dustinjhogan Reviews

The Hunted (2003)

Eye candy, superb acting, action...but plot holes exist..

[3 January 2004]

WARNING: VAGUE SPOILERS Nothing mentioned here gives away any significant plot detail or gives anything away, but some events in the story are vaguely referred to.

It's a great movie for every reason you'd expect it to be. Great action. Killer booby traps, well executed jiu-jitsu/ground fighting, wicked knife fighting.

One of the most difficult parts of making a movie with SO MUCH ACTION is delivering it with moving emotion. The cast is perfect. The acting could not possibly have been done better by anyone. You can see the pain in Hallam and Bonham as they're forced to do battle. They obviously care for each other like father and son, but are given no other choice by the military that hung them both out to dry.

The problem is that a few elements of the story could have been more thoroughly explored. This is more or less just nitpicking, but it always bugs me when something with so much potential gets somewhat of a casual treatment.

-HALLAM'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ABBY: We have no idea what the deal is with those two.

-THE PROGRESSION OF HALLAM'S INSTABILITY: While it is logical that what has happened to him might drive him to madness, it isn't depicted in enough depth to make the viewer really feel it.

-THE POSSIBILITY THAT HALLAM ISN'T INSANE AT ALL: There are subtle suggestions that maybe the terrible things Hallam did during government missions were justified. There were also suggestions that he was framed and set up for a lot of it, but none of this is ever really explored.

-THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HALLAM AND BONHAM (Jones): We only get a brief excerpt of months and years worth of written correspondence between Hallam and Bonham. So much could have been explained by going more into those letters.

Also, the forging of the blades near the end was a little cheesy, but not excessively so.

With all that said, it's definitely worth seeing even if you're shelling out the 5 bucks for the 2 day rental on a New Release. In addition to the acting and action, it's absolutely packed with eye-candy and breathtaking Oregon locations from mountains to forests to downtown Portland.

7.5/10

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Character based drama at its finest.

[26 May 2002]

The plot isn't particularly complicated. The character development, the ACTING is what makes this movie. When are filmmakers going to learn that twisted plots and special effects should NEVER take priority over the characters? The characters in this movie are complex, believable people. They're interesting. They're original. They're complicated. None of them really fit into any certain Hollywood mold.

And it certainly doesn't hurt that the players them are Russel Crowe, Guy Pearce, James Cromwell, Kim Basinger, and Kevin Spacey. I can't begin to describe how good they all were, so I won't try.

When you're creating a film of any kind, the humanity of the characters is the most important thing. Everything else is secondary. In this movie, even the secondary elements are top-notch.

Akira (1988)

Epic work of detailed cinematic art @ many frames per second.

[26 May 2002]

I'll start out with this anime rant.

Most anime I've ever seen suffer from being overly stylized, corny, cheesy, melodramatic, and/or being in detail/fluidity. A few common flaws are the overly dramatic "freeze frame moments" and painfully common instances where the character shape, height, weight, and surroundings change inexplicably from scene to scene. Very amateur. Most anime you see in the U.S. is junk(ie: Zoids, Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Dragonball (Z and otherwise), Gundam Wing).

AKIRA suffers from none of this. It stands up to the very best anime produced even today, almost 15 years later. This was not achieved through technology or any other shortcut. This was achieved through hard work. Painstaking concentration on detail kept the level of detail, character design, and surroundings seamless. The level of detail is every bit as high during the mundane or dialogue scenes as it is during moments of high action.

THE EMOTIONS of the characters are conveyed very well through their facial expressions. This was incredibly well drawn.

THE STORY could be called sort of a sci-fi take on Stephen King's "Carrie". Look at the synopsis or other reviews to see what I mean. It could easily have fallen into something typical, but it focused on the characters and their emotions and developments as human beings, never becoming corny or overly sentimental. Oh, and none of those stupid toony moments either.

Black Scorpion (2001)

I watched this to see Dave Mustaine...

[23 May 2002]

...because Dave is the man.

Aside from seeing Dave on the show playing a villain, there's nothing worth seeing here. Somebody wasted a LOT of money on this. Everything about it was too stupid to describe. I think it started out as an action show that was supposed to be serious, but once it was in the can it turned out to be so terrible that the only way to save it was to call it a slapstick parody. This isn't an off the cuff insult aimed to bash the show. This is really what I think. It's much more plausible than calling it pure parody.

Law & Order (1990– )

Realistic, focused, brilliant. Best TV drama ever.

[23 May 2002]

This is a show with brains, brawn, and class. A more perfect television drama hasn't been invented. The show has few scenes of violence, but is still visually stunning.

THE SETS. The offices with their rich hardwood architecture of the office, the polished granite pillars of the courthouse, and the faded, cracked concrete of New York are captured beautifully. The show seems to have sort of a somber blue-gray hue to it. It really sets the mood.

THE ENSEMBLE CAST is awesome. The cast is carefully chosen. The combination of brilliantly written characters and flawless performances makes any Law and Order veteran highly in demand. Any project benefits from the prestige of having a Law and Order vet on the bill.

Chris Noth - Sex and The City Richard Brooks - G vs. E, Brimstone Jill Henessy - Crossing Jordan Micheal Moriarty - Courage Under Fire Benjamin Bratt - Traffic George Dzundza - Basic Instinct

THE STORIES are composites of actual headline events, but with creative twists. If you pay attention, you'll see parallels between the show and real life events. They're certainly not the first or last show to employ this technique, but they do it best.

They keep things on track by not becoming distracted by inconsequential things like the characters' private lives. They may be vaguely alluded to from time to time, but the show maintains its focus on the matter at hand, portraying it in dramatic detail.

It's in syndication on A and E, TNT, and USA. It's on NBC on Tuesday nights at 9:00 Eastern.

Point of No Return (1993)

Superb acting and cinematography let this Nikita remake shine.

[18 May 2002]

I've never seen the French film, Nikita, on which this is based, but it sounds superb. What drew me into this film was the presentation of the story, which focuses less on her as a professional killer and more on her humanity. In the French film, Nikita looks very forceful and aggressive. Fonda in "Point" seems more sensitive and feminine. I'm just going to have to see the French one. I'm not easy to impress and this film drew me in. Nikita must be awesome.

BRIDGET FONDA has a face one can just stare at for hours. It's a restrained performance. She plays a very conflicted character full of paradox. A proposal from her lover cause tears to well up in her eyes as she peers down the scope of her rifle at her latest target. She manages to keep a straight face when her friend is killed in front of her. She even manages a smile and says, "I never did mind about the little things." Fonda has such talent that she's able to portray pure calm with every muscle in her face while her eyes swim in terror and heartbreak.

HARVEY KEITEL is Victor, the Cleaner. His face is a stone. No smiles, frowns, or grimaces. He is heartless and emotionless. As he kills, his face remains stone cold. He says no unnecessary words. His answers are short, to the point. Superb. His performance is understated brilliance.

GABRIEL BYRNE has a knack for making his characters believable. He's harsh, yet sympathetic. He alone makes this movie worth watching.

The Relic (1997)

A decent flick, but it's not based on the novel...well...maybe loosely. Very, very loosely.

[17 May 2002]

**SPOILERS**I made a huge mistake. I read the book first. First let me say that the book is one of the most brilliant, terrifying pieces of literature ever. It is smart, detailed, scientific, terrifying. Preston's scientific knowledge and attention to detail give the book its intellectual substance while Child's ability to create memorable characters and dialogue give it soul. The characters are colorful and memorable in a way that makes you wish the book would never end. It's that good. The story is completely original and devoid of cliche. It's the kind of story that could have turned into a timeless blockbuster like ALIEN. The sequel, Reliquary is even better than the first.

WARNING: What follows may contain some vague spoilers.

I'LL START WITH THE GOOD POINTS of the movie simply because you wouldn't make it past the bad ones if I didn't. It contains one of the most nightmarish beheading scenes in the history of film. The CG is awesome. The sets are gorgeous. The acting is superb. Everyone in the cast does an excellent job portraying their characters. There is a dark and spooky vibe. So, it's an ok flick. Worth seeing. Just don't expect anything as superb as the novel.

HERE ARE THE BAD POINTS:

1. Our Albino FBI hero is gone. That's correct. Gone. The hero of the novel, the most significant and bravest character in the book who ultimately defeats Mbwun does not exist in the movie. He was the character that was most closely concentrated on in the novel and he does not exist in the movie.

2. PIVOTAL CHARACTERS NECESSARY TO THE PLOT IN THE SEQUEL, RELIQUARY, DIE IN THIS PATHETIC ADAPTATION OF THE RELIC MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR RELIQUARY TO EVER REACH THE SCREEN.

3. The creature, MBWUN, is totally redesigned from his humanoid form in the book to the distorted crab-like being we see in the movie.

4. MBWUN is killed in a totally different and much less interesting way in the movie than in the book.

5. They totally rewrote the story and did a horrible job of it. Absolutely horrid. The story is fragmented and often loses sight of itself. After you watch the movie, you will feel that you missed crucial plot developments by going on bathroom breaks or something even if you sat through it like a stone, concentrating on every word and event. Amy Holden Jones, John Raffo, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver have NO BUSINESS WRITING FORTUNE COOKIES, let alone gutting literary masterpieces.

Last Man Standing (1996)

Fistful of Dollars adapted to the Roaring Twenties. It rocks!

[17 May 2002]

Bruce Willis carries this picture. NOBODY could have played a better John Smith. Walk softly. Carry big stick.

Christopher Walken rocks is always wicked cool. His character is a psycho who loves wasting people with a tommy gun.

The whole thing is highly stylized. The camera work is killer. It's a dirty, dusty, grungy picture full of everything you could ever want in an R rated shooter. There's not a lot of plot, but this one doesn't need it. Like Eastwood, Willis plays both sides against the other with the intention of screwing them both and leaving. I can't say enough about how visually stunning the movie is. Pay attention, directors. This is a shooter done right.

Johnny Handsome (1989)

Decent story, some good actors, some terrible actors, a nice score, and HORRIBLE execution kill this film.

[16 May 2002]

My review is divided into sections. Each paragraph is a new section whose name is in ALL CAPS.

RY COODER is an excellent musician. For more of his best work see Crossroads starring Ralph Maccio and Joe Seneca. The score of the film is nice.

THE HAIR, MAKEUP, AND WARDROBE people should all be fired and blacklisted from ever working again. Nuff said.

THE MOVIE ITSELF

fails. The story itself isn't original enough to be remarkable, but it has potential for entertainment. It's tragic enough to be interesting. It starts dramatic and brutal. In fact if I could take a razor and slice just before he is attacked in prison and just before he meets his girlfriend, I would take that section by itself and give it 5 out of 5 stars. In this section, the cheesy characters are out of sight and out of mind. Rourke has no dialogue. The section primarily focuses on Forest Whitaker and Morgan Freeman, who were the film's only real saving graces. For the most part, it's a barrage of cliches and exaggerated accents.

THE DIALOGUE of the movie is just...horrible. The characters aren't characters. They're caricatures. Whoever wrote the dialogue should also be blacklisted.

THE ACTORS

MORGAN FREEMAN is, as usual, perfect. He plays a smart and cynical case officer and does it well. His fine, understated performance is out of place in this steaming load of crap they call a movie.

FORREST WHITAKER's performance as the doctor is sympathetic and very convincing. His character is well written and adds some credibility to the picture, but doesn't save it from itself.

LANCE HENRIKSON is a great actor. One of my favorites. But in this movie, he sucks. His involvement in this film is full of contradictions. He's great at playing smart characters like Bishop in "ALIENS" and Frank Black in "Millennium," but totally unbelievable as the moron he played in this movie. The character is sleazy and stupid, yet slick and powerful. It doesn't work. LANCE, never try a Southern accent again. Never.

ELLEN BARKIN's character "Sunny" is stupid and stupid looking. Her lines are cheesy and her thick Southern accent is fake and forced.

MICKEY ROURKE does a decent job. Not great, but decent.

ELIZABETH MCGOVERN as Rourke's girlfriend is terrible. Her overdone, overly melodramatic performance is further marred by her exaggerated Southern accent. She plays a smart girl who consistently makes INEXPLICABLY STUPID CHOICES. She contributes considerably to turning the whole thing into a ridiculous cliched farce.

I'm done here. I'm not writing another word about this piece of crap.

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

Fantastic work but with a few fatal flaws.

[16 May 2002]

I'm dividing my review into sections. Each paragraph is a separate section whose name will be in ALL CAPS.

WANG CHUNG's biggest hit was the song "Everybody Have Fun Tonight." They were basically a typical 80's synth pop group that played cheerful, synthetic radio fluff. Their music brings to mind the pink mohawks, slouch socks, and ridiculous fashions and cliches that make the 80's the most tasteless decade in all of history. This kind of music is right at home in a movie like "Teen Wolf" or "License to Drive," NOT in a dark, macabre thriller like To Live and Die in L.A. The other elements of this film create a menacing and disturbing vibe. This vibe is marred and utterly ruined by the pulsing synth pop of Wang Chung. F*CK WANG CHUNG!!!!!!!! F*CK THEM! The decision to use Wang Chung for this film in any capacity is not only tasteless, but unforgivable.

THE MOVIE ITSELF

is fantastic even though certain characters and elements of the story needed to be further explored, while others took too much screen time. The camera work and writing are among the best I've ever seen. Willem DaFoe is pure evil incarnate. At first glance, it seems to be a typical cop vs. crook thriller, but then the storyline takes it to new and original places. There is no "good guy." This movie doesn't cater to what we would like to see happen for the characters. Any assumptions you make will probably bite you in the *ss. Perhaps my favorite part about this film is that there is none of that campy humor and buddy-buddy crap that cop thrillers are so often laden with. This preserves the element of darkness well until it is RUINED BY WANG CHUNG.

THE ACTORS

WILLIAM PETERSON (who now has the starring role in the CBS crime drama "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation") did as good a job as he could on this role. His character, Chance, is an aggressive, tough, smart guy. He's a dirty, unsympathetic character. Peterson just doesn't match the character, but he does his best and ultimately pulls off the role well enough that the movie doesn't suffer too much. A role written this well would win an Oscar for someone like ROBERT DENIRO.

JOHN TURTURRO's intense performance as Rik Masters' partner adds considerably to the film. Next to Dafoe, he does the best acting in the film.

JOHN PANKOW's role as Chance's partner should have been more deeply explored. His disloyalty to his partner adds a wild card to the plot. Pankow does surprisingly well.

DEAN STOCKWELL is Rick Masters' attorney. As usual, he does a fantastic job. He adds an interesting spin to any character he plays.

WILLEM DAFOE is evil incarnate, the villain Rick Masters. His dialogue is smart, his delivery perfect. Rick Masters is a brooding artistic genius with a streak of sadism. Only a truly villainous villain would aim for the genitals like he did.

All in all, it's a great film that leaves you shocked with a sick, shaky feeling in your stomach.......that is.......until the F*CKING WANG CHUNG starts playing. You'll see what I mean.