Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (1618) - TV Shows (38) - DVDs (2)

Eye See Potential...

Posted : 16 years ago on 18 March 2009 11:24 (A review of Eye See You)

"I see you, but you don't see me"


Hollywood's confidence in D-Tox (also known as Detox and Eye See You) was clearly lower than Ed Wood's Oscar possibilities. Filmed and completed in 1999, Universal abruptly decided to cancel the distribution a few months before the intended release and shelve the project. Three years passed, and Universal began to tire of the film - ultimately choosing to sell it and disown it (Oscar-winning producer Brian Grazer even removed his name from the credits, and Universal removed their logo from the finished product as well). The 2002 international theatrical run for D-Tox was shorter than the average life-span of a housefly. In the US it bypassed theatres and instead debuted on DVD. Typically, endless delays are an indication of an extremely poor movie. But thankfully, this isn't the case...as a matter of fact, D-Tox is a surprisingly watchable and serviceable Sylvester Stallone vehicle. Directed by Jim Gillespie, this hybrid of Se7en, The Thing and (Gillespie's own) I Know What You Did Last Summer rises above the usual standard for fluffy slasher flicks, and features Stallone in an astonishingly decent performance. It's frankly bewildering that this decent slasher affair struggled for a release while other dirge is constantly rushed into cinemas.

The story tracks FBI agent Jake Malloy (Stallone), who - upon the film's commencement - is on the trail of a sadistic serial killer exclusively targeting police officers. This murderer instigates an intense cat-and-mouse game with Malloy, eventually upping the stakes by making things personal. Grief sends Malloy off the deep end when he witnesses a personally-affecting crime scene, and his life spirals downwards into a profound depression where solace can only be found in the bottom of a bottle. To recover from these intense psychological effects, one of Malloy's colleagues (Dutton) sends Malloy to a remote detox clinic (hence the title) located in snow-covered Wyoming that specialises in rehabilitating cops. Unfortunately for the group of patients (and the crew of the facility, for that matter), Malloy barely has time to unpack his bags before the patients begin dying under suspicious circumstances. Things soon become perfectly clear to Malloy: the murderer whose actions have haunted him for months has somehow found his way into the facility, and one of the patients may not be who they claim to be. Completely isolated by an extreme blizzard, the group have no-where to run. As their numbers begin to dwindle even further, it becomes clear that in order to survive they must go on the offensive and flush out the traitor lurking amongst them...

"He's collecting trophies..."


As with any slasher flick, the plot is quite superfluous. As opposed to an actual plot, slasher flicks are generally infused with a simple set-up. Once this set-up is established, characters are slaughtered and the body count gradually continues to escalate. D-Tox is no different. As soon as the knife-bait is assembled in the isolated setting, murders begin. The real fun is then figuring out who'll be bumped off next and who is responsible for the murders. To the credit of those behind the camera, the identity of the killer is concealed quite effectively. The reveal of the killer is perhaps a bit too early, however, as it slightly lessens the tension towards the climax.

D-Tox initially appears to be another Silence of the Lambs inspired serial killer thriller (complete with an opening title sequence reminiscent of David Fincher's Se7en), but once the action shifts to the isolated rehab clinic it transforms into a straightforward slasher affair (albeit with a few twists on the standard formula). In the long run, D-Tox can probably best be described as Ten Little Indians meets Friday the 13th. Director Jim Gillespie (no stranger to the genre, having previously helmed I Know What You Did Last Summer) is a competent craftsman who builds a chilling, claustrophobic atmosphere. For generating tension, Gillespie relies on the remoteness of the film's primary location (making a good correlation with the isolation that Malloy feels) and the snowy, brutal conditions as opposed to the typical "jump" moments contemporary slashers usually employ. The solid cinematography of Australian Academy Award winner Dean Semler (who also worked on Dances with Wolves) is one of the film's highest points, and John Powell's musical score is chillingly effective without being truly outstanding. Ron L. Brinkerhoff's inane screenplay (loosely based on Howard Swindle's novel Jitter Joint), however, is a sub-par effort plagued with cookie-cutter characters and a killer sporting a deliriously shallow motivation. On a more positive note, the dialogue is restrained and believable, providing an added class which slasher films usually lack.

"You see somebody coming up them stairs... you let faith guide that bullet right through their head."


Interestingly, D-Tox exhibits all the hallmarks of a movie which has been severely cut in order to reduce the runtime. Occasionally it's quite obvious that small fragments have been omitted (editing is also somewhat choppy at times). Unfortunately, character development is purely non-existent (whether this can be attributed to the script or the cutting room remains a mystery). Few of the characters are even introduced properly (names certainly don't stick). When Stallone's Malloy arrives at the detox clinic, the film surrenders to clichés, and a pantheon of quality actors are literally wasted in a conventional fashion, becoming victims of the surrounding histrionics. It's truly difficult to categorise Gillespie's D-Tox. It's part horror movie, although it isn't very scary. It's part murder mystery, but it lacks the fun of a usual whodunit slasher. The flick also attempts to be a thriller. Fortunately it does a pretty good job of thrilling, especially during the sporadic action sequences (the climax is particularly nail-biting).

A cast of helpless teenagers (usually present in brainless slashers) has been replaced with a group of adult characters. Astonishingly, Sly is on impressive, if not career-resuscitating form. To Stallone's credit, he offers a better-than-average performance as the tortured Malloy. At one stage Malloy is faced with guilt and remorse before sinking to rock bottom, and Stallone conveys this with amazing honesty. Incredibly, the star also manages to disperse lines while actually acting. He proves that - despite all the Razzies he endured and turkeys he has previously appeared in - he can act. Sly's emotionally-shattered protagonist is an interesting alternative to the usual "female virgin in distress" that we've become accustomed to seeing in a slasher.
Alongside Stallone is an extremely able-bodied cast. Charles S. Dutton (who was also in Se7en) delivers a decent performance as Hendricks; a colleague of Malloy who sends him to the remote detoxification clinic. Inside this remote facility is a cavalcade of great actors, most of which aren't put to good use at all. Kris Kristofferson (from Blade) is quite good as the no-nonsense detox doctor, with Tom Berenger (remember him from Platoon?) appearing as the centre's handyman, and Polly Walker (whose résumé also includes such titles as 8 ½ Women and Patriot Games) playing the resident psych.
Robert Patrick (best known for Terminator 2) is a particular stand-out as a gung-ho SWAT guy, although his character's final moments are pitiful (and that's putting it mildly). Also look out for Jeffrey Wright who's convincing as a patient at the clinic who tried to shoot himself. Additional members of the cast include Dina Meyer, Robert Prosky, Courtney B. Vance and Sean Patrick Flanery - all of which are given criminally small and undeveloped roles to work with.

Despite its routine nature and lack of true cohesion, D-Tox is a surprisingly serviceable movie of the slasher/thriller variety. Gillespie's directorial style is gritty, tension is present, and Sylvester Stallone places forth a fantastic performance. The ludicrous screenplay is perhaps of the low direct-to-DVD standard, but from a technical viewpoint the film is well-handled and the acting is fairly good. And really, that's more than what can be said for stacks of unforgivable dreck that's able to warrant a theatrical release. D-Tox is straightforward, taut slasher entertainment. If you lower your expectations enough, there's a plethora of fun to indulge in. It's particularly good viewing for a rainy evening.
It'd be very interesting to see an extended cut that may perhaps restore the absent character development...

"I see you... you see this." [very gory death]


5.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An endlessly quotable return for Shane Black

Posted : 16 years ago on 17 March 2009 01:35 (A review of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)

"You don't get it, do you? This isn't "good cop, bad cop." This is fag and New Yorker. You're in a lot of trouble."


At the pinnacle of his screenwriting career, Shane Black was the highest paid scribe in Hollywood, with films like Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout to his name. His scripts spawned enjoyable, commercially successful films for the most part, but Black has long stated that directors alter his original ideas, causing a great deal of frustration on his part. Black vanished for the better part of a decade, but stages his triumphant comeback with 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Inspired by James Bond, Pauline Kael, Raymond Chandler novels, and everything in between, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang could be Black's greatest creation to date, even exploiting his time-honoured love of Christmas that has provided a backdrop for all of his thrillers. In order to avoid frustration in the translation from page to screen, Black directed the film himself, and the product shows no evidence that Black is a first-time filmmaker.


In the midst of L.A.'s holiday rush, small-time thief Harry Lockhart (Downey Jr.) inadvertently stumbles into an audition while trying to evade the police following an unsuccessful robbery. Harry's performance amazes the casting agents, and he's subsequently thrust into the spotlight as he's flown to Hollywood for a screen test. Propelled into the cut-throat world of L.A.'s pros, cons, losers and wannabes, Harry is partnered with tough private eye "Gay" Perry (Kilmer) who'll prepare him for his screen test. For experience, Perry allows Harry to help with his latest assignment. Harry is also reunited with his childhood crush - Harmony Faith Lane (Monaghan) - who has become an actress. However, when the mysterious suicide of Harmony's sister intersects with the seemingly unrelated case Harry and Perry are investigating, the duo find themselves embroiled in a real murder mystery.

Got that? Good. Now don't worry about it.


Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is an unabashed exercise in style and wit, with its plot serving as a rack on which to hang wildly entertaining vignettes. It works marvellously, as Black's script is populated with terrific characters dispersing witty dialogue. The sharp exchanges and one-liners are never-ending, with pop-culture pisstakes (a head-to-toe soaked Downey at one stage proclaims himself to be "wetter than Drew Barrymore at a grunge club") and sneering subversions of hard-boiled posturing (Perry uses the word 'pluperfect' at a rather odd time), not to mention sly satire of the film industry. Without a doubt, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of the most quotable films in history, and it remains hilarious upon repeat viewings. The story is convoluted and you'll be hard-pressed to nail it, but this is a massive positive - critics often complain that stories are too straightforward and by-the-numbers, hence Black subverted this stereotypical pitfall. Furthermore, there's more to latch onto and absorb with each new viewing.

Black's script is (in part) based on the novel Bodies Are Where You Find Them by Brett Halliday. In adapting Halliday's novel, the writer-director added his own satiric slant on the story and inserted elements of Raymond Chandler novels to ultimately produce something unique. Constant references the old masters of film noir are scattered throughout the flick - chapter headings are sourced from Chandler novel titles, for instance. Visually, the film is a hodgepodge of quick edits, pans, zooms, fades, dissolves and crosscuts, combined with flashy colour alterations. However, none of these (usually irritating) gimmicks are damaging at all due to Black's limitless elegance as a director. Moreover, his exaggerated cinematic style is fitting for this incisive Hollywood satire. Poking fun at everything from storytelling clichés to the way filmmakers manipulate their "assets", Black has created a top-notch picture that is simultaneously an engaging noir-style mystery and a hilarious observation of the film industry.


Black treats his audience as peers, and never takes them as fools. The man clearly understands that very film-savvy audiences exist, and they're every bit as cynical about Hollywood conventions as he is. At one stage, through the voice of Harry the narrator, he remarks "Don't worry, I saw the last Lord of the Rings. I'm not going to have the movie end like 17 times". Throughout the course of the film, Harry also chastises himself for leaving out important details, or for making seemingly pointless observations. Sometimes, scripts like these are too consciously clever for their own good, but Black's work is well-judged. Naturally, witty dialogue wasn't enough for the writer-director, as Black felt the urge to include a number of action sequences for good measure. Fortunately, such scenes are dazzling, intense and splendidly choreographed. It's all the more amazing that the film was produced for a slight $15 million.

At the centre of the film is a top-notch cast. The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer is killer - they're the most downright entertaining screen pair since Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction. Downey is in top form here, showing a real sense of comic timing. He's an endearing narrator, too, introducing himself by saying "My name's Harry Lockhart, I'll be your narrator", which establishes the film's non-serious tone. Meanwhile, as the ambiguously homosexual cynic, Kilmer steals every frame, delivering some of the best one-liners in recent memory with graceful confidence. The beautiful Michelle Monaghan also appears as Harry's former flame. Monaghan has the perfect look for the part, and the actress oozes sexiness when she wears tight dresses, including a Santa's Helper outfit. Not to mention, she has great chemistry with Downey. Outside of the three protagonists, there's an amusing Larry Miller as the producer who plans to screen test Harry, and Rockmond Dunbar and Dash Mihok appear as a duo involved in the whole murder mystery. You know that actors have done their jobs correctly if you crave more time with their characters once the credits begin to roll.


Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is not only one of the best films of 2005, but it's also one the most overlooked. The Phoenix Film Critics Society even voted it "Overlooked Film of the Year". Okay, so no-one knows who the hell the Phoenix Film Critics Society is, but they have a point. One should also bear in mind that the film received a standing ovation when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a delightful return for Shane Black, showing us that he was gone for far too long and that he deserves to continue in this business for a long time to come.

9.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A delightful, lively Pixar creation!

Posted : 16 years ago on 16 March 2009 05:41 (A review of Monsters, Inc.)

"Kids these days. They just don't get scared like they used to."


Remember life as a little kid, when you feared the monsters living in your closet or under your bed? Remember your parents assuring you that monsters don't exist? Monsters, Inc. verifies what every child really knows - the things that go bump in the night are more genuine than adults truly realise. Brought to the big screen by Disney & Pixar, Monsters, Inc. - the fourth offspring of this marriage (following Toy Story, A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2) - is a triumph of animated cinema. Co-directed by Pete Docter, David Silverman and Lee Unkrich (with Pixar guru John Lasseter serving as executive producer), this lively and endearing slice of animation is everything we come to expect from a product of the Disney/Pixar axis - it has an enchanting, imaginative premise as well as sumptuous computer animation, brilliant gags for every age, and a mouth-watering voice cast. Yet, this motion picture is a fresh and unique beast. Instead of taking place in the real world, Monsters, Inc. introduces an entirely new universe in which the marvellously-rendered CGI characters can live and flourish.

Behold Monstropolis - a thriving city populated by monsters of all shapes and sizes. Instead of coal or nuclear power, Monstropolis' power supply is derived from the screams of children. This means the scariest (and bravest) denizens of the city are employed by Monsters, Inc. (the largest scream processing factory in Monstropolis) to venture through closet doorways and elicit screams by scaring children all over the globe (these screams are then converted into electricity). However - as children are becoming more sophisticated and consequently more difficult to frighten - severe power problems are affecting the city, with "rolling blackouts" predicted throughout this serious scream shortage. The responsibility of harnessing sufficient electricity falls on the broad shoulders of the leading scream producer - a big blue monster known as Sulley (Goodman), ably assisted by his wisecracking pal Mike (Crystal). It's business as usual for Sulley & Mike until a young, curious human child (Gibbs) boldly goes where no human has gone before...into a closet, and onward into the monster universe. In this world, however, it's the monsters who are afraid of the children (believing them to be toxic and deadly). Pandemonium ensues as Sulley & Mike work to return the child home, in the process uncovering a sinister plot to rid Monstropolis of its power issues...

"There's nothing more toxic or deadly than a human child. A single touch could kill you. Leave a door open, and one can walk right into this factory; right into the monster world."


Monsters, Inc. is an enchanting animated picture which plays on childhood fears in a totally delightful, nonthreatening fashion. Familiar Pixar themes of childhood worlds of imagination are revisited, and on top of this it's a joyful celebration of the power of make-believe. Monsters, Inc. succeeds on two levels - as fast-moving, energetic fun for children and as slyly written, visually impressive entertainment for adults. The plot, however, is probably a bit too straightforward, and - even at a brisk runtime of 90 minutes - it feels slightly padded out, not to mention sluggish from time to time. The second act also tends to bog, with the single-note joke growing pretty old fairly rapidly. This is a fairly predictable affair as well; its conclusion quite foreseeable from about 20 minutes in. With the exception of a few twists and turns, the film traverses through by-the-numbers territory. These complaints are quite minor, however, as Monsters, Inc. remains an enjoyable, imaginative adventure.

Granted, Monsters, Inc. does lack the complexity evident in Toy Story and A Bug's Life, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. What it lacks in depth it makes up in boundless creativity. Two forms of comedy are on offer - simple laughs for the kiddies, and more imaginative gags aimed at adults. Pixar movies are generally overflowing with such humour, thus parents can watch a Pixar masterwork with their kids, aware that they'll also get a laugh. The cinematic references and in-jokes present in this film are terrific. There's the little girl referred to as "Boo", the Monstropolis/Metropolis angle, and a clever allusion to The Right Stuff. Most audiences will snigger at the "Stalk/Don't Stalk" street sign and a tabloid newspaper called The Glob, but only adults will chuckle at a club named "Harryhausen's" (for those unaware, Ray Harryhausen is a renowned animation pioneer). Some of the humour is hit-and-miss, though, with the occasional gag falling flat. Adults may find the script a few jokes short of true classic status.

Advances in computer graphics since Pixar's first feature-length endeavour (1995's Toy Story, six years earlier) are frankly staggering, and these advancements are on glorious display here. Each new Pixar movie raises the bar a little higher, and in this case the artists have become capable of animating fur. The animators have pulled out all of the stops to make Sulley look realistic...and their objective is completed astonishingly. In terms of richness of design and background detail, the animation present in Monsters, Inc. is truly a triumph. Pixar have keen eyes for detail, ensuring everything on-screen looks completely authentic.

The animation of Mike is particularly interesting due to the fact that the animators had so little to work with. Instead of a full face, Mike is merely an eyeball. Luckily, this eyeball has an eyelid, and thus the artists were able to provide the character with every facial expression a monster would ever need. It's a tour de force!

Probably the most entertaining sequence in the entire movie is a climactic scramble through a labyrinth of closet doors - each one containing another world. It's a breathless action-comedy set-piece which moves along at breakneck speed (although it is drawn out a bit). Another of the film's greatest assets is Randy Newman's superb, zippy score which was nominated for an Oscar. The film's excellent closing song (performed by Goodman and Crystal) earned the film its only Academy Award (an Oscar well earned!).

Pixar creations are always greatly elevated by the remarkable vocal talent they continue to attract. With computer-animated films grossing hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, big-time actors are far more eager to get involved in such a lucrative industry. In the case of Monsters, Inc., the cast is lead by the duo of the always-reliable John Goodman and the impeccable Billy Crystal. In an unprecedented break from tradition, Goodman and Crystal recorded their dialogue together (rather than separately). As well as voicing their respective characters, their screen personas are also drawn upon.
John Goodman is an ideal choice for Sulley. His deep voice suits the build of the character, and conveys a gentle-giant tone. Under Goodman's watch, Sulley becomes a big lovable teddy bear. Billy Crystal is his usual chaotic self as Sulley's one-eyed assistant Mike. Crystal steals the show and provides a large amount of the comedy.

The villain for the heroes to contend with is a reptilian creature named Randall, voiced by the terrific Steve Buscemi. As the diabolical villain, Buscemi is almost unrecognisable...and it's all the better for it. His usual quirky voice would never suit the character. The far more sinister voice he offers here, however, is a perfect fit. Jennifer Tilly is a great fit as the feisty love interest for Mike. The venerable James Coburn is suitably dignified as Mr. Waternoose; the owner of Monsters, Incorporated. Also in the cast is Mary Gibbs whose baby-talk makes Boo all the more adorable. In addition, Bob Peterson is hilarious as the tough-as-nails Dispatch Manager (Peterson's voice was apparently only temporary, but deemed such a success that it was kept in the final film), Franz Oz is very amusing as Randall's squirrelly accomplice (known as Fungus), and then there's John Ratzenberger (who stars in every Pixar film) who makes a side-splitting cameo as the Abominable Snowman.

The year 2001 saw the release of two greatly successful computer-animated features - Pixar's Monsters, Inc. and Dreamworks' Shrek. While the latter earned the Best Animated Feature Oscar and is by far the hipper of the two flicks, the former is still cheerful, creative, high-energy entertainment with a large supply of gags and a lot of heart. Judging by the box office results of Monsters, Inc. and Shrek, it seems the future of animation lies with computer-generated creations. Traditional animation may fast become extinct. As long as computer-animated films maintain this high level of quality, its ascendance to king of the animation realm can only be perceived as a positive thing. Monsters, Inc. reaffirms the fact that a good animated movie can be every bit as stimulating and satisfying as a live action endeavour. This is an easy recommendation.

"Just think about a few names for a second: Bigfoot. Loch Ness. The Abominable Snowman. They all have one thing in common, pal: Banishment! We could be next!"


7.6/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Fox are the idiots here!

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 6 March 2009 11:21 (A review of Idiocracy)

"As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down."


As Idiocracy commences, we're presented with a fairly convincing theory regarding the future of the human species. For centuries, science fiction stories have usually portrayed a future world as a crisp utopia of science and advanced learning with flying cars and phenomenal technology. The future has also been illustrated as a desolate post-apocalyptic wasteland. These are perfectly believable theories. However, Idiocracy - a film helmed by Mike Judge, a man also responsible for Beavis and Butt-Head and 1999's Office Space - tosses these theories in the toilet and offers an alternate vision of where mankind is headed. According to Judge, in the future humans may have a lower IQ than a muffin.

Judge's theory may appear outlandish, but think about it... the Jackass flicks are able to reach #1 at the box office while intelligent, provocative movies such as Michael Clayton and Children of Men perish at the box office (still earning a modest profit, but very slowly). One factor Idiocracy brings to the fore is that destitute, dim-witted families screw and breed like rodents while smart, well-off families restrict themselves to one or two offspring. Hence, the smart population may develop into an endangered species before ultimately becoming extinct. Judge's savage attack on American idiocy (which went through many title changes, originally being known as 3001 and Amerikwa) takes the form of an eye-wateringly hilarious hybrid of sci-fi and comedy. Judge's script is pervaded with endless wit and creativity, never becoming preachy in its depiction of the future but ensuring it'd be quite possible to ponder Judge's message about modern man. Mike Judge is simply the perfect guy to produce a movie about a future overrun by morons, as his entire career is built on mining the stupidity of North America for laughs. Idiocracy is loaded with a frighteningly realistic concept...but it's in an amusing wrapper.

"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."


Private Joe Bowers (Wilson) is the dictionary definition of an "Average Joe". So incredibly average, in fact, that the Pentagon selects Joe to be a guinea pig for their latest experiment - labelled the "The Human Hibernation Project" which will test whether the best men in the military can be frozen indefinitely until they're needed the most. Joe - along with a hooker named Rita (Rudolph) - are cryogenically frozen for the military experiment...only to wake up to a 26th century in which morons have inherited the planet. Suddenly it's discovered that Joe is the smartest person alive, and is recruited to solve all the world's stupidity-caused problems.

"Comin' up next on The Violence Channel: An all-new "Ow, My Balls!""


When Idiocracy is boiled down to the essentials, it's an uproarious comedy and a potent bitch-slap of a social commentary. After initially conveying the alarming concept that America's future has fallen into the hands of the moronic and irresponsible, Judge's script begins to attack not only America's commercial sponsorship culture, but the entertainment tastes of the citizens as well. In this future the most popular show on television is called Ow! My Balls!, which is precisely what you'd expect - a string of scenes showcasing a character being repeatedly hit below the belt. Everyone's favourite channel is The Masturbation Network. Winner of eight Oscars in 2505 (including Best Original Screenplay) is Ass - which is just 90 minutes of a flatulent bare butt.

Judge also proceeds to criticise Gatorade (labelled "Brawndo" here), using the general futility of sport drinks to accentuate the misleading nature of predatory corporations as well as the gullibility of consumers who will believe anything they read. Conversations are now sponsored as well. 2505 is a world where it has become commonplace for citizens to be named Hormel and Beef Supreme. Starbucks is now an establishment that only sells hand-jobs, Butt-F**kers is a restaurant which hosts birthday parties for children, and if a topic doesn't pertain to sex, balls or farting, nobody wishes to discuss it. Idiocracy eventually ventures into the political realm, transforming a presidential address into a wrestling main event and revealing that positions in the White House can be won in competitions! As a satire, Mike Judge's gem is a cold steel blade to the gut. Judge is a brilliant satirist, relishing his opportunity to expose our insatiable need for stupidity.

This tour de force of satiric savagery is bitingly hysterical, shooting arrows at the Jackass crowd and highlighting the general dumbing down of humankind. Once a viewer tunes into Judge's jaundiced wavelength, one will recognise how drop-dead hilarious this flick truly is. There are levels to the humour here - broad + subversive, and scatological. These two levels are incredibly proficient in allowing a viewer to accept the premise. When, say, a fart joke occurs, the real gag isn't the actual passing of gas but how funny the stupid population finds it. Virtually every scene is full of genuinely hilarious moments, not to mention it's packed with little details, from hairdos to the colossal futility of the law system in 2505 to the latest technological advancements. Subtle visual gags are also hysterical - unfinished highways where cars keep driving off before piling up at the bottom, appalling misspellings everywhere, and a Costco the size of a city. Stupid characters are usually a turn-off, but Idiocracy features characters so completely and surrealistically brainless that it's practically impossible not to laugh.

"Don't worry scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."


Luke Wilson's laidback style has never suited him better. As the poor schmuck accidentally sent five hundred years into the future, Wilson is impeccable and oddly appealing. His introductory scenes - establishing him as the laziest, most under-achieving average bloke in the army - are some of the best-written segments of the screenplay. Dax Shepard is also excellent as Joe's astonishingly dumb, dim-witted best friend Frito. It's hysterical watching Dax giving Joe a look of total vacancy. Even Maya Rudolph, who usually signifies the end of all things good (Duplex, American version of Kath & Kim), is a riot as a hooker from 2005 who's convinced her pimp will manage to come forward in time and kick her ass.
Terry Crews, as well, is an absolute hoot as President Camacho. Also look out for cameos by Judge regular Stephen Root, and even Justin Long.

As enjoyable as Idiocracy is, it most certainly isn't without its faults. The low budget couldn't accommodate state-of-the-art special effects...and the film is stuck with awful, cartoonish CGI creations (interestingly, some of the special effects were done for free by Robert Rodriguez). The low budget is frequently obvious. Despite being enjoyable, the film is also unable to conceal the almost lethal plot holes. In the future, the technological advancements are frankly amazing; from identities tattooed onto citizens to gigantic cars with advanced gizmos, and even special effects in television programs...not to mention televisions are huge and impressive. But this begs the question: with the world populated entirely by idiots with no knowledge of how to create such technology, how the hell could these technological advancements have occurred? And how could they be so widespread when the morons wouldn't know how to manufacture more of them, let alone repair them when one is broken? In addition to these faults, there are some minor pacing issues. There's also too much narration which indicates plain lazy filmmaking.

"Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them."


Here's what happened to Idiocracy: Fox test screened the movie with a reportedly catastrophic reaction. Unsure with what to do with Judge's little film, Fox granted it a tiny theatrical release - not even bothering to create posters or a trailer - before dumping it on DVD (even though legions of Mike Judge fans were highly anticipating it). As audiences began watching it on DVD, conspiratorial murmurs were sparked, talking about how good the movie is and that the studio just didn't get it. Or perhaps Fox grew nervous on account of Judge skewering big commercial industries. Fox is the pet of Rupert Murdoch, after all, who's the captain of industry and baron of big business. Nevertheless, studios release dozens of indefensible films every single year. Especially when compared to some of the diabolical dirge rushed into cinemas each year, Idiocracy was undeserving of its treatment. It isn't the unfunny flop one would expect...the jokes are usually dumb, but the final result is subversively intelligent. Funny? Yes, and it's also a potent wake-up call to a very probable future. Be sure to stay until the end of the credits.

7.7/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An audacious film...definitely worth a Watch!

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 5 March 2009 03:56 (A review of Watchmen)

"An attack on one is an attack on all of us."


Twenty-three years in the making, director Zack Snyder's ambitious and audacious cinematic rendering of the acclaimed Watchmen graphic novel (by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons) is a dense and visceral exercise in the liberation of the conventional superhero movie. Moore's original 1986 effort was a nihilistic satire which deconstructed and intensely studied super heroes in a real world setting, begetting an adult sensibility and a mature approach to what had (up until then) been commonly dismissed as a medium aimed at kids. Loyal almost to a fault, director Zack Snyder's Watchmen grasps Moore's subversive magnum opus of comicdom and brings it to the big screen in a visually astounding, multi-layered filmic experiment guaranteed to divide audiences. Never straying too far from the material, Snyder's compelling motion picture is infused with sound and images combined to generate a unique visual experience that commendably evokes the atmosphere of a graphic novel. Watchmen is a bold, bizarre and breathtaking slice of cinema arguably for both newcomers and fans alike.

In a masterfully implemented opening credits sequence (set to Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changing), the complete history of masked vigilantism is displayed - from its quaint beginnings in the forties to its eventual outlawing in the seventies. This title sequence introduces a viewer to the world in which the proceedings will transpire. The execution is simply faultless; mind-blowing tableaus and short scenes are rendered perfectly to convey the story so far. It's simply one of the greatest title sequences this reviewer has ever beheld.

Watchmen takes place in an alternate reality in which superheroes have become part of the fabric of everyday society. However, these costumed vigilantes have been outlawed, and those still in operation are working for the government. It's 1985, and Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as President of the United States. The Vietnam War was won by America, and now they're on the brink of nuclear war with Russia.
In his high-rise apartment building, an amoral former superhero known as The Comedian (Morgan) is brutally murdered. This triggers an investigation by washed-up, mentally unstable vigilante Rorschach (Haley) who becomes convinced the crime was not random, and that someone may be bumping off the last of the costumed crime fighters. As Rorschach's investigation intensifies, it grows clear that a far more diabolical plot is poised for execution...a plot which could mean cataclysmic consequences for the entire world. With this at stake, Rorschach reunites with his former colleagues - Nite Owl (Wilson) and Silk Spectre II (Akerman) - who don their costumes once again and leap into action.

"Watchmen. One of us died tonight. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows."


The plotting probably sounds complex...and it is! Moore's Watchmen ran for twelve issues, and sufficient material was conceived for practically double that amount. Concerns regarding the translation from book to film were more than justified. There is far too much content in the original series, ergo it'd seem virtually impossible for said content to be faithfully crammed into a single movie. Thus, as directors came and left the project and as the production was mired in development hell, questions were raised in regards to how much of the comic book would reach the big screen and what sort of liberties a filmmaker might take. Within a running time bordering on three hours, Snyder has been successful in keeping large segments of the graphic novel intact. Considering the time constraints (not to mention the studio pressure for a concise runtime) and how much one single film can contain, Snyder has done a laudable job of generating a tremendous sense of fidelity to the source material. Granted, various elements have reportedly been removed altogether, others have been condensed and the end has been slightly changed, but a lot of the film is lifted directly from the comic (Snyder has promised a Director's Cut, featuring more of the excised subplots). In fact, Watchmen is probably far too reliant on its source material, never convincingly developing into its own entity. David Hayter and Alex Tse's screenplay also struggles to compact the graphic novel into coherent storytelling - some of it is garbled. But the non-converted (this reviewer included) are offered enough character development and explication to bring one up to speed. Interestingly, with the script conforming to the graphic novel so loyally, the movie also lacks a sense of urgency as well as - above all - a solid driving force behind the plot.

For those unfamiliar with the source material, don't be deceived by the intense trailers. A few violent, hard-hitting action sequences here and there notwithstanding, Watchmen is no action film. Snyder's previous cinematic creation, 300 (also a graphic novel adaptation), was an action film plagued with historical inaccuracies and irritating, excessive slow motion. Snyder's Watchmen (taking heed of Moore's graphic novel) eschews frequent action, instead presenting a 160-minute examination of the human (and not-so-human) psyche. It provokes a stimulating question: who would be crazy enough to don a costume and battle crime? The heroes inhabiting Watchmen are murderers, sadists, rapists, sexual deviants and emotionally-detached maniacs. This troubled congregation of heroes have their back-stories revealed over the film's lengthy duration. Graphic violence (we're talking buckets of blood!) is contrasted by sensual sex scenes and the emotional pathos of unexpected relationships. The film commences with a murder - walls are smashed, furniture is broken, knives are flung, glass is shattered, blood is spilt and a body is tossed. This gritty, brutal tone (as well as the energy in the visuals) is sustained throughout the entire flick - this is perhaps Watchmen's biggest asset.

Snyder knocks this one out of the park. His direction exudes a certain maturity; his shots framed to resemble illustrations present in graphic novels. Over the decades, a variety of directors (including Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and Darren Aronofsky) have become involved but backed off when confronted with the sheer enormity of the task at hand. But Snyder eventually stepped up to the task, helming an extraordinary motion picture worthy of several viewings. However, the director's trademark slo-mo action nonsense is on display here, along with occasionally jarring editing. The slow motion hardly works, ultimately coming off as gimmicky. Yet, it would be iniquitous to begrude Snyder's astonishing, meticulous work as a whole.

The film's R-rating (from the MPAA) is also very much merited. The gore quotient is frankly astounding! Bones are crushed, blood sprays everywhere, people explode...there's visual excitement of every cinematic kind! Rapes occur, as do sex scenes. Heavy thematic material is also in play, which is hard to stomach (misogyny is certainly present). This is a dense work filled with so many layers. Its deeper meanings are almost impossible to entirely absorb on a single viewing (reviewing the film is therefore a daunting prospect).

With Larry Fong's magnificent cinematography and Alex McDowell's amazing production design, the noir-ish, rain-soaked mid-80s depiction of New York City is effectively realised. Garish, colourful costumes are also present, which are similar to those within its literature counterpart. Staggering visual effects and near-perfect CGI are in play here. The characters literally descent off the pages, and the appearance of the world takes its cues from the original illustrations by Gibbons. It's easy to immerse yourself into the eloquently-executed world of Watchmen with technical proficiency of this standard. On top of this, the music is exceptional, as is the use of opera throughout the dramatic lead-up to the shocking finale. Not only is Tyler Bates' original score utilised here...an unforgettable selection of covers also pervade the soundtrack, most notably The Sound of Silence.

"We can do so much more. We can save this world... with the right leadership."


The cast do an exemplary job of inhabiting their characters, with special recognition going to Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. Haley's face is mostly obscured by a balaclava, therefore he can only convey emotions through his voice, and he does so very well. Rorschach is more or less a violent version of Phillip Marlowe with a gruff voice that's surprisingly comprehensible (take notes for your next Batman outing, Christian Bale). With his hat, overcoat and an ever-changing balaclava, he's the ultimate noir anti-hero; an unbalanced detective with his own brand of demented justice. The film is told through Rorschach's journal entries, with Haley presenting utterly perfect narration throughout. Haley's performance is the best in the entire film. Beside him, Patrick Wilson wholly encapsulates Nite Owl. The actor looks perfect in both civilian clothing and his superhero costume, while also giving the character a sense of humanity. Billy Crudup is unexpectedly engaging and a constant source of fascination - an awesome visual effect of a naked, blue-tinged superman.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan places forth an excellent performance as The Comedian. There's also Matthew Goode and Malin Akerman as Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II, respectively. They've been perceived as the weakest links of the cast, but I disagree. Akerman is appealing and truly beautiful, whereas Goode is sapped of emotion yet engaging.
Outside these actors there's an enormous supporting cast, all of which turn in great performances.

Watchmen has been frequently branded as the 'unfilmable' graphic novel. It was created with the specific intention in mind of underlining the restrictions of cinema - its boundless artistry seemed impossible to bring to life. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' graphic novel was a sprawling twelve-issue series that satirised the superhero genre, held a confronting mirror up to society, mutated events of the past and set the bar for "mature" comics of the future. Watchmen possibly is unfilmable, but Zack Snyder's attempt is monumental and commendable nonetheless. Strokes of brilliance (in the dialogue, special effects, acting) are united with occasionally garbled storytelling, producing an altogether worthy cinematic appropriation of the graphic novel. Never mind the sometimes laboured screenplay as this is riveting viewing. Snyder's remarkable picture is a ballsy, brainy, entertaining and thoroughly bloody examination of human nature, pop culture, and the "good old days" that never were.

The world will look up and shout "Save us!"... And I'll whisper "No."


7.9/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A touchstone in the action genre...

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 3 March 2009 02:28 (A review of The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3)

"Now, then, ladies and gentlemen, do you see this gun? It fires 750 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition per minute. In other words, if all of you simultaneously were to rush me, not a single one of you would get any closer than you are right now. I do hope I've made myself understood."


The type of gritty, ruthless thriller that could only emerge during the '70s, Joseph Sargent's classic subway suspenser The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a total hardboiled treat! This culturally influential production (Quentin Tarantino used the concept of colours as codenames for Reservoir Dogs) mixes tense action, cat & mouse mind-games, sly political satire and New York atmosphere, spawning a competent genre movie that never forgoes respect for the intelligence of its viewers. Screenwriter Peter Stone (basing his script on John Godey's novel of the same name) has penned a terrific gem of an action movie - it's intelligent, credible and exciting, and (best of all) it gets right down to business. When the movie opens we're thrust directly into the intense hostage-taking situation without a great deal of explication preceding it. The true genius of this riveting picture is that the characters are developed adequately as the story quickly progresses.

Pelham 123 - a New York City subway train - becomes the focal point of an audacious terrorist attack. A tense situation unfolds when four armed men step aboard this train and hijack it, taking hostage the eighteen passengers from the first carriage (plonking said carriage halfway between stations). The established leader of the group - an ex-mercenary known only as Mr. Blue (Shaw) - demands a million dollars for the release of the hostages, allowing precisely one hour for the money to be delivered...and a hostage will be shot for each minute the money is late. The Transit Authority, the NYC Police Department, as well as the Mayor and his colleagues are sent into a frenzied but coordinated action, rushing to meet the rapidly-approaching deadline...
Lieutenant Zachary Garber (Matthau) undertakes negotiations with the cold, calculating Mr. Blue.

"Please inform the mayor that we demand one million dollars cash for the release of the car and all the hostages, right?
The time is now 2:13. The money must be in our hands not later than 3:13 - one hour from now. Now, if the money is not in our hands, we'll kill one hostage for every minute you're late."


The Taking of Pelham One Two Three wastes no time at all. Rather than expending two reels detailing the heist, the film commences the instant the caper is executed. The swift, brisk pacing is the pinnacle of perfection for this genre - it never plods and never hurries too much. It engages a viewer from the very first minute, riveting through a stack of twists and lots of nail-biting tension. Furthermore, there's hardly an implausible step in the entire picture. Peter Stone's screenplay is infused with realism as well as being laden with witty, clever dialogue and a subtle sense of humour. It triggers a great deal more laughs than one would anticipate. A lot of Noo Yawkese talk is also present in the script (lots of curse words), with main star Matthau delivering lines with a heavy NYC accent.

Most action movies have an unfortunate tendency to waste time and have its length extended by filling the screen with unnecessary car chases, explosions, and general mayhem. Joseph Sargent's masterpiece contains none of this. What needs to be spoken is articulated... No flab is appended during the hasty, heart-pounding journey towards an exhilarating climax (a conclusion some will hate, but I adored). The Taking of Pelham One Two Three features honest storytelling and compelling drama fuelled by sublime acting. No gimmicky special effects, no big explosions...just a straightforward story supported by Sargent's top-notch direction and David Shire's spellbinding score, not to mention great editing and terrific cinematography.

If there is one blunder, it's that the passengers of the train are too thinly drawn and stereotypical - ranging from a mother with two bratty children to a streetwise pimp and a wise old man. They're too clichéd to be an accurate depiction of the general public, and far too one-dimensional for us to genuinely care about them. Also, inevitably, there are some technical imperfections. These slight faults, however, hardly injure this incredible exercise in thriller-making.

"The guy who's talking's got a heavy English accent. He could be a fruitcake."


Walter Matthau's best caustic energies are discharged as the Transit Authority lieutenant, and the script is loaded with dialogue just right for the star's benign bad temper. No-one can play this role as perfectly as Matthau, whose comedic instincts are as delightful as his tense negotiating. The very last shot of the film (featuring the actor) is utterly precious, concluding the film on a fitting comedic tone. Robert Shaw and Martin Balsam - one endowed with calm brutality, the other glazed with obvious regret - are credible as train hijackers. Shaw (R.I.P) is particularly excellent as the cold-blooded central villain... his steely performance simultaneously fascinating and frightening. This is another in the actor's gallery of memorable antagonists, coolly flicking through the pages of a puzzle book whilst bargaining with people's lives. The core relationship of the picture - between Shaw's intimidating English killer and Matthau's wisecracking cop - is terrifically etched even though the two communicate solely via radio. The editing back and forth during their conversations is sharp, accentuating the two strong performances and adding to the suspense.

On top of this, the supporting cast is great! Lee Wallace makes a pleasing, indecisive slob of a mayor. Tom Pedi is particularly good as an outraged official who is unable to tolerate a mess in the subway. Hector Elizondo and Earl Hindman are great as members of the gang of hijackers, and Jerry Stiller has a minor role as a Transit Authority official.

Interestingly, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three reportedly did terrific box office in New York, Toronto, Paris and London (all cities with subways) but flopped in other parts of the world. This timeless action picture presents a skilful combination of hilarious black comedy, nail-biting tension, gripping drama and gritty action. On top of this, the underlying premise is a perfectly plausible event. In fact, the only element of fantasy is the implication the city's departments could function so smoothly together. Director Joseph Sargent may have helmed some turkeys in his career (Jaws: The Revenge, anybody?), but he at least was responsible for The Taking of Pelham One Two Three - this remarkable, exciting '70s crime-thriller, and one of the only action pictures in cinematic history to be endowed with a rousing plot.

The film was remade for TV in 1998, and again in 2009 (this time a theatrical summer picture, directed by Tony Scott and starring Denzel Washington).

9.1/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Enjoyable comedy-drama...

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 1 March 2009 04:27 (A review of Reality Bites (1994))

I am not under any orders to make the world a better place.


Written by Helen Childress and helmed by Ben Stiller (his directorial debut), Reality Bites focuses on Generation X and effectively encapsulates the era of the early nineties. From the word go it was clear this nostalgic romp would cart a viewer down a dull river of Gen-X blues, concentrating on the depressing career and lifestyle choices confronted by these specific youths. Stiller's first effort as a director is a straightforward, independent-style movie about a love triangle that seems keen to impart a strong message: life is dismal and tough when you're young. The picture emphasises this message, but with such a bleak tenor it doesn't even offer a glimmer of hope. Time has been surprisingly good to Reality Bites; its themes still potent and music still beguiling (at least in my eyes). At the end of the day, however, stripped away of its hyped relevance the film possesses little to make it superior to your average, generic rom-com. Interestingly, the title of Reality Bites is irritatingly ambiguous: does it imply that life bites or does it purport that small bites of reality are presented within?

Reality Bites primarily concentrates on four Gen-X youths fresh out of college (three graduating, one not). Lelaina (Ryder), more or less the main character, is a disillusioned young girl in the process of making a pseudo-documentary on the lives of her friends that focuses on post-college life. She acts as an intern for the insufferable host of a Good Morning programme, but her aspirations are far higher. Troy (Hawke), a grungy, unemployed slacker who failed to graduate from college, is her best friend who moves into her apartment after being fired from his latest job. Also living with Lelaina is Vickie (Garofalo); a woman who has disregarded her morals and has become manager of The Gap, but who's also paranoid she might have AIDS. Then there's Sammy (Zahn) who's confused about his sexuality.
Lelaina meets a tense young studio executive named Michael (Stiller) who takes an immediate shine to her. But Troy doesn't approve of this relationship as he harbours unspoken feelings for Lelaina underneath his slacker veneer. As a love triangle forms, Lelaina must choose which she values the most - an affluent life of materialism with Michael, or a possibly unstable life of philosophical musings with Troy.

By its conclusion, Reality Bites is unsuccessful in demonstrating any positive outcome one can experience in life, even if it means one has to place their ego aside momentarily. Michael offers Lelaina a wonderful opportunity, and I personally feel she should have accepted it. But no - the ending is instead a big dud.

Director Stiller and screenwriter Helen Childress (who was 19 when she completed the script) endeavoured to capture the lives of Gen-X youths with brutal honesty in this film, and they succeed. The lives of these young people are actually quite mundane, however. Granted, Gen-X youths lived mundane lives, but these characters are feebly written. The four friends living together speak in confusing, poetic riddles. Some lines are quotable ("There's no point to any of this. It's all just a random lottery of meaningless tragedy and a series of near escapes"), other instances are unnecessary and ultimately seem forced ("You've reached the winter of our discontent"). In addition, the characters are very poorly delineated. The heroine comes across as whiney and full of contradictions (she's valedictorian of her college class, yet isn't able to continue her speech with palm-cards missing, not to mention she's curiously inarticulate and embarrassingly coy on dates). Troy is the ultimate definition of a lay-about loser (he didn't even graduate from college!), but he spouts wisdom incessantly. Despite a charismatic portrayal courtesy of Ethan Hawke, he appears to be the character we're supposed to hate. On the other hand, the guy we're supposed to hate (Ben Stiller as Michael) is the only likable guy in the film! By the film's end, Steve Zahn's Sammy and Janeane Garofalo's Vickie also seem merely perfunctory and redundant.

"You can't navigate me. I may do mean things, and I may hurt you, and I may run away without your permission, and you may hate me forever, and I know that scares the living shit outta you 'cause you know I'm the only real thing you got."


Various critics found the characters inhabiting Reality Bites to be predominantly cookie-cutter and therefore boring. But to me this seems deliberate in order to capture the era faithfully. Gen-X youths were cookie-cutters. In Roger Ebert's review for this production, he discussed the poor filmmaking skill of Lelaina whose footage is frequently nauseating. However, again, this seems deliberate to me, and at no stage does the film attempt to make us believe that Lelaina is a genius of verité cinema. After all, her footage is frequently rejected by professionals, and ultimately made commercial by Michael's company in order for their target audience to enjoy it. On that note, Reality Bites is an insightful picture...it offers an extraordinary glimpse of the cultural mentality of Gen-X and how it plays out in practise.

In his directorial debut, Stiller appears to go to great lengths to satirise MTV Programming (In Your Face TV!) as well as other culture points, slyly nodding at everything from the Big Gulp to The Gap. Thrown in the mix are also the spectres of AIDS, homosexuality and parental divorce (at an early age), not to mention there's a lot of on-screen smoking. On top of this, Reality Bites is infused with a satisfying cocktail of classic songs. It has everything from Peter Frampton to Alice Cooper to Crowded House to U2 to The Knack (My Sharona). Perhaps one can look upon this movie as horribly dated as everything is essentially eighties and nineties, but it can also be perceived as an authentic window into an era which is long behind us. Reality Bites is, however, much more than this. It's a genuinely enjoyable and engaging slice of cinematic entertainment. It provides a few great laughs (Lelaina goes out with a side-splitting bang from her job) as well as poignant, absorbing drama.

Before Winona Ryder hit the media on account of her kleptomania, she was a stunning actress. Reality Bites features one of the finest performances of her career. All those years ago she was beautiful and possessed fine acting skills. In this movie she's impeccable - cute, funny, exasperated and tortured in all the right ways. The standout of the cast, however, is Ethan Hawke as the overplayed Gen-X character that's smart yet down on the world and against conformity. Hawke inhabits his character with eye-opening realism, and is perfect for the role (some predicaments with the writing of his character notwithstanding). Director-star Ben Stiller has offered a few fascinating comments in relation to his onscreen antagonism with Hawke mirroring their offscreen relationship. Stiller delivers a heartfelt, sincere performance as Michael, sometimes raising questions as to whether this yuppie is a better choice for Lelaina. It's a shame, though, that Stiller's great comedic talents have gone to waste here.
In the supporting cast, Steve Zahn and Janeane Garofalo turn in terrific early performances. Also look out for Renée Zellweger in her feature film debut. Members of director Stiller's family also make appearances - his sister Amy voicing a psychic phone friend, and mother Anne playing the character who asks Winona's Lelaina to define "irony".

All things considered, Reality Bites is a movie not for all tastes. For me, Ben Stiller's feature film debut as a director can be labelled as perfectly acceptable entertainment. It's a fresh, unique comedy-drama (with an awesome soundtrack) and an incisive examination of Generation X that depicts these youths as intricate human beings. It may not be the definitive document of Gen-X, but Reality Bites is a touchstone for anyone fresh out of college and stuck with more ideals than job prospects. It's worth 95 minutes of your time.

7.6/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

It doesn't suck...

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 25 February 2009 02:03 (A review of The Defender)

You messed with the wrong country and you fucked the wrong President!


In an era of political unrest and global chaos, it's a small comfort - but a comfort nonetheless - that superstar Dolph Lundgren is still around to keep the world safe. For The Defender, Lundgren not only stars but also directs... And you know what? Despite the odds stacked against him, this flick doesn't suck, nor does Dolph's surprisingly decent direction. Certainly, The Defender is brainless, unrealistic and riddled with clichés...but it doesn't suck. In fact, this is an endlessly entertaining, straightforward shoot-'em-up action movie. It's overflowing with violence, shootouts and blood; reminding its target audience as to why we loved the brainless action films of the 1980s. Perhaps it comes as no shock that Lundgren's directorial debut is a low-budget direct-to-DVD affair, but - even for a picture inhabiting the suicidal DTD realm - The Defender looks surprisingly self-assured. With its top-notch action sequences and satisfactory acting, Lundgren's first effort as a director has a lot going for it. But alas, it's ultimately hamstrung by preposterous plotting.

As for the storyline: it's a tense time for the United States and its allies as they wage the War on Terror. The President of the United States (played by Jerry Springer...yes, that Jerry Springer is the President) has launched a new Peace Initiative. Unbeknownst to the general public, the National Security Advisor (Lee-Johnson) is making a secret trip to Romania to negotiate a peace agreement. To ensure this meeting runs smoothly, Gulf War veteran Lance Rockford (Ludgren) is employed as head of security, leading a few disposable agents. As the enigmatic meeting plays out, a group of armed militants attack Rockford and his team. The assault is relentless and never-ending (a little reminiscent of Assault on Precinct 13, actually), putting Rockford to the test as he works to protect both himself and the National Security Advisor.

Sidney J. Furie (the man behind 2003's Detention) was originally attached to direct The Defender, but fell ill during the pre-production period. Since Dolph Lundgren had worked closely with Furie beforehand (as well as a handful of other directors, ranging from John Woo to Roland Emmerich), and because the actor had worked with the screenwriter during development, the producers asked Dolph to step up and direct the picture. A few too many gimmicky shots and too much slow motion notwithstanding, Dolph has proved an excellent director with his first effort. The Defender is easily one of the most action-saturated shoot-'em-up action flicks of late. It's also leaps and bounds above anything Van Damme or Steven Seagal has featured in recently. After about twenty minutes of admittedly slow exposition, the flick goes balls-to-the-wall. Once the enemies fire their first shot, respite is infrequent as the movie propels through action sequence after action sequence.

This is hard R material as well. Massive kudos to Dolph for being unafraid to craft gritty, brutal, very violent shootouts! Bullets hit their targets, blood flows in torrents, necks are snapped and squibs detonate like crazy. The final hour is more or less an extended action sequence, and the action is simply sublime. Maxime Alexandre's wonderfully crisp and intense cinematography places a viewer in the action. There's also tight editing and great pacing as the kinetic energy barely lulls. The sound effects are also outstanding; easily one of the flick's biggest assets. However, one downfall is the dreadful music courtesy of Adam Nordén. The music reminds the audience they are watching a DTD affair. It's occasionally tense but at other times the music is grating for the ears.

Bolstering the exhilarating on-screen happenings is an unfortunately (yet quite unsurprisingly) trite story. Lots of questions go unanswered in the first hour; pretty much leaver a viewer in the dark. We have no idea what the meeting is for and who the National Security Advisor is meeting. For the first hour, a viewer can't help but be riveted as they await all the answers. However, when the revelations are finally unveiled they almost entirely nullify the prior plot developments. The whole point of the operation is absurd and on the verge of anticlimactic.
There are also a few too many overly dramatic moments scattered throughout the 90-minute duration. In addition, the film doesn't allow an audience to become attached to the characters. The protagonist is uninteresting and we simply don't care about him, nor do we care when a minor character is killed. The Defender is ultimately an action story that's solid on the action, but unrewarding on the story.

Cast-wise, things are fairly standard. Dolph Lundgren places forth a solid performance, although the part never calls for any overwhelming acting skills. Dolph enjoys wading through the scenarios, barking commands ("Open fire!" for instance) and saying clichéd things. Of course, in this particular production Dolph isn't the only big star. Jerry Springer stars as the President of the United States. Mercifully, Jerry is given less than 10 minutes of screen time (still enough to garner second billing, though). Surprisingly, Jerry makes for a moderately convincing presidential figure, although he hardly seems like a popular candidate. There's also Caroline Lee-Johnson as the National Security Advisor. Not a bad actress per se, but nothing special.
The rest of the cast are pretty much just the constituents of Dolph's team. Shakara Ledard, Thomas Lockyer, Gerald Kyd, Ian Porter, Howard Antony, etc. As a team they share adequate chemistry, exchanging occasionally witty banter.

As a shoot-'em-up actioner, The Defender is an enjoyable time waster. While nothing groundbreaking for action cinema, Dolph's first directorial outing is a success! If the plotting was a little less absurd and more substance was present, I'd be recommending this film to no end. As it stands, though, The Defender contains a lot of fun mayhem with the absurdity meter shooting up to 11 (like when a sniper is shot from afar with a Beretta pistol despite being, you know, a fucking sniper). It's painful to admit, but I really enjoyed this film despite its shortcomings. As long as Dolph continues to direct new movies I'll continue to watch them.

It was truly great to witness Dolph Lundgren and Jerry Springer featuring in a movie together...up next is Steven Seagal and Dr. Phil.

5.9/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Could've been the next Michael Clayton...

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 24 February 2009 03:55 (A review of The International)

"Sometimes you find your destiny on the road you took to avoid it."


A dubious international bank with unethical practises lies at the centre of this cracking action-thriller that draws evident inspiration from such films as Michael Clayton and the Jason Bourne series. Helmed by German director Tom Tykwer (to date probably best known as the man behind the acclaimed high-voltage thriller Run Lola Run), The International commences as an intriguing slow-burn thriller before deflating in its closing act, and ultimately not quite delivering on its potential. Despite the reshoots that brought about a major release date shift (from August 2008 to February 2009), Tykwer's crisp thriller is too flabby; fundamentally playing out as a string of well-shot but usually uninvolving dialogue scenes interspersed with an occasional exhilarating action set-piece. First-time screenwriter Eric Singer is unable to suitably handle the fantastic premise, discarding imaginative ideas in favour of lazy, generic plotting. This "relevant" picture possesses the look and feel of a thriller, but not the heart or soul of one. The excellent trailers implied a product considerably superior to the disappointing final result. Viewers seeking an intelligent break from Bourne-style action-oriented thrillers will have to search elsewhere.

In The International, dedicated Interpol agent Louis Salinger (Owen) suspects deadly dealings at a high-profile Luxembourg-based financial institution known as the IBBC (International Bank of Business and Credit - a ficticious creation, of course). Louis collaborates with Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Eleanor Whitman (Watts) following the murder of their mutual colleague. The two become determined to bring the IBBC to justice as they uncover illegal activities including money laundering, arms trading and the destabilisation of governments. However, the bank is prone to assassinating those who get too close to exposing its profitable warmongering. As the investigation intensifies, the protagonists quickly become the next target of the IBBC which is additionally taking steps to dead-end the search.

The International should have been an intelligent, timely thriller that entertains as much as it rivets. However, requisite character development is absent and it consequently isn't alluring enough. On a positive note, Tykwer is a competent director. Tykwer's camera angles perfectly capture the intricate sets, and Frank Griebe's exquisite cinematography additionally takes advantage of the atmospheric European locales. Virtually every scene has a lively visual quality, and the director's stylistic touch is this film's greatest asset. Tykwer has a terrific eye for framing, but unfortunately he has a tin ear for dialogue. The characters inhabiting the well-composed shots speak in lumps of banal exposition, their faces unflatteringly set in frowns. As a cerebral thriller (something this production evidently aspires to be for the most part), The International lacks appeal.

The film's centrepiece is undoubtedly the elaborate shootout in Manhattan's Guggenheim Museum. This lies at the heart of the film's marketing campaign, and for good reason. This sequence was added after-the-fact on account of poor test screenings in order to increase the action quotient. While it's the action highlight of the movie, don't let the trailers fool you into watching the movie on the promise of gunplay alone.

For the spectacular Guggenheim Museum shootout, a convincing full-size replica of the building was constructed on a German soundstage. This sequence transforms the modern architectural wonder into a large-scale shooting gallery, leaving the place riddled with bullet-holes, broken glass, blood, dead bodies and expended shell casings. Preposterous, yes, but it's a masterpiece of contemporary action cinema. The cinematography is outstanding, as is the music, sound effects, special effects and acting. The International is a rare animal in this age of cinema - an R-rated picture. The blood spilt during the Guggenheim sequence is frankly astounding, resulting in an action scene that's about as breathtaking as it is dramatically unnecessary. Its inclusion indicates the filmmakers' tacit acceptance that the predominantly cerebral thriller is a dying breed. With this in mind, it's probably no surprise that Tykwer's effort is struggling to earn back its $50 million budget at the box office.

In addition to the Guggenheim shootout, The International is infused with suspenseful chases and a thrilling execution. But a few scenes subsequent to the Guggenheim shootout, the film hits a speed bump and clearly has no idea where to go. For such an intricate plot, the conclusion is anticlimactic. The flick fails in its resolution because it reduces all the subplots and developments to the simplest of equations: one man pointing a gun at another. For a production that wishes to be more than an ordinary thriller, The International finishes on an all-too-familiar note. The ending is also too frustratingly perplexing and ambiguous. It merely satisfying the audience's desire for bloodlust, and solves nothing. Perhaps most disappointing is that it probably could've been fixed. With snappier editing and a stronger sense of finality, The International could have been tagged with a far more satisfying conclusion.

Green screenwriter Eric Singer is simply the wrong man for the job. His script fails to offer insight into the bank's unethical practises, instead wasting its duration generating subplots concerning the investigation behind the bank's latest assassination and the pursuit for said assassin. For 90 minutes, The International is a great thriller despite some lengthy, draggy sections. But Singer has no idea where to go past these first 90 minutes; clueless as to how he should appropriately end this thing.

Jonas Skarssen: "What do you want?"
Louis Salinger: "I want some fucking justice."


As for the cast, the always-reliable Clive Owen displays great acting skills, reminding us that he'd be a terrific James Bond. Owen seems right at home as the hot-headed, passionate Interpol agent Louis Salinger. He ably delivers as both an action man and as a smart operator with a patent sense of right and wrong. Owen is nicely countered by Naomi Watts as the pragmatic Eleanor Whitman. Watts is criminally underused, however. Her character is not only underdeveloped...she's entirely undeveloped. The actress is far too good for this underwritten supporting role, as she stands around and functions as a liability.
The extraordinary Armin Mueller-Stahl is the most memorable performer for his stillness in a role of great intensity, depth and resonance. Mueller-Stahl is a truly inspired piece of casting. There's also the adequate Ulrich Thomsen as cold and callous bank chief Jonas Skarssen.

For all its serious intent, Tom Tykwer's The International proves to be a perilously naff thriller. It's an exquisitely-filmed and crafted flick, but the script is problematic. The screenplay is filled with clunky dialogue and ludicrous plotting, not to mention it also lacks the vital wit and depth which would allow it to be a topflight thinking-man's thriller. Tykwer's flick additionally contains characters too dull, not to mention most of the suspense falls flat. This could have been 2009's Michael Clayton, but inexperienced scripter Singer is no Tony Gilroy. I really wanted to love this movie, but the final quarter is far too detrimental. Mark this one as a missed opportunity.

6.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Boyle's greatest achievement!

Posted : 16 years, 1 month ago on 19 February 2009 03:35 (A review of Slumdog Millionaire)

Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it?

A: He cheated
B: He's lucky
C: He's a genius
D: It was written


Slumdog Millionaire is Danny Boyle's magnificent, elating cinematic adaptation of Vikas Swarup's prize-winning 2005 novel Q and A. Boyle's masterwork is simply the essential motion picture of 2008; an exquisite and engrossing filmic experience, infused with a searing portrait of the resilience of human spirit. It's a timeless, Capra-esque tale of adversity and rags-to-riches, told with dazzling passion and stunning visual agility. While housed in a bleak setting inhabited by a congregation of truly vile characters, Boyle's film is almost guaranteed to appease any viewer with a soft spot for beautifully sculpted contrivances. Slumdog Millionaire is a charming, uplifting tale about hope, destiny and love, and it will enrapture those who are willing to venture into its expressively-crafted world. For the record, a majority of the dialogue is articulated in English; however, some large segments are delivered in Hindi. But Boyle - in an utter masterstroke - has handled the subtitles colourfully and playfully, unlike the drab subtitles we're accustomed to reading. Slumdog Millionaire is a feverishly-paced, subtitled picture created with subtitle-phobes in mind. This is a visual and emotional journey that's brash, lively and compulsively enjoyable.

Uneducated 18-year-old Jamal Malik (Patel), a poor orphan from the slums of Mumbai, is poised to win a fortune (a staggering 20 million rupees) on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Defying all odds and expectations, Jamal has managed to answer every question so far correctly, rapidly approaching the top prize (an unprecedented feat in Indian television history). However, some grow suspicious of how a slumdog could be so knowledgeable, and capable of answering the extremely tough questions. Accused of cheating, Jamal is arrested and brutally interrogated by the police. Proving that life experience is far more valuable than education, Jamal is forced to relive his tumultuous early years for the authorities. The result is a flashback-rich tour into the horrors of Jamal's childhood; his episodic memories relating to each seemingly impossible question put to him on the show. A recurring individual in his memories is a certain Latika (Pinto), whom Jamal is in love with but frequently torn apart from.

"A few hours ago, you were giving chai for the phone walahs. And now you're richer than they will ever be. What a player!"


The structure of Slumdog Millionaire - as scripted by Simon Beaufoy (who also wrote The Full Monty) - may be borderline contrived, but the frenetically-told story amazingly submerges a viewer into its universe and produces suspense despite the outcome being quite obvious from the onset. The point of the story isn't whether Jamal will win the money...it's if he'll get his girl. Make no mistake, there's nothing special about the fairly conventional plot, nor the way it's played out. In this sense, Slumdog Millionaire shouldn't be a great film... But it is a great film. Boyle's direction oozes passion at every turn, offering an energy which keeps the film constantly in motion. The setting in Mumbai is another stroke of genius. To the untrained eye, the location is merely window dressing. But with this dressing comes a unique exotic flavour and an open window into a fascinating culture. The story works on multiple levels - it can be perceived as a romance, a thriller, and a glimpse at the ways in which a fast-developing economy is convulsing the fabric of Indian society.

Fresh from a picture which spent almost a year in post-production in order to get the special effects right, the post-Sunshine Danny Boyle was eager to race onto a project which could be shot fast and furiously. Employing his trademark visual frenzy, Boyle ensnares the viewer in the chaotic motion of Indian street life. Filmed predominantly on bustling locations, Slumdog Millionaire whips along with unguarded authenticity and an understanding of those struggling to survive at the impoverished base of a restrictive caste system. The engaging, agile camera turns the narrow corners of the slums and flies at the high speed of a train on which Jamal and his brother hitchhike. Boyle's collaboration with director of photography Anthony Dod Mantle thrusts a viewer headfirst into the chaotic and despairing world of its three youthful protagonists, wonderfully encapsulating both the excitement of children running amok and the relentless terror they experience on the street that's triggered by authority figures on both sides of the law. Production design is absolutely top-notch, emanating authenticity at every turn. On top of the terrific location work, the set for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? could be easily mistaken for the real deal. Not just the set design and cinematography, but the sound effects as well as the traits of the host are also spot on. Slumdog Millionaire simply looks and sounds flawless.

"When somebody asks me a question, I tell them the answer."


Movies that tend to get the Oscar community talking are usually thoughtful, introspective films with a heavy dosage of tragedy. Million Dollar Baby, Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Babel, Munich, and Mystic River are examples of Oscar contenders that refuse to leave you smiling once the credits begin to roll. Slumdog Millionaire stands out due to this. It is a movie that draws you in, makes you smile, and ends on an uplifting note. In a way, it's tough to believe a film that commences with such a brutal edge would eventually become so enriching and deliriously joyful. The opening sequence is pervaded with an ominous undertone, featuring scenes of torture taking place in the bowels of a drab police station. But Boyle's continuing sense of humour and decency buoys the moments of darkness and the eventual fairy-tale ending. Scotsman Boyle hasn't travelled to India with the intention of exposing the horrors of the slums at all... He headed to India to shoot an interesting story; one that could only take place in the ever-changing, ever-alive India. The conventional plot may not have succeeded in a more familiar setting. With Boyle's kinetic cinematic energy generating breakneck pace, and the true wonders of an exciting new culture, not to mention the stimulating and vivacious soundtrack, Slumdog Millionaire suddenly becomes sparky and vibrant. It ends predictably, but the journey to its conclusion is consistently extraordinary.

The entire cast shines. From the inexperienced Dev Patel to the veteran Bollywood star Anil Kapoor, talent is omnipresent. Patel is extremely appealing and likable as the protagonist. He's shy and soft-spoken, and we root for the poor little guy from the outset. Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Hemant Chheda also excel as Jamal at different stages in his life. Freida Pinto is simply beguiling as Latika. Her chemistry with Dev Patel is extraordinary. Their emotionally-charged performances allow a viewer to become completely invested in their relationship...longing for them to be reunited, and becoming heartbroken when they're torn apart.
Anil Kapoor is remarkable as the smarmy, cunning game show host who patronises Jamal every chance he gets, and whose motives are ruled by his desire for ratings.
Madhur Mittal, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala are uniformly excellent as Salim at different points in his life.

Slumdog Millionaire contains all the necessary elements to ensure it's a winner in general release (although one of the studios set to distribute the film was unsure of its commercial worth and was considering a DTD release) as well as a major Oscar contender. It's superbly acted by an able cast, it's wonderfully photographed, and it's overflowing with rich, unconventional location work. This groundbreaking tour de force has as much heart as it does energy, and it ultimately avoids becoming as formulaic as its premise might have allowed in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. The actors' enthusiasm, coupled with Boyle's passionate exertions behind the scenes, generates pure magic out of Slumdog Millionaire. A story of coincidences, luck and eventually destiny, this is a classic, if slightly clichéd tale, and one that has rarely felt or looked so alive with such astonishing visual flair. Laden with satisfying doses of humour, romance and suspense, Slumdog Millionaire is one of the best and most crowd-pleasing films of 2008, and it thoroughly deserved the honour of receiving the Best Picture Oscar.

"Maybe it's written..."


9.5/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry