Hello all! Today I will be reviewing "Cold Souls," starring Paul Giamatti. I know it's supposed to be a horror/action day, but I figured I'd mix things up a bit since I've been reviewing a lot of horror and action films lately.
"Cold Souls" is a film about a company that extracts and stores people's souls. Paul Giamatti plays himself as an actor that can't seem to separate himself from his character, so he decides to use this seemingly unorthodox service. Things get out of hand when Giamatti finds out that there's a black market for souls, and his is stolen and put on the market. It then becomes a wild goose chase to find and return Giamatti's soul to his body.
Pros:
1. If you laughed or giggled while reading the synopsis, don't worry; I did too. I thought it was a little silly sounding at first, but this is not the flat out comedy you might think it is. It's a lot more dramatic and serious than I thought it was going to be, and I loved that about it. Paul Giamatti gives a great performance as a man who is obviously very troubled, and has no where else to go but into the safe and secure words of the soul extractor. Giamatti is an insecure, under-confident person who doesn't know what else can help him, and I honestly believed that he would buy into and try a soul extraction, however unbelievable it might sound. Once his soul is gone, he takes on a whole new persona: he is hollow, empty and devoid of that "spark" of life that is essential to everyone's personality. He is the closest thing I can think of to someone without a soul (if there is such a thing).
2. The story, although farfetched and maybe a little silly, had a lot of heart and weighed heavy on my mind long after I watched the movie. I'm not one to believe in such a thing as a "soul," but after watching this film I began to wonder what would happen if they were real, and what would happen if you decided to get rid of it, sell it, or buy another person's soul. In the film, Giamatti uses a Russian poet's soul in place of his own when his gets stolen, and he becomes almost a different person. Would this happen if you inserted someone else's soul into you? Is your soul connected to your experiences, your brain, and your memories? It is a very introspective film, and really makes you think about what makes up your personality and your physical and emotional being.
3. The fact that Giamatti plays himself in the film is both refreshing and an interesting change from his usual roles. He's basically famous for playing a smarmy business man, or just a plain bad guy. This film shows his true potential to play a multi-layered, complicated character who is really trying to find out who he really is. There was a substance to him, a human-ness to him, that you don't get from every character in every movie. Playing yourself may be seen as a cop out to some, but to me it offers a window into the life of someone real, someone worth watching.
Cons:
1. The actress who plays the soul-carrier, the mule if you will, wasn't all that great. And it could just be because Giamatti out-acted pretty much everyone in the film; but even so, her character was good, but the way she presented it wasn't up to par for how awesome the movie was.
2. As amazing a job as Giamatti did, it seemed very much like a self serving film. No other character had the same level of importance as Giamatti, even though many characters were essential to the story. It would have been nice to see the director (or even Giamatti) care about someone other than himself. I know it's a story about his self discovery, but he shouldn't be the only important character in the story.
This movie really surprised me in more ways than one. Giamatti has confirmed his spot in my top list of favorite actors, and no story will ever be turned down by me, no matter how crazy it might sound. Charm and heart can come from any story, even the silly ones. Four stars for you, "Cold Souls"! Thanks for reading!
Monday, May 13, 2013
Review of The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)
Hello all! For my last review of the day (and week), I'll be reviewing "The Motorcycle Diaries," starring Gael Garcia Bernal and Rodrigo de la Serna.
"The Motorcycle Diaries" is based on the memoir of the same name, written by Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the forerunner of the Cuban revolution in the 1950's and 1960's. The film follows Guevara's journey with his best friend Alberto Grenado across the whole of South America between January and July of 1952. The journey started in Buenos Aires, Argentina and ended in Caracas, Venezuela. During the trip, they struggle with standard perils of travel, as well as introspective trials that each have to face. They start out as young, innocent and curious boys and end as more mature, hardened adults who are forced to see the injustices that have been going on around them for years, but never knew about. This whole trip eventually leads Guevara to abandon his promising career in medicine to become the political leader that he's become famous for being.
Pros:
1. Gael Garcia Bernal is superb in this film. He went through six months of research to play the role of Che Guevara, and it shows in his performance. He gives an absolutely exciting and enlightening performance as a young man who travels and experiences things that change him from an innocent boy to an educated, knowledgeable and frustrated man. Every actor's dream is to play a role like this; the role of an inspiring figure who fought for the good of his/her country. Whether or not they were successful, getting to play someone going through the journey of enlightenment is a treat for any actor, myself included. I only hope that someday I can pull off a performance that's even half the caliber of Bernal's. I'm looking forward to seeing more work from this amazing actor.
2. The relationship change between Guevara and his friend Grenado is also something to mention. Grenado was older than Guevara by seven years, so the first half of the movie shows Grenado as kind of an older brother figure, vowing to protect and guide Guevara while they're on their journey. However, as Guevara matures and sees what's actually going on in his own world, the audience sees a shift in roles between them. Guevara becomes the older brother figure, convincing Grenado to stray off their planned path and help those in need of their assistance. Guevara was so affected by the things that he saw: leper colonies, poor, indigenous peoples, and other types of underprivileged people that he essentially became the well known political figure we all know him to be because of this journey and his experiences that made him realize that his country needed a change. When an actor can make that much change in a character, but still feel like the same person, it's a great accomplishment, and they both did it superbly.
3. This film was shot on location, and used real indigenous people, as well as actors. They filmed in Argentina, Venezuela, Machu Pichu and other parts of Peru, they filmed at the Amazon River where the REAL leper colony is (there's even a scene where Bernal swims across the Amazon at night to get to the leper colony to spend his birthday with them on their isolated island, and he ACTUALLY swam in the Amazon River at night). Every location was rich, lush and beautiful, and an astounding place to film. It was a truly beautiful piece of artwork of a film, and you can only really appreciate it by watching it.
Let's face it, there are no cons for this movie. There were a couple of times that they used "shaky cam," and I got a little annoyed by it, but not enough to make it worth writing a "cons" section for this movie. This film was stupendous; it's lush, real, passionate, and has more heart of any movie I've probably ever seen. If you haven't seen it, you owe it to yourself to experience this movie. Five stars for you, "The Motorcycle Diaries"! If I could add more stars, I would. Thanks for reading!
"The Motorcycle Diaries" is based on the memoir of the same name, written by Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the forerunner of the Cuban revolution in the 1950's and 1960's. The film follows Guevara's journey with his best friend Alberto Grenado across the whole of South America between January and July of 1952. The journey started in Buenos Aires, Argentina and ended in Caracas, Venezuela. During the trip, they struggle with standard perils of travel, as well as introspective trials that each have to face. They start out as young, innocent and curious boys and end as more mature, hardened adults who are forced to see the injustices that have been going on around them for years, but never knew about. This whole trip eventually leads Guevara to abandon his promising career in medicine to become the political leader that he's become famous for being.
Pros:
1. Gael Garcia Bernal is superb in this film. He went through six months of research to play the role of Che Guevara, and it shows in his performance. He gives an absolutely exciting and enlightening performance as a young man who travels and experiences things that change him from an innocent boy to an educated, knowledgeable and frustrated man. Every actor's dream is to play a role like this; the role of an inspiring figure who fought for the good of his/her country. Whether or not they were successful, getting to play someone going through the journey of enlightenment is a treat for any actor, myself included. I only hope that someday I can pull off a performance that's even half the caliber of Bernal's. I'm looking forward to seeing more work from this amazing actor.
2. The relationship change between Guevara and his friend Grenado is also something to mention. Grenado was older than Guevara by seven years, so the first half of the movie shows Grenado as kind of an older brother figure, vowing to protect and guide Guevara while they're on their journey. However, as Guevara matures and sees what's actually going on in his own world, the audience sees a shift in roles between them. Guevara becomes the older brother figure, convincing Grenado to stray off their planned path and help those in need of their assistance. Guevara was so affected by the things that he saw: leper colonies, poor, indigenous peoples, and other types of underprivileged people that he essentially became the well known political figure we all know him to be because of this journey and his experiences that made him realize that his country needed a change. When an actor can make that much change in a character, but still feel like the same person, it's a great accomplishment, and they both did it superbly.
3. This film was shot on location, and used real indigenous people, as well as actors. They filmed in Argentina, Venezuela, Machu Pichu and other parts of Peru, they filmed at the Amazon River where the REAL leper colony is (there's even a scene where Bernal swims across the Amazon at night to get to the leper colony to spend his birthday with them on their isolated island, and he ACTUALLY swam in the Amazon River at night). Every location was rich, lush and beautiful, and an astounding place to film. It was a truly beautiful piece of artwork of a film, and you can only really appreciate it by watching it.
.JPG) |
| Machu Pichu. Awesome. |
 |
| The Amazon River. Awesome. |
 |
| This place. Also awesome. |
 |
| Motorcycle in a field. Awesome. |
Let's face it, there are no cons for this movie. There were a couple of times that they used "shaky cam," and I got a little annoyed by it, but not enough to make it worth writing a "cons" section for this movie. This film was stupendous; it's lush, real, passionate, and has more heart of any movie I've probably ever seen. If you haven't seen it, you owe it to yourself to experience this movie. Five stars for you, "The Motorcycle Diaries"! If I could add more stars, I would. Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Review of Be Cool (2005)
Hello all! Also on today's line up, I'll be reviewing "Be Cool," starring John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Cedric the Entertainer, Vince Vaughn, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
"Be Cool" is about an ex-shylock (someone who collects loan money for the mob) named Chili Palmer (played by John Travolta) who is sick of being in the movie business, so he decides to try his hand in the music business with the help of his friend Tommy, who owns an indie record label. But after Tommy is murdered by a group of Russians, Chili realizes that the music industry isn't so cut and dry after all. He has to use his ever popular wit and wiseguy skills to deal with Russian mobsters, gangsta rappers, and sleazy music executives who would like Chili out of the picture.
Pros:
1. Two words: Dwayne Johnson. This is my favorite role of his, besides his portrayal of Paul in "Pain and Gain." Johnson plays Elliot, a gay, amateur singer and bodyguard to a two-bit music promoter/pimp, played by Vince Vaughn. Recognizing that Vaughn's character is keeping Elliot from what he really wants, which is to be a part of Hollywood, Chili offers him an opportunity to break his tie with Vaughn and follow his dreams. Not only does Johnson play a great gay guy, but he plays a perfect passive aggressive, sensitive, and overall innocent character that obviously shouldn't be any of those things. Seeing such a big guy play someone who's more sensitive than I am was really fun to watch, and watching him make fun of his signature eye brow raise was even more fun.
2. Andre Benjamin (Outkast's Andre 3000) is also in it, and he's also hilarious. He plays a successful rap mogul's wife's cousin who tries to hang out with the rappers and act like a tough gangster. What makes it so funny is the fact that he drinks tea (pinky out), he can't handle a gun, and he constantly embarrasses the rap mogul and his crew. He's like the embarrassing little brother you can't get rid of. Also, Cedric the Entertainer plays the rap mogul, and he's a really great character as well. He mentions breaking African American stereotypes, making people realize that African Americans are essential to the growth of a community, but is also into shady dealings and other things that are a part of gang culture.
Cons:
1. Other than those three characters, every other character in the movie either sucked really bad or basically just phoned in their performance. Especially Uma Thurman. She plays Tommy's wife, and co-owner of the record company Chili is trying to save. They could have saved the money in hiring her and just put a cardboard cut-out of her in every scene, because her character was useless. She didn't drive the story at all; she was just there.
Vince Vaughn didn't bother coming up with a character for this one. It might as well have been Vince Vaughn stand-up in a pimp suit. There was nothing wrong with the character, per se; a dorky, white music promoter/pimp that thinks he's black sounds funny, right? His character was supposed to be a white person who identifies more with black culture, but instead he ended up playing it like a caricature of black culture.
Another dishonorable mention would have to be John Travolta. His calm, cool and collected character just came across as bored or confused. He never did anything tough or crazy, he just got himself into weird situations and half-assedly talked himself out of them. After every brush with danger the audience realizes that they escaped just because the script says they do, not because Travolta's character is a badass smooth-talker.
2. The main plot point is what brought the characters together, but after that they just did whatever they wanted. If the plot was a mall, then the story was the mini van that got the characters there; once they got there, they all went their own way with it. The only story line that gets resolved is one no one cares about (it wasn't even worth mentioning in this review, in fact).
I guess that's it. You can't really mess up more than that. I could list more cons, but if the story was terrible and (most of) the characters were terrible, what could possibly save the movie? I'll be nice and give it 2 stars because it is a comedy, and I did find things to laugh at throughout. I just wish it hadn't been at the actors' attempts. Thanks for reading!
"Be Cool" is about an ex-shylock (someone who collects loan money for the mob) named Chili Palmer (played by John Travolta) who is sick of being in the movie business, so he decides to try his hand in the music business with the help of his friend Tommy, who owns an indie record label. But after Tommy is murdered by a group of Russians, Chili realizes that the music industry isn't so cut and dry after all. He has to use his ever popular wit and wiseguy skills to deal with Russian mobsters, gangsta rappers, and sleazy music executives who would like Chili out of the picture.
Pros:
1. Two words: Dwayne Johnson. This is my favorite role of his, besides his portrayal of Paul in "Pain and Gain." Johnson plays Elliot, a gay, amateur singer and bodyguard to a two-bit music promoter/pimp, played by Vince Vaughn. Recognizing that Vaughn's character is keeping Elliot from what he really wants, which is to be a part of Hollywood, Chili offers him an opportunity to break his tie with Vaughn and follow his dreams. Not only does Johnson play a great gay guy, but he plays a perfect passive aggressive, sensitive, and overall innocent character that obviously shouldn't be any of those things. Seeing such a big guy play someone who's more sensitive than I am was really fun to watch, and watching him make fun of his signature eye brow raise was even more fun.
 | |
| Dwayne Johnson as Elliot, singing "You Ain't Woman Enough (to Take My Man)." |
2. Andre Benjamin (Outkast's Andre 3000) is also in it, and he's also hilarious. He plays a successful rap mogul's wife's cousin who tries to hang out with the rappers and act like a tough gangster. What makes it so funny is the fact that he drinks tea (pinky out), he can't handle a gun, and he constantly embarrasses the rap mogul and his crew. He's like the embarrassing little brother you can't get rid of. Also, Cedric the Entertainer plays the rap mogul, and he's a really great character as well. He mentions breaking African American stereotypes, making people realize that African Americans are essential to the growth of a community, but is also into shady dealings and other things that are a part of gang culture.
Cons:
1. Other than those three characters, every other character in the movie either sucked really bad or basically just phoned in their performance. Especially Uma Thurman. She plays Tommy's wife, and co-owner of the record company Chili is trying to save. They could have saved the money in hiring her and just put a cardboard cut-out of her in every scene, because her character was useless. She didn't drive the story at all; she was just there.
Vince Vaughn didn't bother coming up with a character for this one. It might as well have been Vince Vaughn stand-up in a pimp suit. There was nothing wrong with the character, per se; a dorky, white music promoter/pimp that thinks he's black sounds funny, right? His character was supposed to be a white person who identifies more with black culture, but instead he ended up playing it like a caricature of black culture.
Another dishonorable mention would have to be John Travolta. His calm, cool and collected character just came across as bored or confused. He never did anything tough or crazy, he just got himself into weird situations and half-assedly talked himself out of them. After every brush with danger the audience realizes that they escaped just because the script says they do, not because Travolta's character is a badass smooth-talker.
2. The main plot point is what brought the characters together, but after that they just did whatever they wanted. If the plot was a mall, then the story was the mini van that got the characters there; once they got there, they all went their own way with it. The only story line that gets resolved is one no one cares about (it wasn't even worth mentioning in this review, in fact).
I guess that's it. You can't really mess up more than that. I could list more cons, but if the story was terrible and (most of) the characters were terrible, what could possibly save the movie? I'll be nice and give it 2 stars because it is a comedy, and I did find things to laugh at throughout. I just wish it hadn't been at the actors' attempts. Thanks for reading!
Review of Smokin' Aces (2006)
Hello all! Today I'll be reviewing "Smokin' Aces," directed by Joe Carnahan and starring Ryan Reynolds, Alicia Keys, Ben Affleck, Ray Liotta, and Common, among others.
Synopsis: A Las Vegas performer-turned-mobster-turned-snitch decides to testify against the mob, and there are different groups of competing mercenaries that all want to make sure that he stops breathing before that happens.
Pros:
1. I don't know why, but I expected this movie to be a lot more funny than it was. I expected a kind of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" feel, where the story is based around a crime, but it's more funny than dramatic. But, refreshingly, this movie is filled with drama, action and heart; any comedic aspect of it is very dark. These groups of mercenaries (I'll go into those later) are willing to stop at nothing to make sure that the snitch dies before testifying against the mob, and the snitch will do anything - even rat out his own friends - to make sure that he stays alive. It had a very "kill or be killed" feel to it, which I loved.
2. The mercenaries are awesome in this movie. There's the group of redneck punks (which includes Chris Pine, which I thought was hilarious to see), the sassy black women (which consisted of Alicia Keys in her first and only movie role and Taraji P. Henson, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite African American actresses), the group of ex-cops led by Ben Affleck, a scarred up killer who is a master of disguise, and the "mysterious Swede," a man that no one has any information on; he's basically a ghost.
3. Normally, movies are described as this: ordinary people thrown into extraordinary circumstances. Something happens that makes an ordinary person step up and do something out of his/her norm, and that's what drives the movie. However, with this movie, this idea is flipped: essentially, this story is fairly ordinary: a mob snitch gets a hit put on him after he decides to testify against them. The extraordinary part of the story comes from the larger-than-life characters on screen, which makes the movie so much fun to watch. Not only that, but every character in the film is so different from each other, and in the most extreme way.
4. All of the actors in the movie learned how to use every weapon used in the movie. No one had a body double to use their guns for them, which I thought was awesome.
Cons:
1. There's a really confusing sub-plot in the movie that they tried to pass off as a main plot point, but the movie would still have been awesome without it. It was kind of necessary, since it's part of the awesome twist ending, but even without a twist ending it was still a grade-A movie.
Well, there you have it! This movie is great for everyone, especially if you're a fan of kooky characters and more modern action movies. 4 stars for you, "Smokin' Aces"! Thanks for reading!
Synopsis: A Las Vegas performer-turned-mobster-turned-snitch decides to testify against the mob, and there are different groups of competing mercenaries that all want to make sure that he stops breathing before that happens.
Pros:
1. I don't know why, but I expected this movie to be a lot more funny than it was. I expected a kind of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" feel, where the story is based around a crime, but it's more funny than dramatic. But, refreshingly, this movie is filled with drama, action and heart; any comedic aspect of it is very dark. These groups of mercenaries (I'll go into those later) are willing to stop at nothing to make sure that the snitch dies before testifying against the mob, and the snitch will do anything - even rat out his own friends - to make sure that he stays alive. It had a very "kill or be killed" feel to it, which I loved.
2. The mercenaries are awesome in this movie. There's the group of redneck punks (which includes Chris Pine, which I thought was hilarious to see), the sassy black women (which consisted of Alicia Keys in her first and only movie role and Taraji P. Henson, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite African American actresses), the group of ex-cops led by Ben Affleck, a scarred up killer who is a master of disguise, and the "mysterious Swede," a man that no one has any information on; he's basically a ghost.
 |
| Ben Affleck (without his awesome team - couldn't find a good picture) |
 |
| The master of disguise (and possibly my favorite mercenary) |
 |
| Alicia Keys and Taraji Henson as Georgia and Sharice. |
 | ||
| The Tremor Brothers (the redneck team) |
3. Normally, movies are described as this: ordinary people thrown into extraordinary circumstances. Something happens that makes an ordinary person step up and do something out of his/her norm, and that's what drives the movie. However, with this movie, this idea is flipped: essentially, this story is fairly ordinary: a mob snitch gets a hit put on him after he decides to testify against them. The extraordinary part of the story comes from the larger-than-life characters on screen, which makes the movie so much fun to watch. Not only that, but every character in the film is so different from each other, and in the most extreme way.
4. All of the actors in the movie learned how to use every weapon used in the movie. No one had a body double to use their guns for them, which I thought was awesome.
Cons:
1. There's a really confusing sub-plot in the movie that they tried to pass off as a main plot point, but the movie would still have been awesome without it. It was kind of necessary, since it's part of the awesome twist ending, but even without a twist ending it was still a grade-A movie.
Well, there you have it! This movie is great for everyone, especially if you're a fan of kooky characters and more modern action movies. 4 stars for you, "Smokin' Aces"! Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Review of The Ward (2010)
Hello all! Today I wanted to incorporate my idea for Wednesdays: Wild Card Wednesdays! Sometimes, if I can't find a comedy to review for Wednesdays, I'll just post reviews of, basically, whatever I want. So without further ado, I'll be reviewing "The Ward," directed by John Carpenter!
"The Ward" is about a troubled young woman named Kristen who is admitted to a local mental hospital. During her stay, she is haunted by a mysterious entity, but when she tries to discuss it with the other patients and doctors, she is met with little to no help. Suspecting that the orderlies are not telling her the whole truth, she decides to solve the mystery of the entity on her own, and discovers that it goes deeper than she could have imagined.
Pros:
1. The ghost, entity, or what have you, was really creepy. John Carpenter really knows how to set up a good scare, and this movie is no exception. There are a little too many jump-out-at-the-audience parts, but they're just too well set up for me to complain too much. What's also scary to me is what you don't see, and this movie leaves a lot to the imagination, and boy can your imagination go to some dark places.
"The Ward" is about a troubled young woman named Kristen who is admitted to a local mental hospital. During her stay, she is haunted by a mysterious entity, but when she tries to discuss it with the other patients and doctors, she is met with little to no help. Suspecting that the orderlies are not telling her the whole truth, she decides to solve the mystery of the entity on her own, and discovers that it goes deeper than she could have imagined.
Pros:
1. The ghost, entity, or what have you, was really creepy. John Carpenter really knows how to set up a good scare, and this movie is no exception. There are a little too many jump-out-at-the-audience parts, but they're just too well set up for me to complain too much. What's also scary to me is what you don't see, and this movie leaves a lot to the imagination, and boy can your imagination go to some dark places.
Look out, crazy girl!
2. Okay guys, before I get to the cons, I have to say that the ending is almost worth the hour and a half. I genuinely did not see the twist ending coming, and when it did, I was so glad it went in the direction it did. However, as you will see from the cons, it wasn't the greatest movie up until then, and not the greatest execution of a twist ending.
SO. Here we go with the cons:
1. The only indication you get that she's in a mental hospital is the fact that there are orderlies and doctors present. The other four patients (who are also young women) were dressed in normal clothes and pretty much had the run of the place for the entire movie. That and there aren't any other patients in the whole place. That kind of took me out of the movie a little bit; took a little bit of the vital craziness away.
2. When you get a good look at the ghost, she just looks silly. She's super creepy when you only get a quick glance at her, but toward the end of the movie you get to look at her dead on, and she looks like the make up people just sent her to a Slipknot concert for a few hours and told her not to shower when she got back. She looks like a teenage metal head with really bad acne and sunken eyes, basically. In their defense, they're not all dead-on shots, but still. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
3. The twist ending makes the watcher think twice about what's real; it makes the watcher wonder if the mental hospital is real, or just made up in the mind of Kristen. Does Kristen even exist? However, in the case of this movie, the fact that you can't quite figure it out makes the movie more confusing. I wasn't sure what was supposed to be really happening and what was supposed to be a metaphor.
All in all, there isn't really much to say about this one. It isn't John Carpenter's best, but I wouldn't say that it's a terrible horror film. It had plenty of scares, but it just never came to life. John Carpenter started his career off with a bang, but unfortunately his films have been going downhill ever since. Sorry, Mr. Carpenter, I'd have to give this one two and a half stars. Thanks for reading!
Monday, April 29, 2013
Review of Chained (2012)
Hello all! I hope everyone's ready for this one! Today I'll be reviewing "Chained," a psychological thriller/slasher film directed by Jennifer Lynch.
"Chained" is about a deranged serial killer who wants to rekindle the bond of a father-son relationship with the son of one of his victims. The movie follows the relationship that develops after years of the boy being forcibly kept in the serial killer's house.
Pros:
1. The entire abduction scene was super intense. The serial killer works as a taxi can driver. When the mother and her son get in his cab, you can only imagine where they're headed. He drives them to a rural and desolate area, where you know they can't get help. Then, while the child is still in the car, the killer takes the mother to a separate room and kills her. The entire scene is fairly quick, but will stick with me forever. The authenticity and intensity of the scene was just scary. It's the closest thing I could think of to actually taping a kidnapping and murder.
2. The killer's house is a character of its own. From the blood-stained walls that looked like they haven't been washed, to the creepily bare rooms that make it look abandoned (or condemned), this house was creepy as hell, and made me super uncomfortable.
Cons:
1. Okay guys, here's where things get interesting. I thought that this was going to be a movie demonstrating Stockholm syndrome, where a person is mentally, physically, and emotionally abused by a person (killer or not) and ends up getting attached to them. In a sense, that's what this movie was about. BUT, as intense as that sounds, it was not intense at all. In fact, it was the most mild case of brainwashing I've ever heard of. There is little to no actual abuse, and Rabbit (the victim) talks back to the killer and disobeys him regularly. The film makes the relationship feel more like an actual father-and-son relationship than one between a serial killer and his victim, and that was a huge strike for me.
2. Both main characters, the serial killer Bob (Vincent D'Orofino) and Rabbit (Eamon Farren) were too mild for me to believe they were such dramatic characters. D'Orofino acted too lenient and too nice to be a killer and Farren acted too normal to be the victim of years of abuse. Strike two.
3. At one point in the movie, a teenage Rabbit establishes a relationship with one of Bob's victims. He hides her from Bob and tries to help her escape. The problem is that the relationship was so ridiculous. He was forced into a room with her where Bob expected him to kill and rape her. Instead, they just talked and the girl basically begs him to have sex with her. First she was scared for her life, then she was clinging to the guy who's supposed to kill her for dear life and trying to kiss him. It was a short lived and unnecessary plot point that made the movie even worse for me. That was officially strike three.
4. And last but not least, a bonus con! They went WAY too much into the killer's past and what made him a psycho. I don't want to know what makes psycho killers how they are; I just want to see a psycho killer go crazy on people! You don't ask why Michael Meyers kills babysitters in "Halloween." You just take it for what it is: a creepy psycho who kills people for no reason. Motive equals fewer scares and a serious drop in creepiness. So, strike four.
No offense to anyone involved in the movie, but this one was just bad. I was super disappointed because it had such potential to be so amazing and dramatic, and it fell way, way short. Two stars for you, Jennifer Lynch!
"Chained" is about a deranged serial killer who wants to rekindle the bond of a father-son relationship with the son of one of his victims. The movie follows the relationship that develops after years of the boy being forcibly kept in the serial killer's house.
Pros:
1. The entire abduction scene was super intense. The serial killer works as a taxi can driver. When the mother and her son get in his cab, you can only imagine where they're headed. He drives them to a rural and desolate area, where you know they can't get help. Then, while the child is still in the car, the killer takes the mother to a separate room and kills her. The entire scene is fairly quick, but will stick with me forever. The authenticity and intensity of the scene was just scary. It's the closest thing I could think of to actually taping a kidnapping and murder.
2. The killer's house is a character of its own. From the blood-stained walls that looked like they haven't been washed, to the creepily bare rooms that make it look abandoned (or condemned), this house was creepy as hell, and made me super uncomfortable.
Cons:
1. Okay guys, here's where things get interesting. I thought that this was going to be a movie demonstrating Stockholm syndrome, where a person is mentally, physically, and emotionally abused by a person (killer or not) and ends up getting attached to them. In a sense, that's what this movie was about. BUT, as intense as that sounds, it was not intense at all. In fact, it was the most mild case of brainwashing I've ever heard of. There is little to no actual abuse, and Rabbit (the victim) talks back to the killer and disobeys him regularly. The film makes the relationship feel more like an actual father-and-son relationship than one between a serial killer and his victim, and that was a huge strike for me.
2. Both main characters, the serial killer Bob (Vincent D'Orofino) and Rabbit (Eamon Farren) were too mild for me to believe they were such dramatic characters. D'Orofino acted too lenient and too nice to be a killer and Farren acted too normal to be the victim of years of abuse. Strike two.
3. At one point in the movie, a teenage Rabbit establishes a relationship with one of Bob's victims. He hides her from Bob and tries to help her escape. The problem is that the relationship was so ridiculous. He was forced into a room with her where Bob expected him to kill and rape her. Instead, they just talked and the girl basically begs him to have sex with her. First she was scared for her life, then she was clinging to the guy who's supposed to kill her for dear life and trying to kiss him. It was a short lived and unnecessary plot point that made the movie even worse for me. That was officially strike three.
4. And last but not least, a bonus con! They went WAY too much into the killer's past and what made him a psycho. I don't want to know what makes psycho killers how they are; I just want to see a psycho killer go crazy on people! You don't ask why Michael Meyers kills babysitters in "Halloween." You just take it for what it is: a creepy psycho who kills people for no reason. Motive equals fewer scares and a serious drop in creepiness. So, strike four.
No offense to anyone involved in the movie, but this one was just bad. I was super disappointed because it had such potential to be so amazing and dramatic, and it fell way, way short. Two stars for you, Jennifer Lynch!
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Review of Crash (2004) and Babel (2006)
Hello again, all! For this review, I'm going to be doing things a little differently. I will be comparing and contrasting two similarly themed films: "Crash," directed by Paul Haggis, and "Babel," directed by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu.
Both films follow similar plot lines: each movie is about different sets of people that are affected by each other in an indirect but significant way. Throughout the movie it is revealed that these people, who are are separated by distance, social status, and race, prove to be life changing elements in each other's lives. "Crash" takes place in Los Angeles, California, and "Babel" is more international, with stories taking place in Japan, Mexico, Morocco, and the United States.
The one I liked most is "Babel," even though it came out after "Crash." Here's why:
1. "Babel" takes place on a more global scale, so each intertwining story is way more interesting. It makes you think about the connections with people that you never knew you had. A man from Japan goes on a hunting trip to Morocco, and gives his guide his gun as a thank you. The Moroccan man then sells it to his friend, who gives it to his sons to protect their herd of goats, but they end up accidentally killing a woman from the U.S. This is just one story from the movie that made me think twice about how random people from (literally) thousands of miles away could affect my life in some way.
"Crash" is more locally based. When you have a bunch of people living in the same city, it's way more likely that those people will affect you at some point, because those are the people that live in your world with you. It's essentially a small world story, and "Babel" is way more of a big world story.
2. Whereas "Babel" is focused on basically a series of random and unfortunate events that affect different people, "Crash" is solely based on events based on racism within the city of Los Angeles. And we're not talking about level one racism here; we're talking about hit-you-over-the-head, over the top racism that I just found annoying and unbelievable. I know there are people out there who have a personal vendetta against some people based on their race, but this movie was just ridiculous. It wasn't subtle in the slightest, which makes me think the director was treating the audience like they were idiots. At least the racial discrimination in "Babel" was subtle and only a small part of the film. The fact that "Crash" was solely based on blatant racism really took me out of the drama of the movie.
3. "Babel" was more of an over-arching project that is a commentary of human nature and humility as a whole. It paints a better picture of humans and how they affect each other every day; "Crash" is just a story about terrible racist people who consciously decide to do terrible things to each other, and how those stories link together.
Pros for "Crash":
1. "Crash" wasn't all bad; the acting was intense and really good. Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, Michael Pena, Matt Dillon and even Ludacris (yeah, the rapper) were super amazing. Heck, even Brendan Fraser was good in it. What sucked was the screenplay.
2. You get to see dramatic and uplifting change from some of these characters. For example, Sandra Bullock's character changes from a very racist politician's wife to a stronger woman who recognizes that all people don't fit their stereotype. These are changes that were believable and really made the movie for me.
Overall, both movies were good in their own way, but in terms of story and overall impact, "Babel" takes this one, hands down. Most people prefer "Crash" to "Babel," so I hope this review offers some insight to the film less investigated.
Both films follow similar plot lines: each movie is about different sets of people that are affected by each other in an indirect but significant way. Throughout the movie it is revealed that these people, who are are separated by distance, social status, and race, prove to be life changing elements in each other's lives. "Crash" takes place in Los Angeles, California, and "Babel" is more international, with stories taking place in Japan, Mexico, Morocco, and the United States.
The one I liked most is "Babel," even though it came out after "Crash." Here's why:
1. "Babel" takes place on a more global scale, so each intertwining story is way more interesting. It makes you think about the connections with people that you never knew you had. A man from Japan goes on a hunting trip to Morocco, and gives his guide his gun as a thank you. The Moroccan man then sells it to his friend, who gives it to his sons to protect their herd of goats, but they end up accidentally killing a woman from the U.S. This is just one story from the movie that made me think twice about how random people from (literally) thousands of miles away could affect my life in some way.
"Crash" is more locally based. When you have a bunch of people living in the same city, it's way more likely that those people will affect you at some point, because those are the people that live in your world with you. It's essentially a small world story, and "Babel" is way more of a big world story.
2. Whereas "Babel" is focused on basically a series of random and unfortunate events that affect different people, "Crash" is solely based on events based on racism within the city of Los Angeles. And we're not talking about level one racism here; we're talking about hit-you-over-the-head, over the top racism that I just found annoying and unbelievable. I know there are people out there who have a personal vendetta against some people based on their race, but this movie was just ridiculous. It wasn't subtle in the slightest, which makes me think the director was treating the audience like they were idiots. At least the racial discrimination in "Babel" was subtle and only a small part of the film. The fact that "Crash" was solely based on blatant racism really took me out of the drama of the movie.
3. "Babel" was more of an over-arching project that is a commentary of human nature and humility as a whole. It paints a better picture of humans and how they affect each other every day; "Crash" is just a story about terrible racist people who consciously decide to do terrible things to each other, and how those stories link together.
Pros for "Crash":
1. "Crash" wasn't all bad; the acting was intense and really good. Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, Michael Pena, Matt Dillon and even Ludacris (yeah, the rapper) were super amazing. Heck, even Brendan Fraser was good in it. What sucked was the screenplay.
2. You get to see dramatic and uplifting change from some of these characters. For example, Sandra Bullock's character changes from a very racist politician's wife to a stronger woman who recognizes that all people don't fit their stereotype. These are changes that were believable and really made the movie for me.
Overall, both movies were good in their own way, but in terms of story and overall impact, "Babel" takes this one, hands down. Most people prefer "Crash" to "Babel," so I hope this review offers some insight to the film less investigated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)