Tools for Wandering Writers – how to stay productive on the road
Is the publisher just a middleman? – things to consider before you try self-publishing
Finding or creating a writer's workshop group – the title says it all
Using Profanity in Fiction – when cursing works, and when it doesn't
How To Make A Living Writing Short Fiction – can it be done? Yes.
Book Review: Lord of the Flies – all about Ralph and Piggy and Roger
Who Moved My Cheese? – a short review of this short book
How to comfort someone whose mother or father has died – advice for handling this difficult situation
Coping with unemployment – more practical advice for a difficult situation
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Movie Review: Grand Prix
In 1966, director John Frankenheimer turned out a pair of films that could not possibly be more different in subject matter and execution: Seconds and Grand Prix. Frankenheimer did not want to make Grand Prix, but was forced by the studio to do so after Seconds died a miserable death at the box office.
Grand Prix, on the other hand, was a tremendous hit, and remained Frankenheimer's most financially successful film until 1998's Ronin. The script by veteran playwright Robert Alan Arthur (who co-wrote All That Jazz with the late Bob Fosse), ultimately focuses too much on the soap-opera level problems of the drivers and their families, but it's when the film gets on the racetrack that Frankenheimer and cinematographer Lionel "Curly" Lindon (who did a season as Night Gallery's director of photography) blindside you.
When faced with the challenge of filming a lengthy race in such a way to make it interesting for film audiences, Frankenheimer decided he wanted to have the camera become part of the actual race, so he and Lindon designed a special camera and harness that could be attached to the front driver's-side of the car, giving the illusion that the viewer was riding on the hood during the race.
You've seen this same shot about a million times over the years in every car chase that's been filmed. You have John Frankenheimer and Lionel Lindon to thank for it. Until Grand Prix, no director had ever attempted to film a race or chase in this manner; nowadays, a director would feel like a fool not to include at least one such shot in an action film.
Movie Information
Running Time: 179 min.
Rating: PG
Director: John Frankenheimer
Screenwriters: John Frankenheimer, Robert Alan Arthur
Cinematography: Lionel Lindon
Cast:
James Garner: Pete Aron
Eva Marie Saint: Louise Frederickson
Yves Montand: Jean-Pierre Sarti
Toshiro Mifune: Izo Yamura
Brian Bedford: Scott Stoddard
Jessica Walter: Pat Stoddard
Antonio Sabato: Nino Barlini
Francoise Hardy: Lisa
Adolfo Celi: Agostini Manetta
Claude Dauphin: Hugo Simon
Enzo Fiermonte: Guido
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Movie Review: The Swimmer
1968's The Swimmer (based on the short story by John Cheever) was a labor of love for its producer/star Burt Lancaster. In it he plays a businessman who, at film's start, has decided to spend a bright summer Sunday afternoon making his way from pool to pool, swimming his way across suburbia to his own home. He lives in an upscale and trendy community where everyone knows everyone else in their chosen clique, so it comes as no surprise to anyone when Burt wanders into their back yard and tells them he is swimming home. They laugh. They make martinis. They talk about what a card Lancaster is and what a simply mah-velous party story his little escapade will make. It seems like another Peyton Place soap opera at first.
But then people start asking about his wife and daughters:
"I heard what happened..."
"I was so sorry to hear..."
"How are you feeling now?..."
"I didn't think you'd want to be around anyone for a while, not after..."
What exactly did happen in Lancaster's life that has everyone treating him either with extreme caution or overzealous joviality? Where exactly is he coming from at the beginning of the film? (Our first sight of him comes as he's running in his swimming trunks through the woods, already sopping wet, yet he tells the first back yard gathering he appears in that theirs will be his "first" swim on his way home.) And why can't he tell anyone what he's been doing lately?
These key questions are skirted for the first half of the film, but it's the very lack of ready answers that provides a good deal of tension. Hints are dropped, concerned looks are exchanged, surreptitious gestures made behind Lancaster's back, and soon the viewer wonders about Lancaster's mental stability as, piece by piece, the horror of his life comes together like a jigsaw puzzle that's missing the last piece–which may be the reason The Swimmer is such a turn-off for many viewers: there is no direct and final answer to any of the questions, no last-minute revelation, but if you pay close attention, everything you need to know is there.
Lancaster gives a typically terrific performance, one full of both internal and physical catharses; every pool is a new baptismal fount where he washes away past sins, yet by the time he reaches the next pool, a different load of sins have made themselves known.
Movie Information
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: PG
Directors: Frank Perry, Sydney Pollack
Screenwriter: Eleanor Perry
Cast:
Burt Lancaster: Ned Merrill
Janet Landgard: Julie Ann Hooper
Janice Rule: Shirley Abbott
Tony Bickley: Donald Westerhazy
Marge Champion: Peggy Forsburgh
Nancy Cushman: Mrs. Halloran
Bill Fiore: Howie Hunsacker
David Garfield: Ticket Seller
Kim Hunter: Betty Graham
Rose Gregorio: Sylvia Finney
Charles Drake: Howard Graham
Bernie Hamilton: Halloran's Chauffeur
House Jameson: Chester Halloran
Jimmy Joyce: Jack Finney
Michael Kearney: Kevin Gilmartin Jr.
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Manchurian Candidate
1962's The Manchurian Candidate
A lot -- a lot -- has been written and said about The Manchurian Candidate, the film that put John Frankenheimer on the map as a director. How effective you'll find the film today depends on your personal level of cynicism.
Candidate -- a satire in the truest sense of the word -- deliberately sets out to make the viewer uncertain as to whether or not it's supposed to funny. Admittedly, some of the scenes in the film have an aura of comedy about them which I think was intentional, while others (scenes obviously intended to be serious) unintentionally draw chuckles. Laurence Harvey's British accent seems ludicrously out of place for a veteran of the Korean War, especially since he's supposed to be American, but once you get past his voice, you cannot help but admire his rich, complex performance.
The final sequence, filmed in Madison Square Garden, remains one of the most beautifully edited and unbearably suspenseful ever put on film. (Many critics and film scholars credit Frankenheimer as having created the template for the modern political thriller; viewing such films as Candidate, Seven Days in May, Black Sunday, and the recent HBO film The Path to War -- which is now Frankenheimer's swan song, and a great one, at that -- this accolade seems almost understated.)
Movie Information
Running Time: 126 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: John Frankenheimer
Writers: Richard Condon (novel), George Axelrod (screenplay)
Cast:
Frank Sinatra: Capt./Maj. Bennett Marco
Laurence Harvey: Sgt. Raymond Shaw
Janet Leigh: Eugenie Rose Chaney
Angela Lansbury: Mrs. Iselin
Henry Silva: Chunjin
James Gregory: Sen. John Yerkes Iselin
Leslie Parrish: Jocelyn Jordan
John McGiver: Sen. Thomas Jordan
Khigh Dhiegh: Dr. Yen Lo
James Edwards: Cpl. Alvin Melvin
Douglas Henderson: Col. Milt
Albert Paulsen: Zilkov
Barry Kelley: Secretary of Defense
Lloyd Corrigan: Holborn Gaines
Madame Spivy: Female Berezovo
2004's The Manchurian Candidate
A remake of the 1962 classic was released in July 2004. It's directed by Jonathan Demme ("Silence of the Lambs") and stars Denzel Washington in Sinatra's role as Ben Marco, Liev Schreiber in the Laurence Harvey role as Raymond Shaw, and Meryl Streep as Eleanor Shaw.
In this version, U.S. soliders are kidnapped during the Gulf War and brainwashed. The brainwashers use the Manchurian Corporation as their front, thus justifying the retention of the title even though the Chinese are no longer the villains in this remake.
The movie is decent, not nearly as good as the original, but worth watching. Washington is particularly good; he plays Ben Marco as a man who's gradually falling apart, rather than as a square-jawed hero.
Movie Information
Running Time: 130 minutes
Rating: R
Director: Jonathan Demme
Writers: Richard Condon (novel), George Axelrod (screenplay), Daniel Pyne, Dean Georgaris
Cast:
Denzel Washington: Ben Marco
Meryl Streep: Eleanor Shaw
Liev Schreiber: Raymond Shaw
Kimberly Elise: Rosie
Vera Farmiga: Jocelyn Jordan
Jon Voight: Senator Thomas Jordan
David Keeley: Anderson
Jeffrey Wright: Al Melvin
Sakina Jaffrey: Mysterious Arabic Woman
Simon McBurney: Noyle
Paul Lazar: Gillespie
Alyson Renaldo: Mirella Freeman
Adam LeFevre: Congressman Healy
Robyn Hitchcock: Laurent Tokar
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Movie Review: Seconds
Seconds is arguably director John Frankenheimer's best film. Based on the excellent novel by David Ely, in it we meet middle-aged bank executive Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph in a masterfully shaded performance) whose life is so miserable he walks as if the earth might open at any moment and swallow him whole. His job drains him of humanity. His marriage is hollow and cold. His self-respect is rattling its last breath. He doesn't know how things came to this. He knows that he was once a decent man but he isn't any longer and he can't understand why. He feels alien to the world around him.
Then one day a stranger in the subway hands him a card with an address written on it; the stranger knows Hamilton's name, and as soon as we see the expression on Hamilton's face, we know that he has some idea why he's been handed this slip of paper.
That night Hamilton is called by a supposedly dead friend. "I have a wonderful new life!" he tells Hamilton. "I'm happy, old buddy, and I want to do the same for you!"
It seems there are these "people" who can give you a new life. A new face. A new voice and identity. They can give you a life where you are successful at the thing you always dreamed of (in Hamilton's case, being a famous artist). It costs a lot, and once the process has begun there is no turning back.
Hamilton, after much soul-searching, decides to go through with it, and embarks on a chilling journey to the secret headquarters where these "people" make arrangements for a new life. (He is taken there in the back of a meat delivery truck–some of the most unnerving black-humored symbolism I've ever encountered.) There he meets with the company president (Will Geer, Grandpa Walton himself, who is quietly and absolutely terrifying in the role) who has created this program. The decision made, the work begins, and soon Hamilton is transformed into the younger, more vital Antiochus "Tony" Wilson (played by Rock Hudson), given a new profession, a new home, a new life. Things are idyllic for a while, but eventually Hamilton's conscience and its questions about his old life drive him to return to his widow in an effort to find out where he went wrong.
Frankenheimer always dealt with extremes in his best pictures, and Seconds is possibly the most extreme film he ever made. His penchant for lean storytelling and muscular pacing is at its peak here, as is his use of his ought-to-be-patented foreground framing technique.
The film's biggest surprise, perhaps, is the performance of the late Rock Hudson. In a role originally slated to be played by Laurence Olivier (who the studio decided didn't have Hudson's box-office clout), Hudson displays a depth and power that viewers of Pillow Talk would never have thought possible.
Hudson's face is a subtle prism of conflicting emotions; every joy, every sorrow, every triumph and regret is there, etched into his expressions like words on a headstone. When something hits at his core, you see it on his face–and not in any heavy-handed, watch-me, watch-me way; Hudson's performance is one of impressive constriction, understatement, and substance, heart-felt and affecting, and (like the superb performance of Tony Curtis in The Boston Strangler) a rare glimpse at a good but limited actor's one moment of true and undeniable greatness–which gives this film an added dose of bitter irony when viewed today: had Hudson lived, would he have wanted a second chance to prove his worth as an actor of substance and power?
Movie Information
Release Date: 1966
Running Time: 107 minutes
Rating: R (disturbing sequences and some nudity)
Color: B&W
Director: John Frankenheimer
Cinematographer: James Wong Howe
Writers: Lewis John Carlino (screenplay), David Ely (novel)
Cast:
Rock Hudson: Antiochus 'Tony' Wilson
Salome Jens: Nora Marcus
John Randolph: Arthur Hamilton
Will Geer: Old Man
Jeff Corey: Mr. Ruby
Richard Anderson: Dr. Innes
Murray Hamilton: Charlie
Karl Swenson: Dr. Morris
Khigh Dhiegh: Davalo
Frances Reid: Emily Hamilton
Wesley Addy: John
John Lawrence: Texan
Elisabeth Fraser: Blonde
Dodie Heath: Sue Bushman (as Dody Heath)
Robert Brubaker: Mayberry
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Movie Review: Sorcerer
Sorcerer, made by William Friedkin in 1977 after his triumphs and numerous awards for both The French Connection and The Exorcist, was his own Apocalypse Now: a film that went over budget and took three times as long to film as originally planned, but one denied Apocalypse's subsequent fame, notoriety, and audience interest.
A remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot's The Wages of Fear, Sorcerer tells the story of four men, all wanted criminals, who flee to a nameless Third World country to escape punishment, imprisonment, torture, or death. When a devastating oil rig explosion offers the chance to make some big money very quickly (they have to transport old crates of leaking nitroglycerin over 200 miles of treacherous mountain road), each sees a chance to get out of this hell-hole country and forge a new life elsewhere, far from their regrets and old enemies.Screenwriter Walon Green (who co-wrote The Wild Bunch with Sam Peckinpah) foregoes a script filled with meaningful dialogue and concentrates instead on expressionistic imagery to tell large chunks of the story. This, coupled with Friedkin's flair for jittery realism, gives Sorcerer an effective and gritty documentary feel.
I greatly admire both Sorcerer and The Wages Of Fear, but find my preference leaning toward Friedkin's film, if for no other reason because Sorcerer takes the time to establish these men in their previous lives so the viewer can have some sense of what they've been forced to abandon. Sorcerer possesses emotional layers where Wages opts for the coldly intellectual, and though both films are potentially devastating to the viewer, Sorcerer remains the more humane and accessible of the two.
Movie Information
Release Date: 1977Running Time: 121 minutes
Rating: PG
Director: William Friedkin
Writers: Walon Green (screenplay), Georges Arnaud (1953 novel Le Salaire de la Peur)
Cast:
Roy Scheider: Scanlon/Dominguez
Bruno Cremer: Victor Manzon/Serrano
Francisco Rabal: Nilo
Amidou: Kassem/Martinez
Ramon Bieri: Corlette
Peter Capell: Lartigue
Karl John: Marquez
Frederick Ledebur: Carlos
Chico Martinez: Bobby Del Rios
Joe Spinell: Spider
Rosario Almontes: Agrippa
Richard Holley: Billy White
Anne-Marie Deschott: Blanche
Jean-Luc Bideau: Pascal
Jacques Francois: Lefevre
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Movie Review: The Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood
This is a low-budget, sleazy, but high-spirited dirty movie from 1980 that has aged less well than many of the B-grade actors who starred in it. Adam West (Batman from the old TV series) is the most recognizable star, appearing as Lionel Lamely. The movie is supposed to show how the first "Happy Hooker" movie got made in Hollywood and is mainly a string of party sequences.
While it's pretty awful to the modern moviegoing eye, it does have a few amusing bits.
My favorite moment happens when Richard Deacon (you might remember him better as Mel, the befuddled producer on The Dick Van Dyke Show) in the role of a shifty Hollywood producer, is negotiating with a certain female author for the rights to film her book; the author tells him that she wants to make sure the essence of her book is captured by the filmmakers, and to this Deacon replies:
"Books, schmooks! Who do you know who reads books? Books are made for coffee tables or for something to look at while you're sitting on the toilet...but movies! Movies are for people with vision!"I found it funny the first time I heard it, and I find it sharply perceptive now, something you'd never expect from a nervous-Nelly soft-core porno movie.
Movie Info
Rating: RAlternate Title: Hollywood Blue
Running Time: 88 minutes
Director: Alan Roberts
Writer: Devin Goldberg
Cast:
Martine Beswick: Xaviera Hollander
Chris Lemmon: Robby Rottman
Adam West: Lionel Lamely
Richard Deacon: Joseph
Phil Silvers: Warkoff
Charles Green: Lawyer George
Lisa London: Laurie
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Movie Review: Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia
Early on in Sam Peckinpah's Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, one secondary character remarks: "Be content with your lot in life, no matter how poor it may be. Only then can you expect mercy."
No other American director has understood or been able to capture the Mexican "culture of poverty" as unflinchingly as Peckinpah. Though Garcia may not be Peckinpah's best film (it continues to appear on several "All Time Worst" lists), it is without a doubt his most personal. From its lovely opening image (a young pregnant Mexican woman resting by a river, sunning herself) to its harrowing closing shot (a smoking Gatling gun), Garcia is unique, for no other film of Peckinpah's has so seamlessly managed to contain every element this often-brilliant director was obsessed with exploring: love, betrayal, desperation, tenderness in the face of brutality, loneliness, helplessness, anger, the struggle of integrity vs. conformity, friendship, and, of course, the futility of violence.Peckinpah was accused throughout his career of glorifying violence, but he insisted he was doing the direct opposite: showing how repulsive it was by dwelling on it so much -- and on no film was he more accused of glorifying the violence he claimed to disdain than in Garcia.
The basic story goes like this: The beautiful daughter of a wealthy and powerful Mexican land baron is seduced, impregnated, and abandoned by one Alfredo Garcia, a shameless gambler/drunkard/womanizer. The land baron, El Jefe, assembles his soldiers and declares his outrage at the loss of his daughter's (and subsequently the lessening of his own) honor, and shouts: "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia!" And like the Knights of the Round Table questing for the Holy Grail, El Jefe's army is off and running.
Into this scenario enters an American expatriate named Bennie (Warren Oates) who is biding his time playing piano in a sleazy Mexico City bar. He is approached by two gangsters he often works for as a bagman (Robert Webber and Gig Young) who have been authorized to offer him a substantial piece of change if he'll hunt down and decapitate Alfredo Garcia. Bennie, despite many indecent instincts he's been trying to kill, accepts the offer, telling them he can use the money to take himself and his girlfriend, Elita (Isela Vega, who remains the strongest female character to appear in a Peckinpah movie) somewhere far away and begin a new life.
Along the twisted way, Bennie proposes to Elita in what is arguably the most heartfelt and sadly moving scene Peckinpah ever filmed. The two run into and overcome several obstacles in their way (yes, I'm being deliberately vague here) before they find themselves at a rotting, neglected graveyard where the careless Garcia, shot by a gambling partner, is now buried.
The first half of this film has the loose narrative structure of an obscure European import; in fact, in places, it gets downright eccentric -- but I still say this film was condemned only because it came from Peckinpah; had it come from a director from New Zealand or France, critics would have drowned it in praise.
"Why does he think of this as a horror movie?" I hear you ask.
Because from the moment Bennie and Elita enter that wretched graveyard in the middle of the night, Garcia employs not only the classic visual elements of old horror movies (circling bats, wolves howling in the distance, misshapen shadows skulking in the background) but its heart and soul surrender to the horrific as well. The shadow-drenched grave robbing sequence is truly nightmarish, and from that scene on, the film begins a fast descent through all nine circles of Dante's Hell as Bennie makes his way across country with Garcia's decomposing head inside a wet burlap bag that is perpetually swarming with flies.
"Just you and me, Al, baby!" says Bennie, who spends the second half of the film slowly going insane. Warren Oates (who was infuriatingly underrated for most of his career) gives a fabulous performance as Bennie, making the man at once repulsive, sympathetic, heroic, romantic, and tragic. His fascinating and complex characterization was easily the best American film performance of 1974, yet was ignored by virtually everyone when it came time to hand out those overrated golden statuettes.
Bennie's "relationship" with Garcia's head gets so creepy by the film's end that I refuse to spoil it for you by going into any more details; suffice it to say that Bennie not only talks to Al, but often stops in the middle of a sentence to listen as Al gives him advice. (And that's not even the weird part.)
I am convinced that John McNaughton drew some of his visual and thematic inspiration for Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer from the second half of Garcia. Watch both films back-to-back and you might think you've just watched then first two movies in an uncompleted trilogy.
Movie Information
Rating: RRelease Year: 1974
Running Time: 112 minutes
Director: Sam Peckinpah
Writers: Gordon T. Dawson, Frank Kowalski, Sam Peckinpah
Main Cast:
Warren Oates: Bennie
Isela Vega: Elita
Robert Webber: Sappensly
Gig Young: Quill
Helmut Dantine: Max
Emilio Fernandez: El Jefe
Kris Kristofferson: Paco
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Monday, August 11, 2008
Pride of the Marines
Pride of the Marines is a 1945 war drama starring John Garfield as the tormented marine Al Schmid. It's based on a novel by Roger Butterfield. This was one of the first movies to step away from the unconditional rah-rah nationalism of earlier WWII films and to portray the brutal nature of the conflict and terrible cost paid by the men who fought. In many ways, the movie was ahead of its time.
This movie contains one of the most terrifying and nerve-wracking sequences I've ever seen. Garfield and three of his buddies are trapped in a foxhole in a swamp, and the jungle surrounding them is swarming with Japanese soldiers. You never see the enemy soldiers, though early on you hear them yelling, "Marines, tonight you die!".
The marines can only see five feet in front of them because of the mist and fog, and one by one the guys are picked off by snipers (who take on the feeling of phantoms). Every once in a while you catch the glimpse of a shadow or hear the snapping of a twig...but that's it. As each of them falls to a sniper, the others become even more frightened and paranoid, until, near the end of the sequence (it's a good 10 - 12 minutes long, with no music, just sound effects and silence to build the unbearable tension), Garfield finally snaps and grabs the machine gun and begins firing blindily into the fog...
More would be a spoiler. It remains one of the most nerve-shatteringly suspenseful sequences I've seen.
Overall, the film is beautifully acted and it is one of Garfield's best performances. It's a pity it's not available on DVD, though you can very rarely find it shown on cable TV.
Movie Information
Rating: PG (were it re-released on DVD)
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Delmer Daves
Writer: Marvin Borowsky, Roger Butterfield, Delmer Daves
Score: Franz Waxman
Cinematographer: J. Peverell Marley
Cast:
John Garfield: Al Schmid
Eleanor Parker: Ruth Hartley
Dane Clark: Lee Diamond
John Ridgely: Jim Merchant
Rosemary DeCamp: Virginia Pfeiffer
Ann Doran: Ella Mae Merchant
Ann E. Todd: Loretta Merchant
Warren Douglas: Kebabian
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Movie Review: The Lathe Of Heaven
directed by Fred Barzyk & David R. Loxton
starring Bruce Davison, Kevin Conway, and Margaret Avery
1980, PBS (available through New Video Group), unrated
reviewed by Ryan C. Lieske
I love science fiction. My first true love is horror, but SF would have to be a close second. I'll watch any overblown Hollywood SF action epic with billions of dollars in pyrotechnics, like Armageddon, and I even like silly little T&A romps like Species 2. But ultimately I like serious, dramatic SF films most, movies with well-developed stories and a real grasp of science, and not just a reliance on special effects and makeup.
They used to make idea-based movies all time: Forbidden Planet, the original Planet of the Apes, This Island Earth, Logan's Run, and Soylent Green. Sure, these movies had special effects and makeup and wonderful set design, but most importantly, they were about ideas. Some matter of technological science, or of psychology, or anthropology. Something to chew on. You had a damn good time watching them, but you could walk away from them with something to ponder. In recent years, the "smart, dramatic" SF film has been replaced by more action-oriented storytelling. And that's all fine and good; I enjoy those types of films immensely, as I said before. But it's nice to take a break once in awhile and let the brain actually do some thinking while watching a flick.
I can think of several films in the past ten to twenty years that fit in this category: E.T., Starman, Iceman, Contact, Gattaca, and Bicentennial Man (which, despite what critics would have you believe, is actually a very smart, poignant film).
There haven't been many, but those listed above were certainly thought-provoking and a nice break from the other films they most often got buried under at the box office. In 2000, Brian DePalma tried making a serious SF film with Mission to Mars, but he failed spectacularly.
And what does all this have to do with anything? Well, it is a preface to me telling you what I thought about a wonderful little movie that I recently found on DVD called The Lathe of Heaven. And it certainly fits into the intelligent SF category that I illustrated above.
This film was produced for public access and went missing sometime in the late 80s. It was thought to have been lost for good, but a 2" tape of it was found, and New Video has made a new digital master of it and finally brought it back to the public. I had never heard of the film before, but was familiar with Ursula K. Le Guin, the author of the book upon which it was based. I purchased the movies and found it to be a genuine delight.
Obviously, given the shape and format of the source material, the quality of the video transfer is on the rough side. The video's introduction details the resurrection of this movie and warns the viewer that "ghosting" and darkening of the images will be present. It is, however, the best possible production that could be done, and I thank the stars they were able to do that much, because it would be a real shame if this mini-masterpiece were lost forever. Besides, we movie geeks are used to watching poorly-transferred bootlegs of films we can't get in the States yet, so watching this film was hardly a chore compared to some truly awful PAL-scrambled videos I've sat through.
The Lathe of Heaven tells the story of George Orr (played by Bruce Davison), who fears that his dreams can change reality. He overdoes on some medication he's taking, and is then ordered by the state to seek professional psychiatric help. He goes to see Dr. William Haber (Kevin Conway), who dismisses George's fears at first. Then, after hypnotizing George and witnessing the transformative powers of his dreams first hand, he realizes that this poor soul has been given an extraordinary power. And the doctor sees this as a power that can be harnessed for the betterment of mankind, and for the planet, which has been ravaged by pollution and plague.
Once George catches on to the doctor's plans, he resists. He doesn't want to be a tool. He doesn't want to play God. From there, a fascinating morality play unfolds as the doctor tries to convince George that he wants to use him to make the world a better place; that God has given them this force to work with, and that they should not deny God's wishes. George just wants to live a normal life, but he can't control the dreams, and they change the world in many ways, some good, others not.
Davison and Conway play their parts with conviction, lending weight to the somewhat fantastic events. In the wrong hands, the performances could've been silly.
There are many layers to the movie, as you can imagine. Issues ranging from racism to environmental degradation to alien life zigzag across the landscape of the screen, sending the viewer into a journey where at first the solution seems simple, but as the tale unfolds, and we see more and more into the souls of the characters involved, we learn that most of the time in life, and in the universe, really, there are no simple answers. There can be no salvation without some damnation.
I don't want to really talk much more about it for fear of tainting your impressions going into it. It should be watched with a clear, open mind, letting it flow over you, sinking into you. You will want to talk to others about it afterwards, I promise. It may even bring a tear to your eye. There were times I got a bit choked up. At other times, chills scuttled over me, especially when the time comes that they explain the title. All I could say was "Wow."
I immediately went out and bought the novel. The DVD includes a taped interview with Le Guin by Bill Moyers, and she states that she is happy with the film, but that the film is of course not the book. If the film was that powerful, I can't wait to see how more there is to it on the page, where ideas can be expanded much more than in the confines of an hour and forty-minute film.
The interview is the only supplement on the DVD, but given the rarity that this film is, it's a joy just to have that on DVD. Although the interview is quite entertaining. Le Guin is extremely intelligent and personable to listen to. Hearing her discuss her work made me want to explore her literary endeavors beyond The Lathe of Heaven.
For fans of "serious, dramatic" SF, this is a true, mind-blowing, cerebral treat. Those who only look for lasers, spaceships, and slimy aliens in their SF will find this a chore to sit through. For all others, it is like manna from Heaven.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Movie Review: Tales of Terror
Tales of Terror - 1962
directed by Roger Corman
adapted by Richard Matheson
starring Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone, Debra Paget, and Joyce Jameson
reviewed by Ryan C. Lieske
Horror luminary Vincent Price stars in all three of the tales in this anthology, which is in my opinion one of the more enjoyable, if not entirely faithful, Corman adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe's work.
As usual, Corman seeks to wring every ounce of juice he can out of his miniscule budget, and for the most part here he succeeds. While not exactly terrifying, the film is still very entertaining, and, in places, almost creepy.
The film opens with its weakest entry: "Morella." Price plays Locke, a man haunted by the death of his beloved wife Morella, who died shortly after giving birth to their daughter Lenora. He has spent the subsequent 20-some years wishing for death (but unable to bring it upon himself for reasons he has never understood) and drinking himself into mournful stupors. When his estranged daughter returns home after many years of alienation, he must confront his hostility towards her (Morella blamed her death on Lenora, saying, on her deathbed, "It's because of the baby ... the baby...."). Once he discovers that his daughter only has a few months to live, he breaks down and attempts to reconcile with her. However, Morella (who also vowed revenge on her child moments before she expired) has other plans for this morose family reunion. "Morella" didn't make much of an impression, other than to make me worry about the quality of the other stories.
But my concerns were put to rest with the next tale, "The Black Cat," which an amalgamation of Poe's "The Cask of the Amontillado" and "The Tell-Tale Heart." This is the best of the three stories, and it's actually more humorous than the others. Peter Lorre plays Montresor Herringbone, a drunken old man who stumbles one night into a gathering of wine tasters. There, he meets Fortunato (Price, again), who can "name any wine just by tasting it." Lorre, looking only for free wine, passes himself off as a wine connoseur, and challenges Fortunato to a taste test. Eventually, Herringbone drinks himself silly, and it falls on Fortunato to guide him home. There, Fortunato is introduced to Herringbone's lovely wife Annabel. The two become lovers, and begin having an affair.
Soon, Herringbone discovers their trysts and goes about murdering them by sealing them behind a brick wall. Lorre makes this story all his. He plays his role of the drunken, jealous lover to perfection. The dark comedic highlight is the taste testing challenge. Watching Price's silly wine-tasting "techniques," and Lorre's mocking impersonations of him are worth the price of the video rental. There's also a rather strange dream sequence where Corman twists the camera angle so that everything on screen appears flattened and distorted, making Lorre and Price look like midgets with long arms. At one point, Price and his lover play catch with Lorre's head. If it wasn't so damn funny it might actually be disturbing.
And the film ends on a genuinely creepy note with the third and final tale, "The Case of M. Valdemar," which I've always though was the scariest story Poe ever wrote. Here Price plays the title character, a man on the verge of death. He has enlisted the help of a "mesmerist," played by Basil Rathbone. Rathbone is using hypnosis on Valdemar to ease his pain. He also manages to convince Valdemar to let him "mesmerize" him on the brink of death, so that Valdemar feels no pain, instead just slipping into a deep sleep from which he will never awake. Rathbone does just that, but something goes wrong (at least it appears to go wrong; Rathbone just may have some ulterior motives here): Valdemar's body does indeed die, but his spirit remains mesmerized, locked in stasis. They can hear his voice, coming out of the ether, but his dead lips do not move.
Matheson took artistic license with the original Poe stories, throwing in subplots of jealousy and adultery. He and Corman move the action along, while maintaining the essence of the original tales. While the video doesn't quite live up to its title, it's still an entertaining hour and a half, with great campy performances by three of the Elder Statesmen of Horror: Price, Lorre, and Rathbone. It's a pleasure to watch them work.
So, check this one out, that's what I say. It should please fans of Corman and his AIP Poe adaptations, not to mention fans of the aforementioned stars. This is some of their best work all around. While not high on scares or gore, it's still full of fun, despite its rather dull but watchable opening. As the back of the box promises, this is a "blood-dripping package that includes murder, necrophilia, dementia, live burials, open tombs, exhumation, resurrection, zombies and feline vengeance," so what else do you want?
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Movie Review: The Mummy Returns
I have friends who read movie reviews and then go see the movies the reviewers hate because their tastes are so opposite. These friends probably lucked out and went to see "The Mummy Returns", despite its awful reviews. I say lucked out because I don't think the reviewers actually watched the movie. They just watched the trailer a few times, made their judgement, and wrote up the column. For example, Jay Carr of the Boston Globe review writes, "More money, more sand, more scorpions, more cavalry, more crumbling temples, more gold, more computer-generated imagery, more everything, except urgency and originality. The only suspense is not whether the intrepid Anglo interlopers will escape alive, but whether the film will, given the weight of special effects it's asked to carry." He gives the movie two stars.
Well, gee, that's about what we'd expect, right? That's certainly what I'd write if I'd only seen a few commercials. Having gone and paid the money and seen the movie, however, I'd say Carr missed a very important feature of the movie: it has a plot. In fact, it's even a fairly intricate and internally consistent plot. It is the Egyptian Year of the Scorpion, and Evelyn O'Connell (Rachel Weisz), our intrepid librarian, is led to an ancient temple by a dream. With uncanny prescience, she leads her husband Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) to the hidden treasure of the Scorpion King (The Rock), a bracelet which their son Alex promptly puts on once they return to London. A cult of egyptologists headed by the curator of the British Museum of History also wants the bracelet so that they can find the Scorpion King, defeat him, and take over his legions of Anubis's warriors. And who better to best the Scorpion King than our old friend, Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo), the original Mummy from the first movie.Unable to remove the bracelet, Imhotep's cronies kidnap Alex, forcing the O'Connells to chase Imhotep and the reincarnation of his lover, Ankh-na-Suman, across Egypt to save their son and the world in general. Along the way, we learn that Evelyn, too, is a reincarnation of a historical figure (although her identity will make you groan), and that Rick's past includes a mysterious tattoo indicating a predestined role in the upcoming conflict with the Scorpion King. And all of this actually meshes with the plot of the previous movie, one glaring continuity error aside.
Now, I'm not saying this is high art. There are numerous historical inaccuracies, not least of which is a jet-powered dirigible in the 1930s, when Von Braun was still experimenting with backyard rockets, not to mention that having large flaming objects anywhere near a bag full of what's probably hydrogen gas is an amazingly bad idea. My biggest gripe, however, is that the music soundtrack is absolutely terrible. At times reminiscent of Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, the soundtrack is mind-bogglingly unoriginal, and forgettable. Not a great marketing point.
However, they've planted a number of sequel hooks, some obvious, like Rick's tattoo (and I do want to watch the prequel again to see if he had it then), and some very subtle, like the mysterious Book of Life that shows up for all of two seconds and then is never mentioned again. Where is it? Who has it? And what can it be used for?
Overall, I'd say Jay Carr and most other reviewers slept through a whole star's worth of rating. It's definitely worth seeing, not just for the impressive special effects, not just for Brendan Fraser's stunning blue eyes, not even for the Crouching Tiger moments of full-out female fight scenes, but also to see that rarest of gems, a decent plot in a Hollywood action flick.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, April 14, 2006
Movie Review: A Sound of Thunder
We rented the movie because my husband was in the mood for an entertainingly bad movie (sometimes, you just want cheese, you know?). It was indeed fairly entertaining, and not quite as bad as we'd been led to believe.
It has two major problems:
1. The lead actor, Ed Burns, displays one of two facial expressions ("blank" and "vaguely annoyed") throughout the entire film. Case in point: when a character with whom his character has a close, brother/sister type relationship gets killed horribly -- he looks blank, then vaguely annoyed.
2. It was clearly intended as an eye-candy FX film -- and the effects looked really unfinished. The movie was heavily CGI-based, and almost all the CGI needed another rendering pass or two before it would be ready for audiences.
Apparently, the movie ran over budget in post-production, and the studio refused to front the money for proper completion. They shelved the almost-finished film for a couple of years, then dumped it in theaters.
While parts of it run like a checklist of action movie cliches, Thunder is really no dumber than other big loud skiffy films like The Day After Tomorrow, The Core, or Paycheck, and it does have some fairly witty dialog in places. And Ben Kingsley is fun to watch.
While I agree that Ray Bradbury's work deserves a better treatment, even with the underbaked FX and sleepwalking star, I think most science fiction fans would find this a more enjoyable movie than, say, Elektra.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, February 24, 2006
Movie Review: Bubba Ho-Tep
Bubba Ho-Tep is one of my favorite 2003 movies. It's an extremely adept adaptation of Joe Lansdale's novella of the same name by director Don Coscarelli. Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis are wonderful in their respective roles as elderly men who may or may not be Elvis and JFK stuck in a nursing home in Mud Creek, Texas* who must do battle with an Egyptian mummy who is brought to unlife after his museum box is dumped in a creek near the home.
The low-budget movie circulated the U.S. in extremely limited release last year. My wife and I took my nephew to see while it played in Columbus for a week -- to sold-out showings, no less -- at our local art house theater, the Drexel. Afterward, many people my nephew talked about the movie to in his home town wouldn't believe it was an actual movie.
However, now that Bubba Ho-Tep has been released on DVD, everyone who missed it in theaters can get themselves a copy. And in my book, it's an excellent purchase for any movie fan's library. I bought my nephew one just so he could prove to all his friends he didn't just make the whole thing up.
The movie is wonderful all the way around, with great performances from everyone, right down to the smallest supporting character. It's got all of Lansdale's trademark humor and off-center poignancy.
The transfer is gorgeous, and seeing it again (this time on the small screen) made me appreciate the director's use of comic-book angles more than I did inb the theater. There's a surprising amount of extras, but the single biggest reason to own this (aside from having the movie itself) is for the secondary audio track where Bruce Campbell as Elvis comments on the film as if he's seeing it for the first time. It's basically a 90-minute performance piece, and it's utterly hysterical.
What surprised me upon my second (and third) viewing (yes, I watched it twice -- c'mon, you know I have no life) was that there are countless little throwaway character bits that I didn't catch the first (or even second) time. A lot of love went into the making of this movie, a lot of care was taken, and the result -- even if you have some quibbles about it -- is undeniably a unique (in the dictionary sense of the word) movie: you ain't ever seen nothin' like this before.
The other surprise was the level of poignancy in the movie; this thing would have been a disaster if the filmmakers had decided to make fun of the elderly, or to play its two lead characters for laughs; they don't. The characters -- outrageous as they are -- are treated with respect and given dignity, and I was shocked that during the "salute" moment near the end, I actually got a little choked up.
Helluva good movie, a new cult classic (as it deserves to be -- the masses aren't ready for something like this).
I'd most definitely give this movie ***1/2, hands-down -- and it's ***1/2 instead of **** because I have a quibble: I think it takes just a tad too long to set up its premise, but that in no way diminishes the enjoyment.
* They shot the movie on-location in an actual nursing home in the actual town of Mud Creek, Texas. When you watch the movie, you'll notice that aside from JFK's room, the home looks pretty run-down. The home had been closed down temporarily for badly-needed repairs.
Gary A. Braunbeck is the author of 14 books and over 150 short stories. If you enjoyed this article, take a look at his book Fear in a Handful of Dust: Horror as a Way of Life
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, December 02, 2005
The Ring vs. Ringu
The Ring
The movie deals with uncovering the horror behind videotape that kills those who watch it. Those of you who haven't seen the film would do well to read no further....
Movie Review (with spoilers)
This movie closely follows the course set by Ringu, though there are definite changes; the protagonist father is turned from a conflicted psychic to a feckless videographer, and the protagonist mother's character has taken on a hard, heedless edge. The central disaster has been turned from a volcanic eruption to the mysterious death of the Morgan horses. The Ring's plot unfolds in a less straightforward fashion than Ringu's, and I enjoyed the other changes made for the American version.
Naomi Watts' performace as the driven Rachel Keller is wonderful. This woman refuses admit defeat, refuses to give up, and that is both her strength and her fatal flaw. We get a glimpse of how her refusal to give up can have a dangerous side when she is heading out to the old Morgan horse farm on the ferry. She tries to pet a horse on the ferry, persisting even when the horse starts to spook at her touch. She refuses to believe that she'd truly frighten a horse, and as a result the poor beast breaks out of his pen and leaps to his death in the cold ocean water. This event foreshadows her decision at the end of the film to do Samara's bidding and get her son to copy the tape and show it to others; she holds the little boy's hands down on the machine's buttons to ensure that he'll do it. Her overriding goal is to keep her son alive; her act seems to stem less from motherly love and more from her fierce, stubborn refusal to lose.
David Dorfman turns in a very good performance as Rachel's son Aidan Keller. The boy has an unnatural maturity that I think was both intentional and appropriate. His character has been abandoned by his self-absorbed parents as much as Samara was; he's praised for his independence, but what choice does he have? His mother is seemingly totally devoted to her career as a reporter and prefers that her own son call her "Rachel" rather than "mom". His father is almost totally absent from his life. He struck me a bit like the child of alcoholic parents; kids in that situation often seem unusually mature, because keeping the household in order has fallen onto them because the parents can't be relied upon. And, ultimately, Samara uses the boy to get to his mother Rachel, who as a reporter is uniquely suited to spread the tape. Noah receives visions from her well before he ever sees the tape himself. Samara needs Rachel to spread the tape; her other victims -- especially Rachel's niece, one of the first victims -- are disposable bait.
Having seen the movie several times now, I wonder if Aidan's connection with Samara is as simple as her being able to more directly influence a child closer to her own age. Aidan has dark eyes, but Rachel and Noah both have blue eyes. Blue-eyed parents can't genetically produce a child with dark eyes. This could either be a flub on the part of the filmmakers -- or it's intentional, foreshadowing that Aidan isn't Noah's biological son. It could be a clue that, when taken with Aidan's behavior, points to him having a mysterious parentage that further connects him with Samara.
Martin Henderson was believable as Noah, Aidan's absentee father and Rachel's old flame. Noah is talented and clever, but he doesn't have much in the way of common sense or maturity. Until the events of the film bring him and Rachel closer together, he's refused to even try to be a father to his boy, assuming that no father is better than a flawed one. Noah's fatal flaw is that he's too slow to put the pieces together and learns his lessons far too late.
Brian Cox does well in a small but important role as the reclusive Richard Morgan, Samara's understandably less-than-doting father. I really enjoy Cox's performances, and wished he had a bit more screen time here.
Daveigh Chase played Samara Morgan. She had relatively little screen time, but she was appropriately creepy, particularly in the mental hospital scenes.
Samara's character really intrigued me. She is the most restless of restless spirits -- she never sleeps, not even in death.
When Rachel and Noah discover the well hidden beneath the cabin, I thought I knew exactly where the movie was going. This same plot twist was used in the 1980 Peter Medak film The Changeling
But Samara's spirit doesn't seek vengeance (or at least not entirely). She had a taste for torment long before she died; in fact, it was her own mother, who had long yearned for a child, who dumped her in the well in an effort to get the evil occurences on the island to stop.
And that's the crux of the movie: Samara was no innocent young girl locked away and then murdered by mad parents. She was the fleshly embodiment of an evil spirit from the day she was born.
My own personal take on this is that Samara represents, if not an actual anti-Christ figure, then something like an anti-prophet. Many of the holiest figures of the Bible -- Isaac, Jacob, John the Baptist -- were born to barren mothers, women who supposedly could not conceive children. Samara's mother likewise could not have children. Early on, the island's doctor says that Samara was adopted as an infant, but Noah later discovers a birth certificate in Samara's medical files. After multiple miscarriages, Anna Morgan gave birth to Samara; only, presumably, Richard Morgan was not the child's true father.
Samara also engages in the activities of an anti-prophet. What do prophets do above all else? They spread the religious memes of their God. Samara's burning desire is to spread her nightmarish visions through the videotape, spread the meme of her evil. If, after seeing her nightmare, characters fails to spread it further, Samara kills them. As chain letters go, Samara's is pretty diabolical.
Movie Information
Running Time: 109 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Gore Verbinski
Writer: Ehren Kruger, based on Hiroshi Takahashi's screenplay of Koji Suzuki
Music: Hans Zimmer
Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli (who also shot Pumpkinhead
Cast:
Naomi Watts: Rachel KellerMartin Henderson: Noah
David Dorfman: Aidan Keller
Brian Cox: Richard Morgan
Jane Alexander: Dr. Grasnik
Lindsay Frost: Ruth
Amber Tamblyn: Katie
Rachael Bella: Becca
Daveigh Chase: Samara Morgan
Shannon Cochran: Anna Morgan
Sandra Thigpen: Teacher
Richard Lineback: Innkeeper
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Movie Review: Manhunter vs. Red Dragon
Those of you who've seen the more recent Brett Ratner/Ted Tally adaptation Red Dragon know the basic plot. Serial killer Francis Dollarhyde is slaughtering entire families to create grisly fantasy tableaus to "do as God does" and become the godlike dragon from the William Blake's painting "The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed With The Sun" and overcome his powerless past. Retired detective Will Graham (who has the uncanny ability to put himself in the mindset of the killers he's tracked) is enlisted to find the killer, whom the police have nicknamed "The Tooth Fairy" because of the impressive bite marks he leaves on his victims. Graham retired because of the physical and mental damage he sustained in discovering and capturing the serial-killing, cannibalistic psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, and as he sets out on his search for The Tooth Fairy, he seeks advice from his old nemesis in the mental hospital.
This movie is exceedingly watchable in part because of Mann's directorial style, but also because of the excellent performances by William L. Petersen
as Will Graham, Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter and Tom Noonan as Dollarhyde. This is easily character actor Noonan's most memorable performace, and he is one of the creepiest, freakiest villains to come out of 1980s cinema. The scene where Dollarhyde confronts the tabloid reporter he's kidnapped and strapped into an antique wheelchair, forces him to read a letter of apology into a tape recorder, then bites the terrified man's tongue out is something to behold. But the scene right after it in which we see the reporter set on fire and rolling down a parking garage ramp is an image that will stay with you for a long time; they couldn't top this scene in Red Dragon, and they didn't really try.And the soundtrack, my friends, does not suck (well, okay, the closing song "Heartbeat" is rather painful, but the rest's quite decent). The use of Shriekback
's atmospheric, seductive instrumental "Coelacanth" in the scene where blind Reba caresses the tiger Dollarhyde's taken her to see is just perfect. So is The Prime Movers' "Strong As I Am" as the sad, seething Dollarhyde watches Reba saying goodnight to the doomed coworker who took her home. And nobody, and I mean nobody I've met who's intently watched the climactic final battle between Dollarhyde and Graham can listen to Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" again without thinking about the movie.Comparing Manhunter and Red Dragon
When I and my housemates (who are even bigger Manhunter fans than I am) learned of the 2002 Red Dragon adaptation, we bitched. God, did we bitch and moan and gnash our teeth. Manhunter had gone without the audience and box office money it deserved, and now they were using Anthony Hopkins and an all-star cast to remake a movie that didn't need remaking?
We cynically believed they were only doing the new adaptation so they could release Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Red Dragon as a DVD trilogy with Hopkins as Hannibal and the movie refilmed with the same dark, dungeonlike tones as Silence and Hannibal (Manhunter is mostly shot in bright tones, and the psychiatric prison where Lecter is kept is a white, antiseptic institution).
So I was prepared to dislike Red Dragon on general principle, and avoided seeing it in theaters. However, when I finally saw it on DVD, once I stopped grumbling about it I thoroughly enjoyed it. Both are very worthwhile movies with different strengths and weaknesses.
Red Dragon is indeed visually a much darker movie, though interestingly cinematographer Dante Spinotti filmed both Manhunter and Red Dragon, so it's worth watching both movies as a comparison if you're interested in moviemaking. Lecter's prison is once again the dark, stony dungeon modern audiences have come to know. The open, arty house of Manhunter's Dollarhyde has been replaced with the gothic Dollarhyde mansion of Harris' novel.
Red Dragon is more faithful to the plot Harris' novel, and for that I've got to give it big kudos. In Red Dragon we get to see more of Dollarhyde and his history as well as seeing the original, fateful confrontation between Graham and Lecter.
I had my doubts about Ralph Fiennes playing Dollarhyde. Fiennes is handsome and slightly built, whereas Noonan is imposingly tall. How could anyone believe Fiennes as Dollarhyde? The movie does well to show the effects of child abuse on Dollarhyde, and to show that his perception of himself as ugly and unloveable is largely in his own mind. Fiennes does a great job and overcomes his apparent miscasting.
Edward Norton, unfortunately, does not overcome his mis-casting. Norton is one of my favorite actors, but he was just not the right choice to play Graham. Petersen's performance was right the first time, and Norton could never make me stop wishing he were Petersen. Philip Seymour Hoffman was surprisingly unremarkable as reporter Freddy Lounds. And Anthony Hopkin's hammy performance made me pine for the subtle menace of Brian Cox's Lecter.
The female actors, on the other hand, are uniform improvements in Red Dragon. With the reversion of the plot to that of the book, Molly Graham has a much more pivotal role, and Mary-Louise Parker delivers a performance Kim Griest could not. And Emily Watson shines as the blind Reba McClane; she was the one perfectly-cast character in the bunch.
DVD, DVD, Which DVD?
There have been three DVD releases of Manhunter: the plain one-disk release, the two disk Limited Edition set, and the recent one-disk Restored Director's Cut Divimax Edition.
I've seen them all, and can confidently say that the Restored Director's Cut Divimax Edition is not worth the money. While some cut scenes have been restored, they don't add that much to the movie. And the final fight scene has been recut in a manner that isn't nearly as good as the versions on the other DVDs. If you have the money to spend and really enjoy the film, the two-disk set is the way to go. Otherwise, you'll do fine picking up the plain-jane release that you can find in bargain bins here and there.
Aggravatingly enough, none of the supposedly definitive DVD releases contain an important scene in which Graham talks about Dollarhyde and the effect child abuse had on him. His dialog goes something like this: "This man wasn't born a monster; he was made one. And while I cry for the child who suffered so much, the rest of me wants to blow the sick fuck out of his socks." Another point for Red Dragon is that it does contain a scene with a version of this speech, which I and others feel is pivotal for understanding Dollarhyde's character and Graham's insights.
This review first appeared in Full Unit Hookup.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, September 09, 2005
On movie reviewers
I've been thinking about movie reviewers today. Specifically, I'm remembering the time that my husband and some friends of ours hit the dollar theater to see Ghost Ship.
We were fully expecting a big, steaming screen full of cinematic cheese, a movie so awful it'd be giggly fun. Almost every critic had lambasted the flick as utter trash, so it had to suck like a sump pump, right?
Fifteen minutes into the movie, my husband nudged me and whispered, "Is it just me, or is this actually kinda decent?"
And it didn't suck. In fact, it was a pretty solid retelling of The Flying Dutchman legend with some modern embellishments. Sure, it had a few problems: the pacing was rushed in places and hurt the suspense, and there were some unfortunate music choices that were obviously failed ploys to make the scenes "cooler" for younger audiences. But the effects were well-used and well done, the dialog was good, the story interesting (if not always scary) and even minor characters had their moments. The problems I saw with the movie smelled like studio interference to me: they'd probably forced the director to cut the time down, add a couple of extraneous scenes to amp up the gore, and change the music.
All four of us liked this film, which is somewhat unusual in that our friends don't have much patience for old-style horror films (they proclaimed The Exorcist to be "boring" when they finally saw it last year) and they won't forgive what they perceive to be a poor ending (which is partly why they deeply disliked Signs, though mostly it was because they couldn't see that film for what it was: a fable with science fiction trappings rather than actual science fiction).
But most every reviewer said Ghost Ship is crap. It's not; it's a very watchable film with a solid story. It ain't the second coming of Citizen Kane, of course, but it's not the utter trash critics claimed.
Which leads me to my rant: I'm sick and tired of critics who persist in reviewing movies in genres that they fundamentally don't like or don't appreciate.
If you don't like science fiction films, or horror films, why review them? Just so you'll have something to pee on that week? You're not helping your readers make useful decisions about whether or not they should spend money on something.
Movie reviewers should first and foremost be movie fans.
They should like movies, not just art house flicks or Polanski films or the hot young director du jour. They should appreciate it all: foreign films, schlocky horror, head-bending science fiction, gritty noir. They should know what kind of an audience will like what kind of movie, and make recommendations therefrom.
But I see too many reviewers who are cinema snobs. If it's got any kind of a budget or a hint of the fantastic, they hate it. Columbus' The Other Paper has a reviewer who is so predictably snotty that if he hates something, I make a mental note to seek it out, at least on video (he's not quite consistent enough for his distaste to be useful to me for full-price movies).
So. Here at Look What I Found In My Brain!, I will try do my very best to be a useful reviewer. I might not like a movie, but if I think you might, I'll say so.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Movie Review: Altered States
Altered States is a 1980 movie directed by British filmmaker Ken Russell. It deals with an American scientist, Eddie Jessup (played by William Hurt and based on John C. Lilly), who does experiments on human consciousness using hallucinogenic drugs, an isolation chamber, and himself as a guinea pig.
The movie is based on a novel of the same title by noted playwright Paddy Chayefsky, who also did the script adaptation. While the movie is decent enough for early-80s science fiction fare and has some very cool visuals, the novel is much better, and I highly recommend it.
The movie would have been much better if not for Russell's bias against Chayefsky. The problem was, Russell hated Chayefsky's script from the outset. However, Chayefsky's contract stated that Russell could not rewrite or otherwise tamper with the script. So, Russell instructed his actors to speak their lines as quickly as they possibly could.
As a result, the poetic cadences in Chayefsky's dialog were destroyed, and some fairly high-level scientific discussion was rushed through, much to the detriment of audiences being able to understand and process what was said.
Enraged by Russell's sabotaging of his script, Chayefsky had his name removed from the film, adopting instead the pseudonym Sidney Aaron (his given first and middle names).
Despite all this, the film did very well and is the most financially successful of Russell's career to date.
The movie is also of note because it was the first film appearance of both William Hurt and Blair Brown. One also gets to see a very young Drew Barrymore before she rocketed to stardom in E.T.: The Extraterrestrial.
Cast:
- William Hurt -- Eddie Jessup
- Blair Brown -- Emily Jessup
- Drew Barrymore -- Margaret Jessup
- Megan Jeffers -- Grace Jessup
- Bob Balaban -- Arthur Rosenberg
- Charles Haid -- Mason Parrish
- Thaao Penghlis -- Eccheverria
- Miguel Godreau -- Primal Man
- Dori Brenner -- Sylvia Rosenberg
- Peter Brandon -- Hobart
- Charles White-Eagle -- The Brujo
- Jack Murdock -- Hector Orteco
- Frank McCarthy -- Obispo
- John Larroquette -- the X-Ray Technician
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Movie Review: Star Trek: Nemesis
I saw Star Trek: Nemesis opening weekend after friends dragged me to the movies. I hadn't planned on seeing it so soon, as I found Star Trek IX: Insurrection to be a bit weak. I'd seen some lukewarm reviews of Nemesis and figured I'd catch it on video or at the dollar theater.
I'm glad my friends talked me into seeing it, because Nemesis was all around a good movie. The script was well-written and the story was put together carefully. Stuart Baird's direction is good, as is the acting, and the pace is gripping. One does have to ignore a few instances of bogus skiffy physics, but that's par for the course.
In short: if you are a fan of Star Trek and didn't catch Nemesis when it was in theaters, it's a worthwhile rental (and you might like it enough to buy it). You'll have a good time watching it; there are some nice comic moments early on before the movie gets serious, and you'll see some of the best action sequences of any of the Star Trek series. One of my friends thought this was the best of the recent batch of Trek movies. I liked First Contact quite a lot, and would have to see it again before I'd rank Nemesis as being better. At any rate, Nemesis is much better than Insurrection.
Spoilers follow ....
The story opens with Commander Riker and Counselor Troi's wedding (Wesley Crusher is in this part, but he is only seen at a table; presumably he had scenes that may end up on the DVD as outtakes). They plan to travel on the Enterprise to her homeworld to have a second wedding and honeymoon. Meanwhile, the entire Romulan senate is assassinated with the aid of a device that releases a type of radiation that destroys all life it touches.
En route to the wedding, the Enterprise detects positronic emissions on a planet near the Neutral Zone. They investigate, and discover a dismembered android that looks just like Data. This android is B4, a prototype for Data. The crew takes the confused, childlike B4 onboard, not realizing that B4 is an unwitting pawn of Shinzon, the Reman who has used the bloody coup to set himself up as Praetor of Romulus. B4 is both bait to make sure that the Enterprise is the closest ship to Romulus and a naive spy to gather information for Shinzon.
The Enterprise is contacted by Admiral Janeway, who instructs them to travel to Romulus. Praetor Shinzon claims he wants peace between the Romulan Empire and the Federation and freedom for his fellow Remans, but he is secretly planning to unleash a doomsday device and kill all life on Earth, thus crippling the Federation and leaving it ripe for Romulan takeover. Shinzon, who is a genetically-modified clone of Captain Picard, is also dying, and needs a full transfusion of Picard's blood to cure him of his sickness. Thus, his reasons for bringing the Enterprise to Romulus are twofold.
Tom Hardy does very well as Shinzon. Hardy's clone is an intense, angry, desperate, arrogant young man with Picard's tactical talents and intelligence and a black streak of violence bred by his brutal youth. Whereas Picard had a bucolic childhood at his family's vineyards and a cultured education at Starfleet, Shinzon was created to become Picard's replacement doppelganger. Taught to be a spy as a child, his project was abandoned and he was cast into slavery in the dilithium mines of Remus and raised by a Reman warrior (played by Ron Perlman). He is curious about Picard, but has a complex hatred for him as well. Shinzon envies Picard's life and feels that as long as Picard lives, he will be nothing more than a shadow, a copy.
Patrick Stewart does a wonderful job as always as Captain Jean-Luc Picard. When he discovers who Shinzon really is, he wants to believe the young man's story of wanting peace, but he wisely distrusts him. Picard feels sorry for the young man, and wants to try to save him. But when Shinzon's evil nature is revealed, Picard is shaken by Shinzon's accusation that Picard would do as the young man has done, were he in his position.
In many ways, though, this is Brent Spiner's movie. In addition to being one of the co-writers of the story, he plays both Data and B4. Data has a crucial role in this movie, and in the end saves his crewmates and stops Shinzon at a terrible cost to himself.
My only quibble with the movie, aside from a very minor issue of the film portraying Picard as having been bald in his 20s, is the portrayal of Romulan Commander Donatra (played by Dina Meyer). Donatra was a minor character, but an important one, and considering the role she played in the outcome, her character needed a bit more development/clarification and screen time.
And, on a final note, the geek in me wished they'd gone a bit more into the nature of the Remans. It seems unlikely that their species could have evolved on a hostile planet like Remus. If so, how? If not, were they the original inhabitants of Romulus? I also wished they'd gone a bit more into the Viceroy's character. Ron Perlman didn't have enough to do in this role.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, July 22, 2005
Review: The Powerpuff Girls Movie
I enjoy the Powerpuff Girls animated TV show, but I'm by no means a hardcore fan. I had no real desire to see this film, which I fully expected to be nothing more than a padded-out, gussied-up-with-better-animation TV episode. But, when my friends pestered me to go opening weekend, I figured I'd be a sport.
And I'm glad I got talked into going. This movie was an altogether pleasant surprise, and I had a great time. The writing was sharp and witty, and there are plenty of laughs for adults as well as the wee ones, and it has a well-developed plot.
Plot, you say?
Yes, indeed. In this movie, we learn the details of The Powerpuff Girls' creation and their subsequent decision to become crimefighters. We also learn that their arch-nemesis Mojo Jojo began life as a destructive little chimp in Professor Utonium's laboratory; he becomes a supervillain when he is splashed with the same Chemical X that gives the girls their superpowers.
The girls initially become pariahs after they gleefully lay waste to Townsville in a game of "Tag" that gets out of control after their first day of school. Forced to walk home alone after the Professor is thrown in jail for their destructiveness, they encounter Jojo, who has become a hobo in a cardboard box. Jojo tricks them into helping him create his headquarters and a laboratory to create an army of superintelligent monkeys (who, of course, rapidly get out of his control).
The girls, of course, ultimately redeem themselves in their usual rambunctious manner after a soul-searching scene on a distant, chilly asteroid. The puns and parodies come fast and furious along with the frenetic non-stop animated action. Watch for lots of Planet of the Apes and King Kong references in the final battle sequences.
A few of my favorite lines:
- "It's time to oppose the thumb!"
- "You're not evil! You're just really dirty!"
- "There's too many monkeys!"
It's a gem of a cartoon; if you have any liking for the TV show, I can almost guarantee you'll have a lot of fun watching this.
DVD update:
We got the DVD of this movie pretty much the day it came out, and the extras make it worth at least renting if you enjoyed the movie. One slight downside (for some of us) is that the movie has apparently only been released in the full-screen version, although the outtakes are in widescreen. Fortunately, the aspect was not so wide that the movie's composition is really harmed by the reduction.For instance, there's a gloriously off-color bit in the "deleted scenes" section. It takes place when the mayor and the angry mob accost the professor as he leaves his house to pick up the girls. The frame focuses on Sara Bellum's ample cleavage, and then she slowly raises a wanted poster of the girls into the frame as she asks, "Are these your babies, Professor?"
Other fun tidbits include gag interviews with the main characters and lots and lots of behind-the-scenes documentary segments.
The movie has a high repeat-watchability factor. We watched it twice in a row right out of the box due to housemates arriving home during the end credits and exclaiming, "Powerpuff Girls! We wanna see, too!" so we started it over and I didn't get sick of it. However, upon the third viewing, I finally noticed the one real plot hole in the film: why does the professor never notice his lab chimp's gone missing? Ah well, it's still a fun movie.
Movie Credits and Info
Running Time: 1 hour, 20 minutes
Release Date: July 3, 2002
Distributor: Warner Brothers
Director: Craig McCracken
Writers: Craig McCracken, Amy Keating Rogers, Don Shank
Art Director: Mike Moon
Animation Director: Genndy Tartakovsky
Storyboard Artists: Charlie Bean, Lauren Faust, Craig McCracken, Paul Rudish, Don Shank
Voice Cast:
Blossom: Catherine Cavadini
Bubbles: Tara Strong (Tara Charendoff)
Buttercup: Elizabeth Daily (E.G. Daily)
Mayor/Narrator: Tom Kenny
Mojo Jojo: Roger L. Jackson
Professor Utonium: Tom Kane
Ms. Keane: Jennifer Hale
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Movie Review: The Matrix Revolutions
Plot Summary
This third chapter of The Matrix trilogy takes up where The Matrix Reloaded ended. The free people of Zion brace themselves for the imminent invasion of the machine hordes. Neo must figure out how to use his newly-discovered powers to try to save Zion on his own by visiting the Machine City. Meanwhile, the people and programs inside The Matrix are rapidly being taken over by the madly egotistical Smith, who seeks to recreate his world in his own image.
Overall Impressions (Spoiler-Free)
I liked but was not wowed by The Matrix Reloaded. That movie has grown on me considerably since I saw it opening night; things that bothered me initially I no longer mind (the pacing) or even enjoy (the rave sequence). My reactions had a lot to do with my mood the night I saw it, I think.
So what was my mood going into see Matrix Revolutions? Grumpy. Grumpy that I'd been laid off the previous Friday after having been promised two more weeks of work. Grumpy over an unemployment benefits snafu that came to light that morning. Grumpy that Warner Brothers had seen fit to debut the movie at 9 a.m. Wednesday EST (6 a.m. in California) instead of midnight Tuesday.
I was very grumpy over that last bit. For those of us who crave the opening showing experience, 6 a.m.-9 a.m. just plain bites. First of all, who in the Matrix's main fan group is gonna be up that early unless they have to go to classes or a day job? So they'll need to go to work instead of to the movies with your sorry unemployed ass. Furthermore, the Matrix series is something to be seen at night. The dark, gritty world in those movies just doesn't go with leaving the theater to bright sunlight and twittering birds.
But Revolutions did what Reloaded could not: it grabbed me from the first scene and made me forget all about my bad mood. I was elated as I left the theater, and felt like smacking the frat boys who were grumbling "Man, that sucked, I want my money back!"
The action sequences are great. The set design and look of the movie is awesome. The writing is pretty sharp most places, and the acting's all solid.
I especially enjoyed performances by some of the supporting actors. Mary Alice had to take over for Gloria Foster as The Oracle because Foster sadly died between movies. Alice does an especially good job of matching Foster's speech patterns. I wasn't especially impressed with Ian Bliss' performance as Bane in Reloaded, but in Revolutions he does a dead-on impersonation of Smith to create a flawless impression that he is indeed posessed by the agent. Nathaniel Lees just plain kicks ass as Mifune, and Lambert Wilson was fun to watch as The Merovingian. Hugo Weaving was excellent as always as the increasingly-maniacal Smith; it takes a very good actor to chew that much scenery without it coming across as painful overacting.
The attack on Zion is nothing short of breathtaking; the use of CGI in this movie is much better than in Reloaded. I didn't notice any spots where the CGI failed to convince me and kicked me out of the story.
Revolutions rocks. What it does not do is to wrap everything up and tie it with a neat little bow and hand it to you. Many, many questions raised by Reloaded do not get answered here -- you, the viewer, have to sort it out on your own. Which I think is very cool.
Revolutions is rather like Fight Club in that regard -- the plot arc established in Reloaded is concluded in a logical manner, but a burden of intelligent interpretation is put on the viewer that I guess a lot of people don't want or expect to have to shoulder when they go see an action flick.
The movie is, ultimately, an allegory about faith, and the titular "revolutions" refers as much to the movement of ancient cycles than it does to a people fighting for their freedom. The religious symbolism gets pretty strong towards the end, and I imagine a lot of viewers either won't get it or won't want to get it. There's some pretty cool stuff floating around under Revolutions' fast, pretty exterior. You just have to be willing to see that it's there.
And finally, the movie ends with things wide open for a "natural" set of sequels -- The Animatrix proved that there are far more stories to be told in this world than can be captured by a trilogy of feature films.
Other Thoughts (Major Spoilers Follow)
The burden-of-interpretation has plagued professional reviewers, too. I've noticed some complaining about plot holes that aren't.
The first supposed plot hole happens in the sequence where the Smith clones confront The Oracle. Seraph tries to escape with Sati; intead of using a passkey to open a back door, he mundanely tries various apartments and finally kicks open a locked door to try to hide in an abandoned room. Why doesn't he have or use a passkey? He had them in Reloaded, after all, and one presumes he'd still have a key or two even though the Keymaker is gone. The answer is pretty simple: for security reasons, it would make sense for the Oracle to reside in a place that doesn't have back doors.
Another reviewer complained about the humans not throwing an EM bomb into the Machine City. One presumes they tried that long ago and failed; the only reason that Neo and Trinity are able to reach the city at all is because practically all the 250+ million sentinels have been sent to attack Zion. The humans have a finite number of ships, and replacing them takes a long time. Any other assault on the city at any other time would have been overwhelmed miles before they got close enough to do any real damage.
Others have complained about the ending; the peace Neo earns by ridding The Matrix of Smith's cancerous presence is tenuous, at best. The people trapped in the Matrix have been freed of Smith, but they're still enslaved. Realistically, though, that's how wars often go, and besides, even an intact Zion couldn't hold all the awakened sleepers. There's just not enough food and space to go around, and many would resent being awakened from a fairly normal world into a hardscrabble dystopia. Better to keep alive as many of the people who willingly chose freedom as possible, and let Zion live to fight another day when the peace inevitably breaks.
On a fan level, there are a few things that may leave you unsatisfied. You get less Morpheus and Trinity than you did in the past; the major characters must go to the sidelines as minor characters take the fore in the storytelling. And some aren't there at all; I was looking forward to seeing The Twins in action again, but I didn't realize until the movie was over that they were missing. And speaking of "twins", the lovely Monica Bellucci has little more than a cameo in this one.
So, what about my earlier, seemingly incorrect thoughts concerning the nature of The Matrix and the scorched-Earth world of Zion? (In a nutshell, I and others felt that the "real" world was another layer of virtual reality; please see the other node for our rationale) Well, it could go either way.
I think that the movie is likely to be more satisfying if you go in thinking that the world of Zion is actually another layer of VR; The Oracle repeately implies there's more for Neo to learn about the world an himself than he learns within the storyline of Revolutions. The VR hypothesis makes Neo's mysteriously waking up in the Trainman's limbo much more believable (though, of course, The Matrix series has worked best on a metaphorical level all along: it's a world where the soulless drones that control the world parasitically feed on the energy of dreamers).
Working from the Zion-as-VR standpoint also makes Trinity's death easier to take -- she might be "dead" in the same way that Smith was "dead" at the end of the first movie. From a fan standpoint, seeing Trinity die stinks, but from a plot standpoint, she has to die in order to free Neo to do what he must. When she dies, he loses everything -- and is consequently free to do anything. Her death burns away his human frailties -- but also what's left of his humanity.
The role reversal of the programs and Morpheus' crew is something I've also enjoyed.
Morpheus' recruits have focused on understanding the code of The Matrix and doing their jobs to the exclusion of everything else; they live cheerless, minimalist lives aboard their ships, and when they're in The Matrix, they kill without fear or pity or concern with anything but their mission. As Tank said in the first movie as he marvelled at Neo's ability to train long and hard: "He's a machine."
Meanwhile, the ageless programs of The Matrix have long had to focus on passing as humans. And in their boredom, they've entertained themselves with the trivia and luxuries of humanity. The Oracle loves her candy, cigarettes, and chocolate chip cookies. The Merovingian occupies himself with French cuisine, wine, and sexual intrigue.
The role reversal of the humans and the sentient programs was emphasized first in Reloaded in the scene where Morpheus, Neo, and Trinity approach the Merovingian in the restaurant. Morpheus' crew are stiff, impassive, mechanical, focused only on their work; The Merovingian's crew are laughing, lustful, distracted. The Matrix has forced the best humans to become indistinguishable from machines and the best programs to become indistinguishable from humans.
Neo's merging with the machine world is nearly complete at the end of movie. Neo has been blinded in his battle with Bane and must rely on his spiritual senses to "see" the world around him. To Trinity and the rest of us, the Machine City looks like a Lovecraftian mechanical nightmare; to Neo, it's a beautiful, otherworldly city of delicate lights. His transformation is completed when he makes his Faustian deal with the Deux Ex Machina who rules the city. When he goes back into The Matrix to face Smith, Neo has transcended his humanity and left it behind. He no longer fights for humanity because he fears the future or the death of a loved one -- he fights because it's his choice.
Movie Information
Revolutions opened with $24.4 million on its Wednesday debut; The Matrix Reloaded opened with $42.5M on its first day. While I do think first-day box office was hurt by opening the film at the same time worldwide (which translated to an early morning debut in the U.S. and took the steam out of a lot of people trying to see the movie on the first day as opposed to waiting 'til later), this installment ultimately didn't do as well as the other two movies because many were dissatisfied with Reloaded and thus had lessened interest in seeing the trilogy's conclusion.
Running time: 129 minutes
Rating: R Directors/Writers: Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Cinematography: Bill Pope
Score: Don Davis, with a lot of help from Juno Reactor
Cast:
Tanveer Atwal: Sati
Helmut Bakaitis: The Architect
Francine Bell: Councillor Grace
Monica Bellucci: Persephone
Rachel Blackman: Charra
Ian Bliss: Bane
Collin Chou (Sing Ngai): Seraph
Essie Davis: Maggie
Laurence Fishburne: Morpheus
Nona Gaye: Zee
Lachy Hulme: Sparks
Chris Kirby: Mauser
Peter Lamb: Colt
Nathaniel Lees: Mifune
Harry Lennix: Lock
Robert Mammone: AK
Carrie-Anne Moss: Trinity
Tharini Mudalair: Kamala
Robyn Nevin: Councillor Dillard
Genevieve O'Reilly: Officer Wirtz
Harold Perrineau: Link
Jada Pinkett Smith: Niobe
Keanu Reeves: Neo
Kevin M. Richardson: Deus Ex Machina
David Roberts: Roland
Bruce Spence: Trainman
Clayton Watson: Kid
Hugo Weaving: Agent Smith
Cornel West: Councillor West
Bernard White: Rama-Kandra
Lambert Wilson: Merovingian
Anthony Wong: Ghost
Anthony Zerbe: Councillor Hamann
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Movie Review: The Matrix Reloaded
Overall Impressions (Possible Slight Spoilers)
The Matrix: Reloaded
I liked The Matrix: Reloaded
The problem, I think, is one of editing and storytelling -- there's a lot of flash but not a lot of dazzle in the first hour of the film. Many characters are introduced, we finally get to see the industrial wonders of Zion, plot points are established, people dance and have sex, but much of it feels tepid and some feels disjointed and rushed. Missing is the taut pacing of the first film and the delicious Dickian feel of paranoia, claustrophobia, and sheer mindfuck.
In short, I wanted a good science fiction film with excellent action, but what I got was a decent action movie with good-to-awesome SFnal special effects. Most moviegoers might not see the difference or care too much, but those of us who actually read the stuff do care; while the ideas and plotline of The Matrix are right out of mid-1980s cyberpunk novels by folks like William Gibson
On the action front, a fight scene that should have been wicked-cool -- the battle between Neo and the Smiths -- is reduced to nifty-keen, undermined by not-quite-realistic CGI rendering (Gollum spoiled me, sad to say). I didn't notice the CGI's seams when I watched the Quicktime trailer -- thus this ironically might be a science fiction film that's better to see on the small screen.
Things start heating up in the fight between Seraph and Neo, but it's not until the scenes on the freeway that the film gets into new territory. Unlike Excalibre, I thought the freeway chase was some of the most exhilarating stuff in this movie; your milage may vary. The film finally finds its legs after that, but the cliffhanger ending left me feeling a bit unsatisfied.
So, there's a lot going for this film -- it just ain't The One. Hopefully the Brothers Wachowski will have gotten their focus back for the final movie in the trilogy.
Other Thoughts (Definite Major Spoilers)
After we left the theater, Braunbeck grumbled that he'd just paid $8 to see a two-hours-plus trailer for the third movie. He has a point. But it's one hell of a trailer, to be sure. The Matrix Reloaded has some very cool ideas at its core, but mainly seems to function within the series to introduce new characters, set up some cool ass-kicking sequences, and to set the stage for what will happen in the last movie.
The main themes of this movie are the problems of choice and fate; these are at the core of Neo's conversations with Councillor Hamann on Zion, with the Oracle, with Merovingian (who has imprisoned the Keymaker), and finally with the Architect.
Neo and Councillor Hamann, in a scene which I agree with Excalibre is one of the finer bits of the early part of the film, go down to Zion's physical plant and talk about how the humans and the machines of the plant need each other. They discuss the nature of control: they agree that humans can control these machines because they can shut them down, smash them to pieces, but to do so would be suicide. Hamann seems to have a lot on his mind, more than he's telling Neo.
Neo doesn't know what he should do with his astonishing powers, so he anxiously awaits another meeting with the Oracle. After he gets past her bodyguard, Seraph, and sees her again with his empowered eyes, he realizes that she is a program generated by the system. He asks if he can trust her; she tells him he can't ever really know. She talks about the nature of Fate, and implies his course is already decided -- he's only come to see her to gain insight into why he's on his preordained course.
After the Oracle tells him he needs the Keymaker, Neo and company confront Merovingian, a powerful rogue program who works as an information dealer. Merovingian scornfully tells them that those with power create the illusion of choices for those who don't have power -- and he pointedly tells the humans that they don't have power.
When Neo finally gains entrance to the mainframe, he enters a video room occupied by the Architect, the master program who created the Matrix in all its incarnations. The span of human life and Neo's life -- cleverly represented by brief clips from Keanu Reeves movies -- flashes across the monitors in the walls.
The Architect tells Neo that Zion has risen and been destroyed many times over, and then gives Neo a "Lady or the Tiger" choice. Neo can go through one door, where he will choose a small group of people to be survivors to found the new Zion after the old one is destroyed (starting the resistance all over again), or he can go through the other door to save Trinity, but the human world will be utterly destroyed.
Neo realizes that he and his compatriots have had the same choices of gamblers trapped in the casino -- no matter what game they play, the games are all rigged and the house controls all the bets. No matter what door Neo chooses, the machines still have control. The "freedom" of escaping to Zion to fight for humanity is another illusion.
Neo's very existence was set up from the start: the system allows the chaotic anomaly necessary to foster human happiness to culminate in the creation of The One: a human mind so powerful it can control the Matrix. The One is the supposed "savior" of mankind, but the flip side of this is to wonder what motivation a person with so much power in the virtual world and so little power in the "real" world really has to want to see the virtual world end. Thus, in the end, the machines still control The One.
At the end, when Neo is able to stop a group of sentinels in the "real" world, something he shouldn't be able to do, we realize that the world of Zion is simply a larger, different Matrix shell. They're all still stuck inside the virtual reality dictated by the machines.
The central idea here is actually pretty cool -- so I wish the Wachowski Brothers had been able to tell the story a little more cleanly.
This scenario explains many of the quibbles people voiced about the first movie, such as why the Agents are limited (for instance, they can run out of ammo). Zion and the human resistance are part of the Matrix and are integral to its evolution; after the first Matrix failed due to its mechanical flawlessness, the Architect realized it had to introduce an element of chaos into the system -- chaos which would inevitably lead to some sleepers trying to awaken and free themselves.
So, the Architect uses the world of Zion as a safety valve -- a place for these restless minds to run to, only to be kept so occupied by the war and the fight for survival that they don't have the time to realize they're trapped in another virtual reality. Zion's cyclic rise and destruction is part of how the Architect keeps refining his creation. The Agents are limited and flawed because they need to weed out the weak and put up a good enough fight to be convincing enemies, but in order to fuel the system's evolution, enough of the members of the resistance need to survive to populate the Zion of the next incarnation of the Matrix.
So, presumably there's another world beyond the world of Zion. Will we see it in the third movie? Presumably. It may be that there is no "real" world and no sleepers-- everybody could be a program.
For those who disagree that the "real" world of Zion is another virtual reality, consider Morpheus' words in the first movie: "What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'?"
And how would any of the people raised in The Matrix be able to differentiate between another, different virtual reality and the actual real organic world?
The answer is, having had no experience with the organic world, they wouldn't be able to make the distinction. Neo's suddenly developing the power to supernaturally zap the Sentinels doesn't jibe with the established "rules" of the universe: the existence of ESP/psionic powers outside the Matrix hasn't been mentioned. The One's power, while spiritual, has never been presented as being something that manifests itself outside virtual reality.
If it turns out that the world of Zion is the real, organic world, and Neo suddenly has the magical ability to zap the machines at a distance, it might be cool, but it'll also be a bit of a cheat. Neo's being able to affect the Sentinels and Smith's being able to possess Bane are both absolutely possible if Zion is another machine-created reality based on a different and more complex coding structure. If they're in the organic world, both events are a little dodgy from a science fiction rules standpoint.
Budget and Box Office
The Matrix was made for about $65 million and grossed a little over $171 in the U.S. and over $455 million worldwide and gobs more than that in video/DVD rentals and sales. The two Matrix sequels had a combined budget of $300 million, allowing for higher star salaries and the glorious excess of FX and stunts mentioned above. Despite the higher price tag, Reloaded looks to be a huge box office winner. It kicked through the opening day box office record set last year by Spider-Man and took in about $42.5 million from 3,603 theaters.
This is quite a feat considering this is a rated "R" movie -- all the biggest blockbusters to date have been PG or PG-13, with the notable exception of Beverly Hills Cop, which grossed a huge $234.8 million back in 1984 when ticket prices weren't nearly as high.
What will good sales for Reloaded mean in the long run, aside for more work for the Wachowski Brothers? Will it mean we'll be seeing more science fiction action films? It's hard to say -- The Matrix has already been hugely imitated. Only time will tell.
Movie Information:
Rating: R
Release Date: May 15, 2003
Running Time: 138 minutes
Directors: Wachowski Brothers
Writers: Wachowski Brothers
Cinematographer: Bill Pope
Cast:
Christine Anu: Kali
Helmut Bakaitis: The Architect
Steve Bastoni: Soren
Don Battee: Vector
Monica Bellucci: Persephone
Daniel Bernhardt: Agent Johnson
Valerie Berry: Priestess
Ian Bliss: Bane
Kelly Butler: Ice
Collin Chou (Sing Ngai): Seraph
Essie Davis: Maggie
Terrell Dixon: Wurm
Laurence Fishburne: Morpheus
Gloria Foster: The Oracle
David Franklin: Maitre D'
Nona M. Gaye: Zee
Roy Jones Jr.: Ballard
Malcolm Kennard: Abel
David Kilde: Agent Jackson
Randall Duk Kim: The Keymaker
Christopher Kirby: Mauser
Peter Lamb: Colt
Nathaniel Lees: Mifune
Harry J. Lennix: Commander Lock
Robert Mammone: AK
Matt McColm: Agent Thompson
Carrie-Anne Moss: Trinity
Robyn Nevin: Councillor Dillard
David No: Cain
Harold Perrineau Jr.: Link
Jada Pinkett-Smith: Niobe
Adrian Rayment: Twin #2
Neil Rayment: Twin #1
Keanu Reeves: Neo
David Roberts: Roland
Hugo Weaving: Agent Smith
Cornel West: Councillor West
Leigh Whannell: Axel
Bernard White: Rama-Kandra
Lambert Wilson: Merovingian
Anthony Zerbe: Councillor Hamann
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Movie Review: The Return of the King
This final installment in Peter Jackson's filmed trilogy based on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a hard film to review properly because there's so much packed into the movie's 3.5 hours ... where to begin?
Is it epic? This movie hearkens back to the vast old epics of the Golden Age of Hollywood like The Thief of Bagdad -- the silent, original Douglas Fairbanks version with its dashing hero and fabulous sets and thousands of extras. It gives the grand old movies a tip 'o the helmet ... and leaves them in the dust.
Is the movie perfect? No. Perfection lies in the eye of the beholder, and I'm sure every Tolkien fan who's held the books close to their hearts will have quibbles here and there ... just like they have with the first two movies. The movies on the screen are never as good as the movies in our minds.
This is the stuff George Lucas thinks he can still make. It delivers the goods we grew up craving after seeing the original Star Wars films as children ... only Jackson's trilogy won't suffer from adult viewing.
Take The Empire Strikes Back, my personal favorite of the originals. The battle on Hoth in which the huge Imperial Walkers attack the rebel base was the best scene ever, as far as 12-year-old me was concerned. And I kept watching the movie, again and again, until logic finally reared its ugly head: if the Empire could land machines of that size intact on the icy planet ... why weren't they just using mass driver weapons and burying the base under great huge chunks of rock? Why engage the rebels at all when they could just crush them from afar? The scene, I realized, had no solid reason for being there, other than to be exciting eye candy.
Flash forward 20 years to The Return of the King. In the battle for Minas Tirith, our heroes are attacked by the Haradrim riding the huge, elephantine mumakil. Watching Eowyn riding between the great beasts' legs and dodging crushing death gave me the kind of thrill that took me back to my 12-year-old self watching the Imperial Walkers for the first time. And Legolas' taking out the mumakil's riders and finally the beast itself left Luke Skywalker's grenade-throwing heroics in the snow.
And more important -- the presence of the mumakil and their Haradrim masters makes perfect sense within the world of the movie. Logic didn't have to be suspended for this battle to take place -- it had been set up all along.
The visuals in the movie are spectacular. Any individual element -- the made-by-real-smiths armor and weapons, the painstakingly sewn costumes, the careful, beautiful detailing of the sets, the CGI, the cinematography -- is a phenomenal cinematic achievment. But the awesome spectacle of the battles and the special effects never distances us from or buries the plight of the individual characters. In fact, the epic elements support and echo the small, individual struggles that are taking place in the story.
While the Minas Tirith battle raged, I was on the edge of my seat wondering if Pippin could reach Gandalf in time to save Faramir from being burned alive. And Denethor's dark madness was just as big and scary as any mumakil.
While we're talking about performances here, I thought going in that Aragorn -- the title character, really -- would be the moral center of the movie. I was wrong; this film's center is Samwise Gamgee. Sean Astin did a wonderful job, and I think he should have been nominated for a best supporting actor Oscar nomination, but like so many other rubber mask theater actors he was overlooked by the Academy (though he and the others did win a SAG; see below).
Jackson has done what Lucas and hundreds of directors before have often failed to do: given us kick-ass effects that took untold man hours and coordination and stunts and CGI, but never let all the eye candy distract him -- or us -- from the heart of the story.
On February 29, 2004, The Return of the King swept the Oscars: the movie won every last award for which it had been nominated, bringing home 11 Academy Awards (three to Jackson himself). This tied the record held by Ben Hur and Titanic -- in my book, Jackson's epic did Titanic one better because the big ship movie lost in some of its nominated categories. Pity RotK didn't get a nomination for sound editing or cinematography, else it might have broken the record.
It's a larger pity that none of the actors were nominated for awards, but the mere fact that an outright fantasy film stormed the Academy Awards is no small feat. This should pave the way for a lot more fantasy films, and while many of those are sure to be poor imitations, Jackson has raised the bar very high, and other directors are certain to try to reach his new standard.
Viggo Mortensen and company can at least console themselves that they won the Screen Actors Guild ensemble award in 2004 for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture, which is nothing to sneeze at.
Here is a list of the Oscars Return of the King took home to New Zealand:
- ART DIRECTION: Grant Major (Art Direction); Dan Hennah and Alan Lee (Set Decoration)
- COSTUME DESIGN: Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor
- DIRECTING: Peter Jackson
- FILM EDITING: Jamie Selkirk
- MAKEUP: Richard Taylor, Peter King
- MUSIC (SCORE): Howard Shore
- MUSIC (SONG): "Into the West" Music and Lyric by Fran Walsh and Howard Shore and Annie Lennox
- BEST PICTURE: Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh
- SOUND MIXING: Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek
- VISUAL EFFECTS: Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook and Alex Funke
- WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY): Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson
The Extended Editon on DVD
As with the other extended editions in the series, this is a better movie than the theatrical release. In many ways, the restored scenes make it a much darker movie.
The CGI effects have been re-rendered -- not added and redone Lucas-style, but re-rendered to improve the look of the effects. They have better detail and depth now; the Spider Queen, in particular, is even more realistically grotesque, and I didn't think that was really possible.
Many fans had questioned why Saruman's scenes were cut from the theatrical release, and I think I know why. The theatrical release was already very, very long for theatre-goers with supersized sodas clutched in their hands at the start and aching bladders at the end. An intermission for all the films would have been good, but intermissions just don't exist in the cinema marketplace these days. So a 7 minute scene, while not very long itself, might have tipped the movie over the edge into "too long for one sitting" territory.
More to the point, though, is that the deleted Saruman scene, along with the other deleted scenes, is violent. Violent enough, I think, to perhaps cost the movie its rating. There's more to the opening sequence between Smeagol and Deagol, and it's more brutal and disturbing. Certainly more effective, but less appropriate for younger viewers.
One tone-crucial scene that's been restored is the confrontation with The Mouth of Sauron at the black gates of Mordor. The Mouth is played by Bruce Spence with some CGI help, and damn, he's creepy. He looks like something spawned by HR Geiger and Clive Barker. The Mouth makes the Fellowship believe that Frodo is dead -- so Aragorn's decision to attack Mordor anyhow completely changes in tone and meaning of that scene. Why was it cut? I don't know -- maybe the studio heads decided the Mouth was just a little too freaky for the rating.
Some nicer scenes have been restored as well. There's the meeting of Faramir and Eowyn in the healing house, and some scenes between Merry and Eowyn on their way to war.
What isn't in the restoration? There's no funeral or memorial for Theoden, and there's no Scouring of the Shire. Ah well. I enjoyed what there was.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, July 15, 2005
Movie Review: The Salton Sea
Which is a real shame, because this is a good movie with a great cast, keen writing, an excellent score, and stylish, smart direction.
The Salton Sea stars Val Kilmer as a widowed jazz trumpet player who adopts the persona of death punker Danny Parker in an undercover attempt to discover his wife's murderers in the seedy world of methamphetamine addicts and dealers.
Kilmer's acting here is some of the best work he's ever done. I hope we'll be seeing him in more and better roles from now on.
Vincent D'Onofrio turns in another of his trademark wonderful performances as Pooh-Bear, a methamphetamine cook who snorted so much crank that his nose rotted off. Pooh-Bear is a redneck surfer dude psycho, ridiculous and frightening in the same scene. D'Onofrio went to great lengths to prepare for the role, gaining 45 pounds and getting a bad farmer tan and bleaching his hair. The director reported that he didn't even recognize D'Onofrio when he showed up for the first day of rehearsals.
D'Onofrio's part is comparatively small, but his scenes are riveting. When we are introduced to Pooh-Bear's character, he's directing a home movie recreating the Kennedy assassination -- with pigeons strapped into a remote-controlled toy jeep and his buddies with rifles. That scene was some of the blackest comedy I've seen in a while.
Another amazing scene is when Parker comes by to do a drug deal. Pooh-Bear, suspecting Parker's an informant, tries to torture the truth out of him. I won't go into details, but Pooh-Bear's unique brand of "encouragement" involves Parker's pink bits and a very angry, starving badger.
A big surprise for me was the director, D.J. Caruso. His name wasn't familiar to me, but The Salton Sea is so expertly directed I figured he'd done lots of other features. Not so -- up 'til now, he's mainly done made-for-TV movies. This is a young director I hope we'll be seeing more of. He apparently made an effort to combine the best of the script and the best improvisation his actors could offer -- he would evidently film certain scenes in radically different ways to see what worked best.
While his technique is perhaps debatable, his results are brilliant. The movie constantly surprises you. The first part of the film -- which details Parker's wry observations on the world of the tweaker -- leads you to believe that this is going to be a darkly comic Trainspotting with meth addicts. But it gets darker and darker, and suddenly it's squarely in film noir territory.
This was one of the best films I saw in 2003.
If you enjoyed films like the original Get Carter and The Limey, this should be just your speed.
Movie Information
Rating: R
Running Time: 103 minutes
Director: C.J. Caruso
Writer: Tony Gayton
Score: Thomas Newman
Cast:
Val Kilmer: Danny Parker / Tom Van Allen
Vincent D'Onofrio: Pooh-Bear
Adam Goldberg: Kujo
Luis Guzman: Quincy
Doug Hutchison: Gus Morgan
Anthony LaPaglia: Al Garcetti
Glenn Plummer: Bobby
Peter Sarsgaard: Jimmy the Finn
Deborah Kara Unger: Colette
Chandra West: Liz
B.D. Wong: Bubba
R. Lee Ermey: Verne Plummer
Meat Loaf Aday: Bo
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Movie Review: The Company of Wolves
Which is why this movie failed at U.S. box offices when it was released in 1984. The American distributors didn't know what to do with a fairy tale movie that dealt with werewolves and adult sexual themes. So, they tried to market it as a horror movie, and those going in expecting something like The Howling or An American Werewolf in London were bound to be disappointed.
In fact, the only really gory scenes in the movie are the two where Stephen Rea and Micha Bergese turn from men into wolves -- and these were added post-production at the U.S. studio's demand. Director Neil Jordan never intended them to be in there. And while the animatronics and makeup work is impressive in those two sequences, they really don't seem to "fit" with the rest of the film. When you watch them, you'll see reaction shots from the other characters, but they aren't involved in the sequences at all.
Without these two added-in scenes, there'd be nothing about Wolves to call it anything but what it is: an exploration and deconstruction of several fairy tales in light of the werewolf myth.
At its core is a retelling of "Little Red Riding Hood", but it also alludes to tales written by the Brothers Grimm and Charles Perault such as "The Constant Tin Soldier", "Hansel and Gretel", and "Deerskin". The movie also contains elements of other Angela Carter stories from the short story collection In The Bloody Chamber, where her story "The Company of Wolves" was originally published. The collection is out of print, but all those stories can be found in a recent Carter collection called Burning Your Boats.
The movie contains some absolutely wonderful sets and visuals; everything has a very neat fairy-tale feel to it.
The frame of the movie is an adolescent girl's dream; in it, her annoying sister is first eaten by wolves, and then the girl herself becomes a heroine in a fairy tale populated by flesh-and-blood incarnations of the toys and figurines scattered throughout her bedroom. The dreamlike world of Wolves is set in a place out of time where the rich wear the powdered wigs and sumptuous pre-Revolutionary dress of the 1700s, but they also drive expensive 1930s-era motorcars (those with sharp eyes will spot Terence Stamp in an uncredited role as The Devil in the back of a white Rolls Royce).
My favorite scene in Wolves is perhaps its most famous scene. In it, a rich wedding party is taking place in a tent on palatial grounds. A young nobleman has just married. A red-haired pregnant commoner comes into the tent to accuse the young man as the one who impregnated and abandoned her. "Wolves are more decent than you," she tells them all, and in the reflection of a cracked mirror she watches them all change into wolves and flee into the dark woods. Later, she forces the wolves to serenade her and her baby. The lyncanthropic change here has an entirely different feel than the gory changes of Rea and Bergese.
The Company of Wolves has clearly had an effect on other filmmakers. I saw its influence throughout Brotherhood of the Wolf, but I also saw a subtler influence in films such as The Secret of Roan Innish.
In short, I loved this movie, where Granny is a wicked, bloodless creature, and the Big Bad Wolf and the heroic Huntsman are one in the same. It came out on DVD a few years ago, and should be an excellent addition to any fantasy movie fan's collection.
Movie Information
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: R
Director: Neil Jordan
Writer: Angela Carter
Music: George Fenton
Cinematography: Bryan Loftus
Cast:
Sarah Patterson: Rosaleen
Angela Lansbury: Granny
Micha Bergese: The Huntsman
David Warner: Father
Tusse Silberg: Mother
Stephen Rea: Young Groom
Kathryn Pogson: Young Bride
Graham Crowden: Old Priest
Georgia Slowe: Alice (Rosanleen's sister, who is killed by wolves)
Brian Glover: Amorous Boy's father
Susan Porrett: Amorous Boy's mother
Shane Johnstone: Amorous Boy
Dawn Archibald: Witch Woman
Richard Morant: Wealthy Groom
Danielle Dax: Wolf Girl
Terence Stamp: The Devil
This was originally published in the Spring 2004 issue of Full Unit Hookup.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Movie Review: Murder by Decree
In short, this movie is about Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson investigating (and solving) the Jack the Ripper murders. This isn't the first film to use that scenario; a 1965 film called A Study in Terror, based on an Ellery Queen novel, had the same core plot idea.
While I won't get into spoilers just yet, the Hughes Brothers owe a huge debt to this film for their 2001 movie From Hell. So, all you movie buffs out there who saw From Hell should most definitely see Decree.
Decree is also possibly the best Holmes/Watson film ever made because of the excellent portrayals of Sherlock Holmes by Christopher Plummer and of Dr. Watson by James Mason.
For us fans of old movies, Basil Rathbone is the Sherlock Holmes ... but Plummer is better. Plummer's Holmes is a man of keen intellect and observation, but he also has a human warmth and humor that's unique amongst portrayals of Holmes (and to a large degree Plummer's other roles, as well).
Mason's Dr. Watson is no bumbling fool; while he does provide for some fine comic moments (particularly in the "pea" scene, where he tries to capture the last pea on his dinner plate) he's intelligent, fierce, and loyal. Dr. Watson kicks ass in this movie, and you get the sense of a genuine, deep friendship between him and Holmes. The two are more complementary equals in this film than in others.
Interestingly, Mason later said that he used American President Gerald Ford as his model for Watson, primarily because Mason said he was always struck by Ford's decency and steadfastness. Also interesting is that Peter O'Toole and Sir Lawrence Olivier were originally supposed to play Holmes and Watson in this movie, but the two actors couldn't get past their dislike of each other.
The movie's other parts are played by some of the best Canadian and English character actors of the era. Sir John Gielgud plays Lord Salisbury, Donald Sutherland plays the clairvoyant Robert Lees, and Genevieve Bujold has a small but heartbreaking role as Annie Crook. Her scene in the Victorian asylum is easily one of her best performances.
Comparing Murder By Decree and From Hell (spoilers)
In Murder By Decree, writer John Hopkins puts forth the conspiracy theory that the Ripper murders were decreed by Freemasons within the British government to cover up the Prince Edward's seduction of and marriage to Annie Crook (a Catholic) and the subsequent birth of his child her. Those of you who've already seen or read From Hell are well aware of this conspiracy theory; while the details of the conspiracy differ somewhat, clearly neither the graphic novel nor the 2001 movie would exist in their current form without the influence of Decree. The main difference is that From Hell makes it clear that the conspiracy went all the way up to the Queen of England, whereas in Decree the ringleaders are Sir Thomas Spivey and Lord Salisbury.
Decree is entirely from the perspective of Holmes and Watson, so From Hell goes much more into the daily lives of the Whitechapel prostitutes and the details of the murders themselves. And while From Hell also deals more with Masonic ritual and their relevance to the murders, Decree shows the genuine secret Mason's handshake, which was evidently a controversial revelation in 1979.
Other elements of Decree are incorporated in From Hell, mainly some set design elements and Robert Lees' clairvoyance, which is transferred to Johnny Depp's Inspector Abberline.
Movie Information:
Release Year: 1979
Running Time: 124 minutes
Rating: PG
Budget: about $4m U.S.
Director: Bob Clark
Writer: John Hopkins
Cast:
Christopher Plummer: Sherlock Holmes
James Mason: Dr. John H. Watson
David Hemmings: Inspector Foxborough
Susan Clark: Mary Kelly
Anthony Quayle: Sir Charles Warren
Sir John Gielgud: Lord Salisbury
Frank Finlay: Inspector Lestrade
Donald Sutherland: Robert Lees
Genevieve Bujold: Annie Crook
Chris Wiggins: Doctor Hardy
Tedde Moore: Mrs. Lees
Peter Jonfield: William Slade
Roy Lansford: Sir Thomas Spivey
Catherine Kessler: Carrie
Ron Pember: Makins
This review originally appeared in the spring 2004 issue of Full Unit Hookup Magazine
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Monday, June 20, 2005
Movie Review: God Is Alone
reviewed by Gary A. Braunbeck
God is Alone is a 2004 indie film written and directed by Jason Torrey. It's about a young man named William who, along with his deaf sister Amy, endures a great deal of abuse from their father. After William loses his job, he sees a girl abandoning a baby in a dumpster; he tries to help the baby, and the film chronicles the disaster that follows. On a symbolic level, the film is basically an update of the story of the birth of Christ.
I thought that Monique Farrar, the actress who played Amy, was superb--I don't recall the last time I saw a face so naturally and deeply, deeply sad; of all the actors in the film, she was the only one who I felt wasn't "acting"--she was natural and effortless and heartbreaking as hell.
Other reviewers have criticized the movie for having far too many scenes of William walking around. I agree (though I can undertand, to an extent, why Torrey chose to do this), but even if I hadn't liked it overall, I would still recommend that people watch it for the extraordinary "coffee-making" scene that comes about 2/3 of the way through.
The coffee scene accomplishes everything that good film storytelling should accomplish; it adds depth to the character, it has real poignancy, it's nerve-wracking as hell in context, and ultimately incredibly sad.
The entire sequence, from the time her father pours the coffee on the table right up until Amy falls asleep in her bedroom is--in my opinion--perfect. No flashy camera work, nothing terribly symbolic, just one person in a great deal of quiet pain and fear trying to keep herself from being further abused, then retreating into memories of the past in order to make coping with the present more endurable.
There's a lot of subtle pain and terror in that sequence, and though the rest of the film doesn't measure up to these 8 or 9 extraordinary minutes, that they exist at all is proof enough of the director's talent for me.
If you can get past some of the over-long strolls, a handful of visual self-indulgences, and some of the heavy-handed religious symbolism (that Amy was dressed in white, white, white all the time got on my nerves in short order) this is very worthwhile--though flawed--piece of filmmaking. It's a movie that isn't afraid to be exactly what it wants to be: it's the work of a single vision, so it's understandable that that vision might have gotten a little tunnel-visioned at times.
There is a scene in the movie that--as far as I can tell--serves no other purpose (speaking here from a narrative point) than for the director and his wife to put their baby daughter on-screen. But you know what? I'm a sucker for babies. The little girl is adorable, a natural for the screen if I ever saw one. Unfortunately--for the scene in question--you can't look at anyone or anything else once the baby comes on. It's not that she makes noise or draws attention to herself, it's just that she's so darned cute you don't really care about anything else.
But I want to re-emphasize something: despite my reservations about it, this is a very worthwhile film, one that shows its director as having serious intent and a talent to watch.
God is Alone is 104 minutes long and is intended for mature teens and adults.
Gary A. Braunbeck is the author of 14 books and over 150 short stories. If you enjoyed this review, check out his book Fear in a Handful of Dust: Horror as a Way of Life
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, June 17, 2005
Movie Review: Road to Perdition
Road To Perdition is a wonderful film based on a graphic novel of the same name written by Max Allan Collins and illustrated by Richard Piers Rayner.
It immerses the viewer in six weeks of a fateful Depression-era winter in 1931 when a hitman's professional life and personal life come crumbling down after his troubled eldest son witnesses a brutal gang slaying. Fearing the boy will talk, the ruthless, avaricious son of the Irish gang's elderly leader marks the loyal-to-a-fault hitman for death and murders his wife and youngest son. The hitman, Michael Sullivan, must take his son on the road with him as he seeks redemption as a father, a safe life for his boy, and vengeance for his slaughtered family.
If you enjoy good, tense film noir drama and excellent acting, go rent this film. Immediately. I've seen a few mixed reviews in which the critics claim the film is dull and Tom Hanks is boring in his leading role: as far as I'm concerned, the critics weren't paying attention to the movie.
Hanks has never been better as Michael Sullivan, the grim, gentlemanly hitman who learns too late the price his work has on his family. Clint Eastwood would have played this role twenty years ago, and as good as he would have been, his portrayal wouldn't have been nearly as nuanced as Hanks' is.
This isn't a slam-bang gangster flick with over-the-top performances: it's a quieter, more thoughtful film about a man who kills not for money, pleasure or glory but solely out of a sense of duty to his boss, whom he views as his adoptive father. Hank's character will do anything for his family, be it his real family or his gang (but when he is forced to choose between the two, he chooses his own flesh and blood). He is a skilled killer, but you can tell this guy, had he not fallen under the elder gangster's wing as a youngster, would have been much happier to have lived his life in a more mundane profession that would have let him be a good father. Hanks is not boring; he's heartbreaking.
Paul Newman is wonderful as always as John Rooney, the conflicted, tough-minded, remorseful godfather of an Irish gang, and Jude Law is deliciously creepy as a ghoulish crime scene photographer who moonlights as a "gifted" killer-for-hire. Conrad Hall's cinematography is absolutely beautiful and painstakingly recreates images from the graphic novel. Thomas Newman's score is gorgeous, and sent us out on an immediate (but ultimately fruitless) 2 a.m. post-film excursion to search for the soundtrack at a nearby 24-hour Meijer's.
But the real strength of this film is its story. There's a lot of plot packed into its two-hour running time, but the pacing is excellent and nothing gets short shrift. The movie captures real human emotion and genuine tragedy; it is a story of familial love, betrayal and revenge that evokes echoes of King Lear and the Biblical tales of Cain and Abel and of Esau and Jacob as well as classic gangster movies. But it is also a more intimate story of a father who's trying to see that his son grows up to become a good man.
The violence in this film is adeptly handled; the gore is mainly offstage until it becomes necessary to show it for proper effect. And it does have some excellent gunfight scenes.
One of my favorite scenes happens early on. The action takes place at a wake. Hanks joins Newman at a piano, and they play a haunting duet together -- Sullivan is quite literally Rooney's "right hand man". Other wonderful scenes are Sullivan's trying to teach his son to drive a stick shift, and the subsequent amusing getaways the kid stages from various banks.
I won't say much more about the plot, because I hate spoilers, and I suspect many of you do, too. Just check out this movie; you won't be disappointed.
Credits and Information
Rating: Restricted
Running Time: 2 hours
Director: Sam Mendes
Screenwriter: David Self
Cinematorgrapher: Conrad Hall
Score: Thomas Newman
Cast:
Jennifer Jason Leigh: Mrs. Sullivan
Tyler Hoechlin: Michael Sullivan Jr.
Paul Newman: John Rooney
Jude Law: Maguire
Daniel Craig: Connor Rooney
Stanley Tucci: Frank Nitti
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Movie Review: Laws of Attraction
Laws of Attraction is about the two best divorce lawyers in New York City (played by Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore) who do fierce battle in the courtroom, fall drunkenly into the bedroom, end up in Ireland, get married, and then finally fall in love.
None of that should be a spoiler, really. Who goes into a light-as-a-feather romantic comedy thinking that the reluctant lovers won't end up snuggled happily in each other's arms by the time the credits roll?
If you've read my movie writeups before, you know that my movie tastes run to the violent and the fantastic and preferably both. I'm a guns-and-rocketships kinda gal. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good film in other genres ... and this is a decent film. It's better than it has to be, actually, though some people will surely go into it somehow expecting it to be Citizen Kane or something other than a romantic comedy and will leave all disgruntled. If watched with the proper mindset, this movie is bound to lift even the most sodden spirits.
This is probably the best romantic comedy since Bridget Jones's Diary, but it is a very different kind of movie. Bridget's comedy had teeth to it; Laws is very much in the vein of the old-fashioned Spencer Tracy/Katharine Hepburn or Cary Grant romantic comedies. In fact, some of the elements of this movie strongly mirror 1961's Lover Come Back<, a comedy starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day as warring ad executives who fall in love (the plot details are different, so Laws isn't a remake).
And unlike Mark Wahlberg, Pierce Brosnan is a good replacement for Cary Grant. While Brosnan in his early career was capable of signing on to some awful films, he seems incapable of giving a bad performance.
And there's real chemistry between Brosnan and Moore. I have read some reviews complaining about Moore, but I think she's great in this role. She's supposed to be wildly neurotic throughout most of it. Moore has done so many heavy dramas that she seems relieved to finally have a comedy -- and her timing is very good. I hope she does more. She's also more beautiful in this film than in recent films such as Boogie Nights and Magnolia, where I think she was intentionally shot in a less-than flattering way to make her seem more like the broken burnout cases she was playing. In the scenes where her character finally gets to relax, Moore shines.
The supporting actors are also very good (especially Frances Fisher as Moore's character's mother) and the script is really good in places. My husband and I laughed consistently throughout the film. The pace is quick, maybe a little too quick in places, but I never found it to lag.
I did have a few minor quibbles with the movie, but nothing that really detracted from the overall experience for me. For instance, they product-placed some Handpring Treo PDAs that the lawyers used in various scenes ... and the Treos were really obviously turned off. Argh. Oh well. Overall, it's a very safe and entertaining date movie.
Movie Information
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 90 minutes
Director: Peter Howitt
Writer: Aline Brosh McKenna and Robert Harling
Cast:
Pierce Brosnan: Daniel Rafferty
Julianne Moore: Audrey Miller
Nora Dunn: Judge Abramovitz
Frances Fisher: Sara Miller
Parker Posey: Serena
Michael Sheen: Thorne Jamison
Mina Badie: Tracey Abramovitz
Mike Doyle: Michael Rawson
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, June 10, 2005
Movie Review: The Sum of All Fears
The Sum of All Fears is the fourth Tom Clancy story to make it to the big screen. This latest Clancy adaptation tells the tale of an Israeli tactical nuke which is lost to the desert sands due to a jet fighter crash. The nuke is later dug up by locals, who, not realizing the dangerous nature of their find, sell it to an agent (played by Colm Feore) of a global Nazi conspiracy who plot to use the nuke as their deadly centerpiece in a terrorist ploy to get the U.S. and Russia to destroy each other.
CIA historian Jack Ryan is the only man who can uncover and stop the Nazi plot and save the two countries from nuclear destruction (the villains are different from those in the novel). Part of his unique position stems from him being the only U.S. advisor to correctly realize that new Russian president Alexander Nemerov (played by Ciaran Hinds) is not the sort of man to commit atrocity. Fueled as much by his own stubborn conviction that he's right about Nemerov as by his fear of nuclear war, Ryan races against the clock to untangle the conspiracy's threads and gather evidence to try to convince the fiery American president (played by James Cromwell) to back down as the two countries move ever closer to war.
Ben Affleck stars as Jack Ryan, thus filling some fairly large shoes left behind by Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin. Affleck does a respectable job as this young, inexperienced version of Ryan, though his performance here isn't as good as the turn he did as a vengeful angel in Dogma.
Director Phil Alden Robinson has stocked the film with some of the best aging character actors Hollywood has to offer: Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Alan Bates, Colm Feore, Ciaran Hinds, and Ron Rifkin all turn in good performances here. Liev Schreiber also does well as a CIA operative who is called back into duty, supposedly just to gather information (though we all know he's going to be deep in the action by the time the movie's over).
The movie is a bit slow at the start and keeping track of all the characters is a bit confusing at first; this is no doubt a function of the complexity of the source material. But once things get going, this is a very suspenseful and entertaining film. It's good to see on the wide screen just to get the full benefit of the very decent special effects, particularly an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier and a nuclear explosion.
Overall, this is a very well-directed film, and I think scriptwriters Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne did the best that could be expected in adapting Clancy's novel.
Movie Information
Release Year: 2002
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Phil Alden Robinson
Writers: Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne
Cinematography: John Lindley
Score: Jerry Goldsmith
Cast:
Ben Affleck: Jack Ryan
Morgan Freeman: DCI William Cabot
James Cromwell: President Robert Fowler
Liev Schreiber: John Clark
Bridget Moynahan: Dr. Cathy Muller
Alan Bates: Dressler
Ciaran Hinds: President Alexander Nemerov
Philip Baker Hall: Defense Secretary Becker
Ron Rifkin: Secretary of State Sidney Owens
Bruce McGill: National Security Advisor Revell
Colm Feore: Olson
Josef Sommer: Senator Jessup
Ian Mongrain: Syrian Radar Operator
Russell Bobbitt: Israeli Pilot
Ken Jenkins: Admiral Pollack
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Movie Review: Dreamcatcher
Stephen King should put William Goldman in his will.
Many of you probably know Goldman better as the novelist and screenwriter behind The Princess Bride. This is the third time he's adapted King's work for the big screen; he previously wrote the screenplays for Misery and Hearts in Atlantis (he also did uncredited fixer work on Dolores Claiborne).
This time out, he's done a master's job of adapting a fairly messy, bloated, hard-to-follow novel about four psychically-awakened friends encountering an alien invasion in the snowy woods of Maine. He's deepened the story and added elements that vastly improve upon the source material, namely the characters of Captain Owen Underhill (Tom Sizemore) and Colonel Abraham Kurtz (Morgan Freeman), and Jonesy's memory warehouse.
Goldman should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his work here.
But of course, he didn't.
The reason he didn't get an Academy nod is the same reason that many of you out there really won't enjoy this film: it's got some of the nastiest sequences I've seen in any horror film. Really, stomach-churningly nasty. If you are the least bit squeamish, there's a scene in here that will make you want to avoid bathrooms for a solid month.
I have two words for you: shit weasels.
If you think you might not want to know what a shit weasel is, you're probably right.
If the idea of killer alien eels crawling out of people's butts is overwhelmingly vile to you, you probably won't be able to get past it enough to appreciate the film for its merits.
Having said all that, if you're a horror movie fan and not easily squicked, check this movie out. I personally enjoyed it from start to finish. The excellent writing aside, it's uniformly well acted, from Morgan Freeman's truly scary colonel to Jason Lee as the goofy Beaver to Donnie Wahlberg as a psychically powerful retarded man.
The direction is sharp, and the cinematography and effects are top-notch.
It's enough to make you want to go read the book.
Movie Info
Running time: 136 minutes
Rating: R
Release Date: March 17, 2003
Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Screenwriters: William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan
Cinematography: John Seale
Cast:
Thomas Jane: Dr. Henry Devlin
Jason Lee: Joe 'Beaver' Clarendon
Damian Lewis: Gary 'Jonesy' Jones
Tom Sizemore: Captain Owen Underhill
Timothy Olyphant: Pete Moore
Donnie Wahlberg: Douglas 'Duddits' Cavell
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Movie review: Batman: Dead End
Minute for minute, this short movie is one of the best live-action Batman movies made so far. You can view it at Collora Studios or download it via filesharing clients such as Gnutella.
Clocking in at a mere eight minutes (six if you discount the opening and closing credits), this dark, gritty, action-packed movie shows Batman responding to word that The Joker has escaped from Arkham Asylum. But soon he discovers a new and much more challengening threat to deal with.
Review (Spoilers Follow!)
After a brief confrontation in a rain-soaked alley, Batman is preparing to cart his old nemesis back to the asylum when a dark, insectoid figure leaps down and drags the Joker up to the rooftop. Seconds later, a second screeching alien (yes, Ellen Ripley's old buddies) leaps onto Batman, knocking him to the pavement. Batman struggles to free himself from the alien's grip as its slimy jaws widen --
Blam! The alien's head explodes, and Batman rolls free, trying to shake off the acid eating through his flesh and costume. He looks up, and sees a predator alien sizing him up. The predator throws aside his gun, and jumps down to go mano-a-mano with the caped crusader.
This is a badass eight minutes, kids. Multiple aliens, multiple predators, a very respectable, crazed Joker, and a Batman who looks like the brawling vigilante we came to know and love in the Alex Ross comics. This is no high-tech, rubber-suited Batman with fake muscles -- this Batman has genuine brawn, and tapes his hands like a street boxer before he slips on his black leather gauntlets and simple gray shirt.
The writer/director, Sandy Collora, had a small budget (liveforever says it was $30K, which is tiny money in Hollywood) -- but he did have access to Stan Winston's prop department. So the aliens and predators you see here are the real deal -- Collora made this as a sort of portfolio piece to show his directorial chops. A movie this tasty simply must be seen by any Bat-fan.
Movie Info
Movie Debut: ComicCon 2003
Writer/Director: Sandy Collora
Producers: Simon Tams, Daren Hicks
Director of Photography: Vince Toto
Editor: Toby Divine
Batman: Clark Bartam
The Joker: Andrew Koenig
Lead Predator: Kurt Carley
Lead Alien: Jake McKinnon
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Monday, May 23, 2005
Movie Review: The Village
M. Night Shyamalan's The Village is about the people of Covington, an isolated late-1800s era village somewhere in the wilds of Pennsylvania. The villagers have an uneasy truce between themselves and monstrous creatures who live in the woods surrounding their village. Travel is prohibited; as the movie opens, one of the village's elders has just lost his only son to a disease that could have been cured had they been able to travel to nearby towns to get medicines.
The plot thickens as the creatures invade the village at night and leave red slashes on doors and mutilated animals. After her beloved is gravely wounded, a blind girl decides she must brave the woods to get medical supplies.
Signs was an allegory about faith; this movie is about fear. The villagers wear the color of caution and cowardice.
The good things about this movie are that it is beautifully photographed and wonderfully acted, and the micro-writing of the script is very good. There are a number of great scenes, but I think the best is between Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix) and Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) on a porch.
The problem -- and it's a big one, folks -- is that The Village should have never been approached as a horror/suspense movie in the first place. It is not a scary movie because it never should have been a scary movie. Shyamalan has bought into his own PR as the "New Master Of Suspense". This movie -- and bear in mind I've liked all his other films -- was hamstrung by bad storytelling. As a result, it's the weakest of the films he's written and directed so far.
I've seen the central idea of The Village done in at least two old Twilight Zone< episodes, and I can't help but think that a writer like Rod Serling, Charles Beaumont or Richard Matheson would have done The Village right and told it as a sociological drama.
Another film similar to this was done many years ago; it's a wonderful Alan Bates film entitled King of Hearts. If you enjoyed The Village but left the theater feeling dissatisfied with the story as I did, you might try to find King of Hearts as a rental.
Furthermore, several people have mentioned to me that the plot of The Village is quite similar to a children's novel entitled Running Out of Time by Margaret Peterson Haddix. Haddix's novel includes not only the basic idea of the village, but the village elders also have black boxes in their homes.
Derivative or not, The Village has a good story at its core -- but it took the movie over an hour to finally get around to telling it. The "twist" should have been revealed in the first thirty minutes -- as it is, it's broadcast enough that my wife and I guessed it pretty early on, and I know of at least one person who guessed it from simply watching the trailer. It could have been a really chilling and poignant drama had it been written and directed by someone who wasn't bent on making a suspense movie with a twist at the end.
And unfortunately although the story looks and sounds great, Shyamalan blew every chance he had to tell this story the way it should have been told.
Discussion (Spoilers Follow)
The movie does have an interesting political subtext, and many viewers (including myself) are interpreting it as a critique of the Bush Administration's handling of the war on terror: "If you won't fear the outside world so that we can control you with fear, we will create monsters to frighten you into meek submission."
Political allegories aside, the story was actually told backwards: this would have been a much more compelling movie had it begun with all of these broken people in the counselling center deciding they'd had enough of society's violence, and then following them as they took steps to make the life in the village and raise their children to be fearful of the outside world, and ending with the creation of "the monsters."
There was an outright plot hole in this one, too (aside from the literal plot hole in the woods). Why was the monster suit hidden in the floorboards of the quiet room where Noah would have access to it? The scene before had led us viewers to believe all the suits were in the forbidden shed. And how would Ivy know what the claw of one of the monsters would feel like, since she's never seen one? Sloppy.
And I found Noah's character to be a bit aggravating; I'm faulting the script rather than Adrien Brody's acting, which was fine as usual. Noah giggles at the sounds from the forest at the beginning because he know's what's going on -- it seems like he's the embodiment of the director laughing at us because we don't know what's going on yet. I gathered that Noah was responsible for all the animal mutilations as well, but it seems impossible he could do so many of the animals later on, and it's never really clarified. Another plot hole.
This movie's horror trappings were ultimately unnecessary. The tale was told with the emphasis on the wrong elements.
The lesson: never buy into your own PR, lest you take a good story and purposefully mangle it so that it better suits your "reputation."
Movie Information
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 108 minutes
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Writer: M. Night Shyamalan
Score: James Newton Howard
Cinematographer: Roger Deakins (who also shot O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Sid and Nancy)
Cast:
Bryce Dallas Howard: Ivy Walker
Joaquin Phoenix: Lucius Hunt
Adrien Brody: Noah Percy
William Hurt: Edward Walker
Sigourney Weaver: Alice Hunt
Brendan Gleeson: August Nicholson
Cherry Jones: Mrs. Clack
Gary A. Braunbeck is the author of 14 books and over 150 short stories. If you enjoyed this review, check out his book Fear in a Handful of Dust: Horror as a Way of Life
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Monday, May 16, 2005
Movie Review: The Punisher
I watched this 2004 movie last night and much to my surprise, I liked it. I'm not sure that this was really a good movie (though I can say without hesitation that the camera work -- done by the talented Conrad W. Hall -- and pacing of the action sequences are excellent) but I sure had a good time watching it.
It put me in mind of a Bogart movie from 1953 called Beat the Devil -- a movie that bombed and was panned by critics upon its initial release because everyone thought it was being serious; the ensuing decades have revealed that the movie is, in fact, a subtly tongue-in-cheek comedy whose wit and cleverness was a bit ahead of its time.
I think that's why The Punisher tanked; it's not a serious movie, despite the way it was advertised (and one wince-inducing torture sequence). I found this to be a wild entertaining, tongue-in-cheek comic book/action movie satire with a couple of very sly performances from Tom Jane and John Travolta.
And if you think I'm off-base about the tongue-in-cheek aspect, go back and watch the dinner-with-the-neighbors sequence again; Jane does some hysterically subtle stuff. And consider the diner sequence when guitar-strumming Johnny-Cash-as-psychopathic-assassin Harry Heck confronts Castle. And review the time the Russian assassin shows up--looking like Gorgeous George, complete with the Popeye red-striped shirt--you'll have no choice but to realize that this thing was not meant to be taken seriously; it's all tongue-in-cheek, and just overdone enough to be winkingly funny; it's meant to be a joke, and one that the viewer is in on.
Seriously; if one were to view this as a movie with serious intentions, it would be a disaster; watch it as a sly action dark comedy, and it's a whole new experience.
The basic plot is pretty simple: after his family is murdered by gangsters, Frank Castle goes on a one-man mission to kill the killers. "This is not revenge," Castle says. "This is punishment." He sets up his base of operations in a seedy apartment building where his oddball neighbors take an interest in him.
Comic book purists may of course be dismayed by the liberties the movie takes with the Frank Castle canon. Jane's Castle is a Federal undercover agent whose entire extended family is murdered by Howard Saint's hitmen at a reunion in Puerto Rico. Whereas in the original comic Castle had nothing to do with the drug lords prior to his immediate family's murder, in this movie Saint decrees the mass slaughter in revenge for his son's death during a drug sting orchestrated by Castle. And the subsequent action takes place in Florida instead of New York City. Furthermore, instead of being a loner, Castle becomes involved with his neighbors despite his own intentions.
Movie Information
Rating: R
Release Year: 2004
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Jonathan Hensleigh
Writer: Jonathan Hensleigh and Michael France, based on the works of the various writers for the Marvel comic
Cinematographer: Conrad W. Hall (who also shot Fight Club and American Beauty)
Cast:
Russell Andrews -- Jimmy Weeks
Omar Avila -- Joe Toro
James Carpinello -- Bobby Saint/John Saint
Mark Collie -- Harry Heck
Ben Foster -- Spacker Dave
Laura Harring -- Livia Saint
Thomas Jane -- Frank Castle (as Tom Jane)
Kevin Nash -- The Russian
Will Patton -- Quentin Glass
John Pinette -- Bumpo
Rebecca Romijn-Stamos -- Joan
Roy Scheider -- Frank Castle, Sr.
Hank Stone -- Cutter
John Travolta -- Howard Saint
Gary A. Braunbeck is the author of 14 books and over 150 short stories. If you enjoyed this review, check out his book Fear in a Handful of Dust: Horror as a Way of Life
Labels: GAB, Gary A. Braunbeck, movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Movie Review: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
The influence of Fleisher's animation is imprinted on practically every frame. The giant killer robots are right out of the Superman cartoons ... and really, that's no bad thing, because Fleisher's loot- and lady-stealing robots were just cool.
What was a little less cool was the artistic decision to model the cars of the world of Sky Captain on Fleisher's cartoon cars. Since 1930s automobiles are real-world objects (and beautiful objects at that), seeing matte-finish, cartoony cars kicked me out of the scenes.
Another possibility was that the filmmakers simply didn't have time to re-render the cars to improve their specularity and make them look a bit more realistic. Sky Captain took six years to make, and I can easily picture a studio boardroom conversation in which the producers told writer/director Kerry Conran "No more rendering! You're done! We've given you enough money, and enough time, and this needs to go to theaters. It looks fine"
And in the main, the computer-generated movie looks more than fine; much of the movie is breathtakingly gorgeous. However, there are places where rendering was clearly not quite ready for public consumption. There's a scene late in the movie where a skeleton falls to the floor, and the skeleton just plain looks bad.
Also, the entire film is in soft-focus. That got really hard on the eyes in the movie theater, though on the small screen it's not so bad. I guess the filmmakers decided to do this to give the film a glow of nostalgia as well as to cover up some lingering digital seams; either way, I wish the film had been sharper.
But those are quibbles, really. A fight scene late in the movie that manages to reference both Star Wars and Evil Dead II mostly makes up for it.
Seeing this movie without being familiar with the classics it's based on is a bit like seeing the Kill Bill movies without having any knowledge of 70s kung fu flicks or Sam Peckinpah's creations -- you'll probably enjoy it, but not as much as the film geeks in the room who'll be chortling at all the references.
Oh, yeah: there are real people in this movie, too, and in the main they do a good job. Gwyneth Paltrow has seemed flat in many of her roles since she won her Oscar, but her sulky manner serves her well as Polly Perkins; in the old days, Carole Lombard would have played Perkins, and Paltrow fits the bill.
And the use of Sir Laurence Olivier's face and likeness to create a new character is surely the shape of things to come in digital cinema. In the world of tomorrow, I expect we'll be seeing the resurrection of many a matinee idol.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Movie Review: Underworld
My husband and I rented the 2003 vampire/werewolf action flick Underworld this evening, hoping for a bit of fun, entertaining eye candy. And while this movie provides plenty of pretty faces, taut bodies, cool special effects and kick-ass action sequences, when the closing credits rolled I was filled with an overwhelming sense of "Eh."
Underworld is a derivative film with tasty set design and art direction and good actors laboring under a poor script and unwise direction. It could have been a pretty good popcorn movie if only it didn't take itself So. Very. Seriously.
(... spoilers follow ...)
Underworld treats itself like the next coming of The Godfather while ungleefully ripping off a host of other works: The Matrix, Aliens, Alien 3, An American Werewolf in London, Blade, White Wolf's World of Darkness, Clive Barker's Tortured Souls, and on and on. (Having said that, I found Nancy Collins' lawsuit against the filmmakers for supposed plagiarism laughable because her work wasn't exactly breaking new ground, either). It boggles my mind that the writers of Underworld convinced themselves that making vampirism and lyncanthropy the result of viruses is a new and original idea (as they claim in the DVD featurette).
The Blade movies are nearly as derivative but are usually saved by their sense of humor.
Underworld has no humor. None. Ever. Director Len Wiseman evidently told Kate Beckinsale to act as much like Trinity as possible in her portrayal of Selene: "You're in the Matrix! You're here to kick werewolf ass! Don't ever smile, and don't ever pick a lock or watch to see if you're being followed! You're too much of a badass to be stealthy! But, um, you'll faint for sure from blood loss when you get stabbed in the shoulder. Honest."
While the lovely Beckinsale and other actors often come off as wooden or half-asleep, Shane Brolly as Kraven (subtle naming, yes?) snarls and scowls so much he looks like he's going to give himself a hernia delivering even the simplest lines.
The real shame, though, was casting Michael Sheen as Lucian and Bill Nighy as Viktor and then never giving either actor a chance to show off their considerable charm or comedic skills. It's doubly a shame since Lucian turns out to be the most interesting character in the film, but once the audience figures this out, he gets killed (needlessly, too, since his henchman left the blood he needed right beside him in an earlier scene, and furthermore he could have asked for the blood from the heroine later ... oh, nevermind).
There was actually the core of a good idea in this movie, but it was buried by hasty, incomplete storytelling. The movie never bothers to establish the "rules" for its immortals, and has supposedly intelligent characters turn dumb as bricks for the sake of moving the action along. For instance, why does Michael go right into his darkened apartment without seeking a weapon of some kind when his door has obviously been kicked in by an intruder?
In another instance, after the aforementioned scene where Selene gets stabbed in the shoulder by a nogoodnik, she's driving herself and hero Michael down a dark road. He tells her to pull over because she's lost a lot of blood, and she snarls that she's just fine -- and promptly faints. The car goes off the road, hits a barrier and flips spectacularly through the air to land in a lake, river or bay (we never got the sense we were near water to begin with, so it's uncertain).
The car sinks, the windows craze menacingly, and while the hero cracks his head, badass immortal Selene is down for the count. He shoots out the window, which implodes spectacularly, and he somehow gets himself and Selene out of the car and up onto the shore beneath the dock, where he gives her CPR, she wakes up, and he faints.
Later, she tells Kraven that her still-unconscious hunky human "saved my life." Whoa. Wait a minute -- she's a vampire. She's immortal. The script so far has established they're vulnerable to sunlight and ultraviolet light, but since when can they drown? The movie never tells us for sure, nor does it tell us why Selene conveniently fails to notice the huge gaping bloody bite wound on Michael's neck. Nor does it tell us how and where Selene captures Lucian's creepy lab assistant later on so that she can prove to Viktor that Lucian's alive.
I turned my brain off before we even hit "play" on the DVD; I was willing and able to suspend disbelief, but the movie just can't support the weight of its own plot holes.
The more grim gritty gunplay I saw, the more I hankered for the suspense and black humor of Dog Soldiers or even an episode of Angel.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Friday, April 22, 2005
Movie Review: Nature of the Beast
The film stars Lance Henriksen as an uptight, alcoholic businessman and Eric Roberts as a charismatic drifter. One man has stolen a million dollars from a Vegas casino, and the other is a hatchet-wielding serial killer. The film aims to keep the audience guessing as to which man is which while the pair play a deadly game of cat and mouse across deserted desert highways.
Even astute viewers who figure out the ending halfway through the film should have fun watching this one. The suspense builds and doesn't let up after a leisurely start. The script is sharp and intelligent. But the best thing about the movie is the acting: Henriksen is great as always (though his prosthetic beer gut looks a bit silly) and Roberts proves that he can actually act, and extremely well. Both their performances are riveting.
Nature of the Beast spent about five minutes in movie theaters before it went to video. It's a worthy addition to any thriller fan's Halloween movie marathon.
Labels: movie, movie review
Posted by Lucy A. Snyder | Link For This Article | Want to repost this? Please ask first!
Previous Posts
- Shy Writers and Crunchy Numbers: An Author's Intro...
- An Author's Introduction to Advertising - Part 2
- GUD news! Win a free copy of SPARKS AND SHADOWS!
- An open letter to the Barnes & Noble at Polaris Ma...
- Restaurant Review: The Pub Polaris
- Movie Review: Grand Prix
- Movie Review: The Swimmer
- Book Review: Magic Bites by Ilona Andrews
- Book Review: The Somnambulist by Jonathan Barnes
- Book Review: Storm Front by Jim Butcher
