getting their comeuppance, you want to be rooting for the hero and you want to be cheering when something badass occurs. On that note, Taken delivers.

8.0/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Average comedy/drama

Posted : 5 days, 14 hours ago on 15 August 2008 01:04 (A review of Smart People)

Vanessa: "You should really make your bed. It sets the tone for the day."
Chuck: "But, how do you know what tone I was trying to set?"

Dysfunctional family comedy-dramas have developed into an unusual beast over recent years. After the rowdy success of Little Miss Sunshine, it appears that filmmakers have grown relatively inspired to replicate the charm and quality of that memorable 2006 screen gem. Smart People is one of these recent attempts. Unfortunately, the wrong creative team were pulled onto the project: screenwriter Mark Jude Poirer had never scripted a feature film before, and director Noam Murro hadn't directed one.

The central problem is that the film concentrates too extensively on the 'smart' without focusing on the 'heart'. Poirer adds various offbeat and oddball elements into the film, as well as smart scenes and smart lines. It's lacking both charm and energy. The interesting characters, as well, are never treated properly. Despite the presence of an ideal cast, they never let us in. We're unexpectedly thrown into a world of eccentric characters as if we're already supposed to know them. Consequently, things get very boring very quickly and we seldom feel for the characters. No charisma, no memorable laughs, and no point!

Lawrence Wetherhold (Quaid) is a self-absorbed English professor specialising in Victorian literature. He may be intelligent, but he's an appalling teacher deficient of passion and his students detest him. Moreover, when it comes to love and family he's completely bewildered. He's been lonely since his wife died many years ago, is anti-social, has drifted away from his college-aged children, and hates his brother Chuck (Church) whom he insists on describing with the adjective "adopted". Coincidentally, practically everyone he meets is a former student of his who have bad memories of his teaching. Following a head injury, Lawrence meets young physician (and former student of his) Janet Hartigan (Parker) whom he predictably falls for. Meanwhile, Lawrence's brother Chuck turns up for an unexpected stay.

Smart People is a straightforward, reasonably predictable drama/comedy hybrid. The laughs are unfortunately quite trifling and never are there any laugh-out-loud moments. Worse yet, nothing is particularly memorable. Curiously, the material is rarely convincing as well. I mean, the town is supposedly dominated by Lawrence's ex-students. Isn't Pittsburgh a large place? And moreover how can so many former students actually remember him after so many years? Why would an ex-student be so quick to jump into bed with him? These are instances when the screenwriter isn't displaying any smartness.

Like I previously mentioned, I frequently found the film irretrievably boring. The central idea of brainiacs possessing deficient emotional IQs only goes so far. Usually in the genre we expect a massive moral wake-up or a character revelation. It's too subtle and inadequate for us to notice or care about. The clichés can't be avoided either. Of course there's the unplanned pregnancy, the predictable love story with the conventional problems, and even worse is the characters learning to respect each other. Usually this makes for feel-good viewing, but it isn't handled well. More invasive is the soundtrack, composed by Aussie Suze DeMarchi and hubby. The tracks themselves are fine...the problem is that they're slathered over every scene: overbearing and booming over the actors' lines.

One of the film's redeeming features is the ideal cast (for the most part). Dennis Quaid isn't too bad. Sometimes he fails to engage us, but this is attributed to the poor screenplay.
Ellen Page recaps her Juno performance, except less impressive: she's as sharp as a knife; however she isn't hip or energetic enough. She's idyllic for the role...the flaws are just in the way her character was written.
Sarah Jessica Parker is truly appalling. She's aged since her Sex and the City days and isn't convincing nor charming. I have no idea why she keeps acting.
Thomas Hayden Church and Ashton Holmes are impeccable but misused.

Overall, Smart People didn't live up to its potential. There are some creative concepts marred by lack of heart or appeal. It frequently plods and should have been tighter for an elevated entertainment value.

5.8/10

1 comments, Reply to this entry

Excellent and original thriller!

Posted : 5 days, 17 hours ago on 14 August 2008 09:58 (A review of Hard Candy)

Jeff: "You were coming on to me!"
Hayley: "Oh, come on. That's what they always say, Jeff."
Jeff: "Who?"
Hayley: "Who? The pedophiles! "Oh, she was so sexy. She was asking for it." "She was only technically a girl, she acted like a woman." It's just so easy to blame a kid, isn't it! Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does NOT mean she's ready to do what a woman does."

Hard Candy is an incisive, stylish, provocative, innovative, edge-of-your-seat psychological thriller that is effortlessly superior to an abundance of other contemporary horror films. Saw and Hostel probe the concept of cold-blooded killers, frequently displaying gratuitous violence and gore, whereas writer Brian Nelson and director David Slade circumvent the clichés and produce a wholly original thriller. Paedophilia is a key concern in recent society. Slade and Nelson use this issue of paedophilia as a foundation on which to build the plot and story. Gone is the senseless slasher tone and the unnecessarily gory deaths...Hard Candy is potent and relentlessly intense with minimal quantities of gore. The tension is instituted through the powerhouse performances and elegance in the camera techniques. Slade's solid direction keeps the situations tight and the characters compelling. Even better, the film's most riveting sequence is scary not due to the gore, but the suggestion of what's occurring. Throughout every scene, the director will keep you rapt and immersed...the proceedings are also unpredictable, which makes the film far more terrifying.

Fundamentally a two-person drama, the story concerns a typical case of paedophilia with the tables reversed. Hayley (Page) is a precocious, teasingly sexy 14-year-old girl who befriends charming, boyish 32-year-old photographer Jeff (Wilson) over the internet. They've been chatting online for three weeks, and eventually decide to meet in person at a coffee shop. Before long they're travelling back to Jeff's home for an impromptu photo-shoot. Hayley's malevolent secret agenda is soon revealed: she suspects Jeff of being a paedophile, and commences a hard-hitting investigation in an attempt to reveal his possibly scandalous past.

Slade keeps remarkable control, steadily divulging information in a sequence of moments that delicately develop suspense, anxiety and most significantly it cultivates scepticism about the true identities of Hayley and Jeff, what they've done and what they're going to do. It's a dexterous balancing act, made icier by the decorous compositions, application of close-ups and selective focus, as well as temperamental digital complexion for each shot. Jeff's home is an intricately designed and perfectly suits its purpose in the story. Additionally, there's a strong sense of claustrophobia as Ellen Page's Hayley unleashes her maligned plans to her hopeless victim. Like I said before, gratuitous gore is never showcased. It's the themes and convincing performances that will have an audience petrified. Witness a man getting castrated and having the essence of his joy department mashed in a garbage disposal unit.

Full credit must go to the pairing of Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson for their intense performances and skilful executions of complex characters. Ellen Page recently appeared on the map for a sleuth of excellent performances. Ellen rapidly became one of my favourite actresses, and with each new film my respect heightens for her. Not only is she extremely beautiful but she has talent. Hard Candy marks her greatest performance yet: a dark, unspeakably disturbing teenager whose intentions could put all the horror movie serial killers to shame. On top of this the character is well written: she's snappy, intelligent and quick-witted. Slade's sole misstep was making her a tad too knowing. Occasionally this is unrealistic.
Patrick Wilson's charismatic Jeff probably deserves the comeuppance he receives, but it's possible to feel profoundly sorry for his character.

Overall, Hard Candy is the greatest thriller I've seen for an extremely long time. It's a brilliant film crammed with potency and suspense. It's difficult to tell that this is David Slade's feature film debut simply because his directing never treads a wrong foot. The film is easily superior to most modern horror fares due to Slade's decision to opt for gruelling realism and scenarios that will keep a viewer hooked for the running time. Every shot and every frame is immaculately constructed; ergo the visuals cannot be faulted.
Hard Candy is a crackling thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat: it's not easy viewing, but it's intelligent, involving and thoroughly challenging.

8.7/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry