rankpunk Reviews

Vanilla Sky (2001)

When will the madness end?? *WARNING, CONTAINS SPOILERS OF VANILLA SKY AND ABRE LOS OJOS*

[17 January 2003]

I'm sorry but I have to say Abre Los Ojos, is far, far superior to Vanilla Sky. Vanilla Sky at times, feels like a shot by shot remake. Okay sure theres the extra plot lines about the seven dwarfs, and Sofia is not a mime in Vanilla Sky, but really it just has a stupid amount of similarities. Some of the camera shots appear to have been cut and pasted from Abre Los Ojos into Vanilla Sky.

The Hollywood mentality behind remakes, blows me away. Why must they do it? How can a director do a remake and not feel like they are merely a leach ripping off someone else's film. Its the same with 'The Ring'. Its not original, the cleverness has worn off, so why must they do it? I believe Crowe is an extremely talented director, and some of his direction in this film is good, but really is it his at all? Is the inspiration the same when you're recreating a film, that is not even five years old when you start filming it?? Why could he have not pooled his talents and his resources into an original screenplay. Why a remake which is inferior in many ways to the original source?

The acting for one, is extremely up and down. Tom Cruise should never be allowed to make another movie after this. Okay, maybe I am being a bit harsh, but his star power isn't enough to make his performance strong. He appears muddled, and burdened by the intensity of a man torn by his nightmare. And what about Penelope Cruz? Was her inclusion in this film, merely a novelty, since she played the same role in the original? Thats what it feels like because after about ten minutes, you wish she was the one in the car instead of Cameron Diaz. Diaz is good for her brief spell, Lee shows he is one of the most underrated actors in the rotting Hollywood industry, and Russel is strong in his role.

Abre Los Ojos on the other hand, has strong performances all round, particualarly from Eduardo Noriega, and Chete Lera. The bit parts in Abre Los Ojos, such as the representative of the Cryogenic company, are better as well. Vanilla Sky's counterpart of the Cryo rep, is like some sort of joke. A weedy little man with some sort of voice disorder - like a wisp, and a nice beatles-esqe haircut. I don't think he could EVER convince me to buy anything, let alone immortality.

The cinematography I briefly metioned before. Occasionally it feels like you are watching Abre Los Ojos, because of the similarities in atmosphere and lighting. However, to it's credit, Vanilla Sky does have some amazing photography. A good example is the panorama shots over New York city, which Crowe describes as giving the feeling of a spirit falling. However the endings Cinematography is baffling to say the least. Why the sky is the colour it is, is beyond me. I am guessing its meant to be mystical, spiritual, and dreamlike?? How about tacky, fake, and hideous. That sums it up a bit better I think.

Vanilla Sky, is not a good film. However in saying that, it is far from the worst film of the year, and chances are if you haven't seen Abre Los Ojos, or you don't care that Hollywood is sucking the life out of an innovative, brilliant, SPANISH, film, you may enjoy it. It certainly is frustrating to see such a clever, original thriller, suddenly turned into this dramatic attempt at arthouse (i think?? hell i couldn't even come close to defining it, its so messy). Hopefully Hollywood will stop this whole remake trend, and leave the originals the way they are. If you can't handle subtitles, then go rent something monosyllabic. Chances are theres a new Julia Roberts flick coming out sometime soon. Hell, why not catch a bit of Richard Gere while you're at it?

4/10

American Pie 2 (2001)

Why?

[14 December 2002]

Why would they bother? Seriously? American Pie burst on to the film scene in 1999 and shocked everyone. Not just because of its gross out humour, but also because it's frankness, realism, and outstanding direction, and acting. The characters in American Pie were not merely a bunch of kids trying to get laid, like in the Porkies movies. The main idea behind the characters was that they were REALISTIC stereotypes. Kevin was struggling to know if he was in love and what would happen with his girlfriend. Oz was falling in love and trying to be nice. Finch was dealing with being a social reject. And Jim was that awkward geek that most guys are. The characters were real, they were depictions of everyone we knew at High School, played in human sense, rather than a film character sense. But where did American Pie 2 go wrong??? Suddenly the characters lost all their punch. Due to bad direction, and poor script writing we see Oz and Heather in the film for about five minutes, delivering deadpan, and emotionless dialogue. Their storyline of long distance love is something so many people can relate to and its uniqueness had the potential to go far - however it was merely shoved aside so that the audience could have an over abundance of Stifler. The characters in American Pie 2 are tacky, and stereotyped beyond comprehension. While yes they were stereotypes in the original, they had their human aspects which made them differ, and made them unique. Finch, for example, was a geek who scored with an older woman - every teenage boy's dream. He was always an outcast, but seemed real. In AP2, all of a sudden hes become this guy obsessed with Chinese Scripture, and other sorts of art. And he uses this to ultimately score again with 'Stifler's Mom'. Stupid. Plain stupid. Stifler is another example. While his chauvanism, and light hearted view of life was a much needed break from some of the serious rigors of AP, in AP2 he is suddenly the star, and the over abundance of him becomes infuriating, as he spouts second rate pick up lines, and inserts f**k into every second word of his sentence. Once again, its just stupid and makes an unrealistic stereotype. And what about Jim's dad. His awkwardness, and fumbling attempts at guiding Jim through his hormone charged adolesence, were hilarious, and touching in the first. Now hes just some lame guy, who is more desperate for his son to get laid, than his son is. Rogers has taken some of the minor aspects of American Pie, and made them into Major aspects of the film in American Pie 2. The Weitz brothers knew such aspects in large doses would not work, and their smaller dosage, secondary nature to story, and characters that actually mean something, is what makes American Pie gold. Roger's direction is childish because it merely takes the trendiest, which is not neccesarily the best, and makes it predominant. The sequel should never have been made. It takes away from the bittersweetness of the original's ending. And if it had to be made, Rogers shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the set, and the Weitz brothers should've been given whatever they wanted, so this could be a half decent film, and not merely an insult to the brilliant, and much underrated original. 4/10

Beach Movie (1998)

Sooooooooooo Lame

[2 December 2002]

I didn't expect much. The concept alone sounded ridiculous, but I figured there might be some cheap laughs. Sadly there wasn't even A cheap laugh. Three losers trying to get laid, a rather dim surfer, a not so witty sidekick, and some chicks that the director picked up off the beach, makes for a very weak film. I knew this was a film you don't take seriously but there are limits. This is cringeworthy!!! This film feeds off every single stereotype of surfing, and this generations group of young people, which apparently is funny or cool - i'm still trying to figure out. Watch paint dry instead. 1/10

In the Bedroom (2001)

A brilliant attack on the basic american view of 'death equals justice'

[20 October 2002]

***WARNING - SPOILERS*** 'In the bedroom' is a startling peice of cinema from director Todd Field. It presents to the audience a brutal visual attack on the basic American view that death is a good form of justice. Firstly, we are presented with a typical heat of the moment killing. Field has presented the main character as extremely innocent and noble. He is protecting his love's family and her, and dies for her. Showing him as such a nice young man, and showing his intellectual ability, stimulates a stronger response from the audience when enevitably, and tragically he is killed. His family too are presented as decent people. His death has a large impact on this family, and on the viewer as it should.

As the film progresses, we empathise and sympathise, cringing when Sissy Spaceck's character sees her son's killer in the local store, and we feel her fear, her anger, her sadness. All signs of fantasic direction.

The natural reaction of humans is to get justice when one has been done wrong. Perhaps there is no better example of being done wrong than having your son with the world at his hands, being murdered by a jealous and bitter man. The basic American view is that the best justice is death. Its sad but it's true. There is a mentality that death is the best justice. Yet Field shows this to not be, with the characterisation of the father character.

He knows when he kills his son's killer he hasn't done the right thing. His movement, his saddened exterior show he is dead inside. He is now on the level of the sick man that killed his son. Field shows this brilliantly. Through the father character we see death is not the answer. His son is still dead. He is still sad. And now he has to cope with the fact that he has ended the life (something no human has the right to do) of another man. He has commited the ultimate sin.

He knows that death wasn't the answer. And his life will be more shallow for it.

Field's brilliant depiction and attack on this ideology, should be praised on all levels. It is a topic, few dare to challenge. And it must be a nightmare of a challenge to take on. Perhaps it hit the academy to close to home. After all it'd be easy to give the awards to a film about a man who overcomes adversity, rather than a film that attacks a basic societal value in the world today. Rating *****