Change Your Image
conspiracytheorist77
Reviews
Domino (2005)
Vapid direction, poor script, inauthentic performances (review may be considered to contain slight spoilers)
The fact that this film got made at all is a testament to the fact that in Hollywood, talent is not often as important as who you know and what your previous box office track record has been.
The script is bad. If I were some newbie who presented a script like that to an agency, I'd get verbally lacerated, they'd want to know who I thought I was offering them a piece of crap like that.
Tony Scott's direction is also bad, but not as annoying as it was in Man on Fire. I don't know if this is because there were less cuts or because I just did not notice them, but since the tone of the film is vaguely psychedelic, the hyperactive edits don't seem so out of place.
If either the script or the direction had been good, it would have improved upon the other. Whatever talent any actor has here is wasted. A better director would have drawn out better performances. The script gives everyone little on which to go. Characterization is reduced to caricature-zation.
Mickey Rourke comes off as more authentic than anyone else of the main characters, but he is just playing a variation on the sleazebags he usually plays.
Edgar Ramirez reminds me of Brad Armpit circa Legends of the Fall- "filmy" and looking in perpetual need of a bath. In contrast to Keira's freshly scrubbed face, lovingly bathed in light so strong that one can see the downy peach fuzz on her cheeks in a few scenes, she and Ramirez have no explicable reason to connect other than that old standby, Because the Plot Requires It.
As for Knightley, I know she wanted to do this role to dispel her (alleged) "English Rose" image, but I think this film will have the opposite of that intended effect. She is about as intimidating as a bitchy old grandmother. Being tough is not about smacking gum and smoking cigarettes, or swearing and leering and pouting and pretending to be annoyed or angry with people. Knightley said in an interview with TeenHollywood.com and one with Rolling Stone, that the performance was not based on Harvey, but rather on her best mate, who was always getting into trouble at school, i.e., a bratty teenager, which is exactly what she comes off as. And according to an interview with her in the New York Post, Tony Scott's direction to her simply consisted of "Tony was always shouting, 'Come on, Keira. Nasty bitch! Nasty, nasty bitch!'"
She also did not get to spend the time doing the physical training and weapons training that she needed. And the evidence is on the screen.
The best film I have seen so far this year is Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. There has been criticism about its historical inaccuracies. But the film still rings true. Domino, by contrast, and in particular Knightley's performance, doesn't ring true regardless of whether it's based in fact or not.
The narration is clunky. If it were to be retained at all, it should have been cut in half. Wasn't it Clint Eastwood who said that one should never explain what one can suggest? The coin toss motif is awkward. "I am a bounty hunter" is repeated several times, assuring us that she is not in fact yet a bounty hunter. (Don't tell us, show us. If you are what you say you are, we'll know it, you don't have to keep telling us.)
There is an interesting religious aspect to the film, the business about man being created in the image of God, the impact that going to a church as a child made on her, the theophany in the desert, all of that would be interesting in a film that was better and more coherent.
Finally, there is the matter that the film is too busy to develop an iconic image, which is something every famous and successful film has. The head spin in The Exorcist. Indiana Jones running away from the giant ball. The little child standing at the doorway in Close Encounters. Think of films old and recent, and the most classic are those that have an image which sums up the spirit of the film. When I opened the entertainment section to the Houston Chronicle for October 14, there was a large color photo of Keira as Domino with a sawed off shotgun and bullets around her chest, a low-angle shot with BAIL BONDS in the background that could have easily been used in the film as some sort of definitive shot. I never ever saw a sequence that used that shot. Why not?
The Order (2003)
The plot of "The Order" had potential, but the execution of the film lacks focus and has a distorted view of Catholic theology (mild spoilers)
I'm not sure what to make of this film. It was written, directed, and produced by Brian Helgeland, who also wrote the Mel Gibson film "Conspiracy Theory" and wrote and directed "A Knight's Tale", a take-off on Chaucer's Cantebury Tales. Unlike both of those films, which I quite liked, there is no focus as to what this film is supposed to mean.
Heath Ledger plays Fr. Alex, a young priest whose mentor, the former head of a religious order, appears to have committed suicide. Ledger is skeptical, and accompanied by friend and fellow priest Thomas (Mark Addy) and a young woman whom he had exorcised the previous year (Shannyn Sossamon), he goes to Rome to investigate.
He finds that his mentor had employed the services of a "sin-eater", a person who takes on the sins of those about to die who have been excommunicated (apparently unjustly?) by the Roman Catholic Church.
Once he finds the sin-eater, the rest of the film deals with Ledger's motivations for being a priest, his conflict between his vows and his love for the young woman, and the sin-eater's offer to make Fr. Alex his successor, as well as interference run in these matters by demons and pagans...
While this description suggests a compelling drama of religious conflict, the execution is schematic, murky, half-witted...characterization is imcomplete and inadequately subtle, motivations remain unclear, tension is diffused- in short, the project was not well-thought out.
Some things to keep in mind when watching-
1. Real priests do not chase demons (Helgeland has been watching too much Buffy!) nor do competent priests permit themselves to be taunted by demons so that the priest feels the need to challenge them...
2. Fr. Thomas encounters Fr. Alex in the graveyard, where he has just buried his mentor. Sensing something he asks Fr. Alex what has happened, and Fr. Alex (who had just been attacked by demons) responds "demon spawn in the form of children- nothing I couldn't handle". That disposition is so wrong! Relating the casting out of demons to your own ability would only invite the demons to attack you more fiercely! We defeat Satan through humility. Jesus said, "Don't be glad because the evil spirits obey you; rather be glad because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20, Today's English Version)
3. "Knowledge is opposed to faith" one character says. This is the most annoying line in the film. What kind of knowledge is he referring to? Knowledge of sin? Well, we may say that knowledge of sin obscures faith but is directly opposed to love. Knowledge of the occult? Beyond certain limits, knowledge of the occult is dangerous and unnecessary, and thus opposed to faith. But what about scientific knowledge, as in the laws of history or physics? Or knowledge of the faith itself? Does the Scripture not say "My people perish for lack of knowledge?" (Hosea 4:6)
4. In one instance, Fr. Thomas denounces a pagan as a "blasphemer"; yet, in another, earlier scene, he practically goads Fr. Alex into breaking his vows. Why does he act honorably in one scene and not in the other?
5. If the relationship between the young woman and Fr. Alex did not deserve to be developed more than what is here, it deserved to be excised from the film as a needless distraction from the story arc. When Fr. Alex breaks his vows, what could have been a meaningful scene between the two, is instead a PG-13 lovemaking montage with no dialogue at all!
Is the director being anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-God? It seems to me none of these things, but rather he objects to his perception of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think he realizes there is a conflict between the genuine Catholic dogma of sin and redemption and the false one portrayed here, a false understanding no doubt arising from exposure to distorted and legalistic expressions of the Roman Catholic faith.
To unspiritual people, this will seem a silly, cheesy film. But I doubt that Helgeland just decided to arbitrarily throw together supernatural elements in order to make a thriller. He seems to be aware that these elements do exists, but he is confused about their nature.
This is not a film that should be seen without someone wise and mature in the Catholic faith.