Change Your Image
elyswim
Reviews
Fifty Pills (2006)
Meh, I've seen better.
Because I had some free time yesterday, I perused my cable provider's Video On Demand movie listings. While there wasn't anything spectacular, I decided upon a 1 hour and 20 minute film called "Fifty pills." The movie featured Lou Taylor Pucci, John Hensley (Nip/Tuck), and Kristen Bell (Heroes, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). I thought to myself as I was choosing the film, "Hmm, an indie film on Showtime, has great potential." Unfortunately it didn't
First, a quick rundown of the plot. A college student (Lou Taylor Pucci) loses his scholarship after his roommate (John Hensley) throws a party that gets busted. To make it up to him, the roommate offers the student an option to sell 50 ecstasy pills at 20 dollars a pop to stay in school. What follows is a somewhat odd series of supposedly "life changing" events. In his travels the student meets a dominatrix, an insane day trader, and a competing drug dealer (among others).
Content/Performances: Poor Follow through/Forced While the concept has great potential, there was a complete lack of follow through in the story. It seems as though the screenwriter was trying too hard to make jokes rather than allowing them to flow organically from the situation. For example, the student visits a dominatrix. Instead of allowing the viewer to merely enjoy the awkwardness of an innocent college student entering the lair of a dominatrix, the writer went too far. Entering the home, the student was greeted by a grandmother. Thinking he had entered the wrong house, he turned around to leave, however the grandmother stopped him with the statement, "You're the one selling the ecstasy pills, right? My daughter is downstairs." The grandmother acted completely normal in the situation. It might seem funny, but it translated poorly. I didn't laugh, rather I just waited for the plot to continue. To make things worse, once the boy got down there he was greeted by the screaming dominatrix. Who through a combination of poorly written lines and mediocre acting completely took me out of the film. I was so uncomfortable at the poor composition of this scene and the forced attempt at humor that I almost had to fast-forward through the part. This was not the only scene that went poorly, the rest of the drug dealing situations were much the same way: crazy person, awkward interaction, boy leaves.
The mediocrity was not restricted to these situations, however. The motivations of the female love interest (Kristen Bell) were not well developed. I'm not sure whether it was poor acting or writing (likely the former), but I couldn't find a justification for her to act the way she acted. In the film, she is supposed to be "worried" that the protagonist is turning into his roommate by selling drugs. However, the way it plays out is that she doesn't seem too concerned about it, because frankly she is not too invested in the character. They're merely good friends. One things she asks of him in the film is that he show up to her charity Christmas tree selling event. Due to a rival drug dealer the boy cannot make it because he gets kidnapped. When he finally escapes and finds her again, the resulting fallout made it seem like had cheated on her. He literally begged for forgiveness. Strangely enough, he hadn't mentioned that HE WAS KIDNAPPED. I couldn't help but laugh, partially because of how ridiculous he was acting and partially because I wasn't connected to either character in either way. Frankly, I just saw him as an absurd boy, which in this film is not a unique quality for a character.
In this film you'll see that characters are one dimensional which tends to make them very uninteresting. "Coleman" the student's roommate (played by John Hensley) is the quintessential "player." He cheats on his girlfriend, throws parties, yet goes through NO journey in the film. Even though he faces ramifications for his actions, he doesn't learn. He just continues to act of his own accord. This makes it incredibly hard to believe that in some magical moment in the last 5 minutes he shows remorse and offers to pay his roommate's tuition. Once again, what an absurd boy.
Film Design: Nothing Special One could easily argue that without good writing a film is doomed. I would tend to agree, however sometimes the overwhelming beauty of a film can remove some viewers from a poorly constructed plot. This was unfortunately not the case in this film. Unlike Harry Potter which had outstanding visuals to accompany a good plot, lighting was fairly high key. There was no shot complexity, no mood lighting, no inventive editing. Just a banal shot progression. It's what one would expect out of a film and it's what you get.
Overall, this film was mediocre at best. The concept was good, but poor acting and forced comedy essentially killed it. The one thing I will mention that was outstanding was the music. The music was primarily performed by a group called La Rocca; I highly recommend them. Favorite songs: Cambodia- La Rocca, Now the Sun is out- Greg Johnson.
twitter.com/elyswim hopefullymakingfilms.wordpress.com
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
The best of the Harry Potter Films!
I've allowed myself to sleep on the Harry Potter film before I decided to write about it. Frankly, last night at the end of the film, I was overwhelmed with excitement. I thought the movie was outstanding. Incredibly well made and quite funny. The child inside of me was excited at the magic both within the film and of the film. I follow here with thoughts on film design, content, and its conversion from book to film.
Film design: In short, outstanding.
Now having majored in film at the university I attended, it's difficult to determine what someone who hasn't studied film so extensively notices or does not notice. From the very first images of Half Blood Prince, I saw a dimly lit, fairly high contrast image with heavy blue/black color tone. This made the film seem more dark and "artsy." This is not to say that there were no warm colored scenes. Everything at the Weasley's house was very warm with earth tone colors. The contrast of these scenes with the rest of the film really made these scenes "pop." Indeed, the dark lighting sets the mood of the film, one that will stay with the series. And this mood is very appropriate as evil looms ever closer to the protagonist.
Shot complexity was also fairly apparent. In certain parts the depth of the shot was essential to getting the "joke" set up in the film. Take for example when Ron was given the love potion and Harry took him to Slughorn. As the two talked we could see a blurry Ron in the background sit on the top of the couch and promptly fall over. These comedic moments add humor to the film but also make us aware of the complexity that the director/cinematographer duo intended. Undeniably this adds credence to those in charge over at Warner Brothers.
I'm sure many could (and perhaps may) write a large paper on the topic of film design in Harry Potter, but I'll leave that for those that plan on getting paid for it (or plan on getting a grade for it). Let's move to content! Content: From book to Film In every Harry Potter book, save the last, there is a certain expectation of day-to-day activity that should be included. J.K. Rowling takes her time to explore the nuances of every class whether it be Charms or Professor Trelawney's admittedly useless fortune telling class. In the books, Rowling develops personalities for even these small side characters. Her words paint a portrait of a life that many kids probably wish for. It's this quality that makes her books so magical. I would love to be at Hogwarts flying on brooms, hanging out with Harry Potter and playing around with spells. Rowling allows to access this in our imagination while we read the books. As a result she has sold millions upon millions.
This is where many have a problem with the movies. It would be financially stupid to include all these perspectives in a film that costs 29000$ a minute to make. The movie would have to be 10 hours long (if not longer!) No one would be willing to sit through it, and people would be bored! As a result, the movies present only the bare-bones plot with few frills. So while we actually have an image to look at, the nuances and daily life of Harry and his pals are lost. Thus, one of the main criticisms of the movie is that it simply takes out too much. Film is after all a business (and a very risky one at that). Producers and directors need to do what is best for the FILM, and not necessarily stay faithful to the story. Hence "creative liberty." Unfortunately, I had already read the books by the time the respective movies were released. I'd be curious to know if the movies are coherent as their own entity. Yes, they may be a bare bones plot compared to the book, but for those movie watchers who haven't read the books do you get the general gist of the plot? Overall, I thought Harry Potter was astoundingly well made, though there are criticisms about its plot and certain choice removals, I do think they were necessary and allow Harry Potter to be accessed by a wider audience. I hope this was informative.
www.twitter.com/elyswim hopefullymakingfilms.wordpress.com