Change Your Image
irvingchris
Reviews
There's No Fish Food in Heaven (1998)
Let the title be a warning
"There's No Fish Food in Heaven" or "Life in the Fast Lane" or whatever this movie needs to call itself has absolutely no idea what it's doing. This is an example of how the term "filmmaker" can be applied to any anxiously naive fool with some video equipment and enough capital to (at least at the time) pay for the film stock. Therefore, movies like this are a waste of both time and money. Movies like this help help bring ruination to an actor's career or relegate them to second-class "B" status. Rather than even attempting to discuss the plot, I want to instead (for whoever is reading) relate an anecdote.
Years ago, I worked in a video store. Not a Blockbuster, but an actual video store, a Mom 'n Pop video store. Like all private businesses, you can't afford to keep up with the competition, and in order to carry a full inventory, we would supplement our selection with independent cinema, for better or worse. This movie was one of those titles. I remember thinking this was one of those quirky, meet-cute comedies that would be ridiculous, indeed, but somehow parasitically enjoyable. I watched about fourteen minutes of the film before I realized I had been had. About a week later, a customer had come to the store and I was surprised to see that she was returning the film. Unable to resist, I asked her what she thought about the movie. The woman, a 40-something soccer mom, politely asked: "Can I have my money back? The other guy said this movie was hilarious." I wasn't the manager, but I obliged her and gave her the $2.65 refund. I did this not because she rented the movie, but because she actually watched the whole thing.
The young and hopeful aspirations of an entire filmmaking population could benefit from watching this film (indeed, countless more like it). Think about what you're doing; don't film something that is only a half-imaged abortion of an idea.
Ginger Snaps: Unleashed (2004)
Not as fulfilling as the original
There's a problem with "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed." It's a sequel that doesn't respect that it is one. Sure, it makes references to the earlier film, contains the same sister-turned-werewolf relationship that was so originally examined in the first film (but not so much here) and has the same look & tone, but it seems to exist for a different audience. It comes down to the movie perhaps being a better stand-on-its-own film than a sequel to anything. I guess if "Ginger Snaps" part 1 never existed this might be seen in a better light, but because we've gotten to know the characters and had so much invested in them (again, more from the workings of the first installment than here) the conclusion of "GS2" comes as a bit of a letdown. Such clearly defined and well-portrayed characters kinda deserve a better opportunity if they're going to be put into a trilogy. In comparison to something like the "Scream" films, "Ginger Snaps" is far more deserving.
The film only hints at the substance in its plot. Female puberty was a fantastic way to express the invasion your average teen feels of their bodies in early adolescence. The pain of puberty extends to guys as social ridicule for having faces that resemble pizzas, but for girls it's as if their insides are turning inside out. Neat ways were found to connect this transformation to lycanthropy, but the ball is dropped in part 2. Here, because it's Brigette's turn, I thought that the film should have found that next step, i.e. losing one's virginity, establishing a relationship, etc. Maybe the third film could have focused on pregnancy then? In this sense the movie wastes some wonderful opportunities to connect the themes of the story. There's talk of a large wolf stalking Brigette almost no matter where she goes -- but who and what was (or is) this thing? Could it have been a way to express the fear of male aggression? Is Brigitte maybe even a little turned on that a mysterious and stalking male has suddenly taken interest in her? The movie doesn't really seem to care. All we really get is an semi-OK metaphor of drug addiction and withdrawal as Brigitte works to find a cure for her developing werewolf side. It might have gone further if there was an element of humor, but the coping skills the main character develops in this film as opposed to its predecessor look painful and frightening. Besides, the metaphor of addiction has already leased to vampires, not werewolves.
Another complaint fans of part 1 won't enjoy is the character of Ghost. Played by a 19-year old who legitimately looks like she's 12, the character is some kind of schizophrenic sidekick who follows Brigette around, provides helpful information and takes a completely unforeseen (and a I feel incredible) conversion of character, mostly for the convenience of tying off loose plot ends. It feels a little like a cheap trick and a total letdown. Nothing is more painful than watching the loss of potential to a good piece of art.
Overall, the movie's a 5. It's shot, lit, acted and edited just fine. It looks and feels like a movie but not the one I was hoping for.
Collateral (2004)
Unexpected detours from the traffic of cliche
Expect the unexpected from "Collateral," Michael Mann's latest thriller that has an unconventional buddy-film formula between two very unlikely leads playing excellent characters. Tom Cruise is probably too pretty-boy for most to consider him capable of pulling off a role like this. Jamie Foxx is probably looked upon as too comedic to get a genuine dramatic reaction -- but both of them have pulled it off.
Go see Collateral. It's an entirely original film that creates a plot from it's characters, not from standard hitman/reluctant hero cliches. Michael Mann directs the story in such a way that gives the night a seamlessness that's inescapable.
Highly recommended.
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
See the implications, not the cliche traps
Thinking-man movies are hard to come by these days. Innovating filmmaking has been butchered by the trendy Hollywood appetite for high-octane celebrity populated "duh" plots that are basic and always end with a crowd pleasing resolution. In times like these, it's a pleasure to see a rehash like "Manchurian" take a page from movies like "Dog Day Afternoon" or "Taxi Driver" that both ended unconventional notes.
The performances in this movie are what we'd expect from now veteran pleasers like Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep. Liev Schreiber continues to go hugely underrated in a movie that really keeps a focus on his ability to be both charming and strangely menacing. Hopefully the Academy will pick this up and give him due credit.
"Manchurian" is well adjusted to a scandal wrought America where corporate demons play with the lesser practices to make themselves the slightest bit more profitable. It's a well made thriller that has a pulse on the situation, but could have stepped up the action a notch or two. All the same, well worth the price of admission.
'Salem's Lot (2004)
Yet another misfire in transcribing King's horrifying literacy onto celluloid
If you're reading this, it means you know the story of Salem's Lot pretty well, or are at least familiar with the idea. Small town, vampires, and more weird Stephen King characters. But consider "Salem's Lot" (by that I mean the book) to be the closest thing to fully explaining small town New England. While the original TV version successfully played on the evils in the story, this new version tries to convey both the evils and social framework but only comes up with what feel like scraps of good performances and laughable special effects.
Few King stories have made the transfer from copy to film with anything resembling grace... The new "Salem's Lot" isn't one of them. It's a sorted, mumbling attempt to illustrate King's New England setting as a breeding ground for the sins were all guilty of. Neglect, envy-turned-jealousy, regret and desperation are just some of the things that come to mind when I read the original novel, and I looked for them in the remake but knew I had been hosed by the first hour.
The track record seems to suggest that the more characters a King story has the worse it will do as a film. "Misery" had just the writer and the Nurse.
"The Shining" had dull boy Jack, wife and child slowly going mad in a wintry hell. My personal nightmare-maker from childhood was "Cujo" as a sort of maternal battle of one Mother and her infant son against a ravenous Saint Bernard that manifested just about everything wrong in their lives. With pages of characters like "Lot" or the failed TV "The Stand" (1994) we see how King's stories begin to lose their control over our attention span.
The films with smaller casts had time to wade through their characters dilemmas, show them for what they really were, and have them face it all by the end with some sort of terrifying twist thrown in as a wink from King to his reader. The movies effectively captured those moods and played them like piano keys. The book "Salem's Lot" is a fantastic story. It's an account almost of the unseen social world that exists in a claustrophobic suburbia, and because it deals with so many truths and hides so many secrets it might be just plain impossible to tell the whole story effectively.
This need not be a discouragement though. It's unlikely to be made again any time soon but I would probably look forward to any serious attempt at making that dark world of "The Lot" feel more like a neighborhood that's familiar and equally dreadful.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
It's a happy to be B-movie that wraps you up in warm CGI blankets on the coldest day imaginable
Rolland Emmerich must really have something for New York. I think it's great that he finds an inspiration in the city to have it be the setting for just about every disaster imaginable. Slimy aliens kicked Liberty's ass in "Independence Day," a ferocious lizard ate the big apple in "Godzilla" and now Mother Nature herself has turned a cold shoulder to one of America's most recognizable cities. Is Emmerich intentionally trying to remind us of 9/11, or does he hold a reserve that New Yorkers are really so tough they can take anything?
Whatever the answer there's still no mercy in a movie like this. The trailers and TV spots alone let us know that walls of water will somehow come crashing through Manhattan and monster snow storms will bury Central Park in flash-freezes that haven't occurred since the last ice age. Dr. Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is the paleoclimatologist tracking the Arctic ice shelf when he realizes something strange is happening to the planet's climate. He theorizes that life on earth is about to become radically different and spends the first half of the film trying to convince the White House that big things are in our forecast.
Since the average audience aren't willing to wait the decades it would actually take to have an ice age occur on a scale like this we have to believe it can occur in a matter of days. While trying to smooth over a rocky marriage Quaid's character calculates that little time is left before the super storms begin to hit. He urges his college-bound son Sam (Jake Gyllenhal) to seek shelter in New York and wait for him.
The special effects in this film are astounding and it's somewhat refreshing to have them not just look like good CGI, but to feel and sound like it too.
As Quaid's character makes an unlikely jaunt from DC to New York with his arctic gear conveniently available his son makes preparations in the New York library with some other survivors. As is always the case there's not much else to the plot than survival tactics. Characters come into conflict with each other when they can't agree on the best course of action, not because their natures just don't compare. Maybe that would make it slightly more interesting or complicated, but I kept wanting a little more to ponder than just the spectacular effects.
Disaster movies can bring a certain inspiration to them if done correctly, I think "Deep Impact" was the best recently. You can still have fun if they're just adrenaline fodder like "Armageddon". And sometimes they can be just plain ridiculous like "Twister". One thing they all require though is at least one thrilling sequence that makes us feel the crunch of time, the ferocity of the elements and the panic of the characters -- of which there's no real shortage in this film. It's a B movie that knows it's a B movie, and at least that makes us accept it and not feel like it wants to be anything else.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
It looks and sounds just like any well-oiled machine, but lacks any human parts for us to connect with
I'm a sucker for films like this, or any sci-fi epic that concerns a muscle-bound brute faced with an impossible task that tests his morals and provides endless opportunities for witty one-liners. There's also no shortage of digital effects and impressive CGI landscapes here. Vin Diesel would seem the perfect candidate for a concept like this. He's the millennium's answer to the Stallone of the 80's and Schwarzenegger of the 90's.
Riddick, the lone nut convict from "Pitch Black" with the sometimes useful ability to be nocturnal is back, facing a crusading army called the Necromongers who are bent on converting every human life to a race of fascist-like dummies. I had stop myself from trying to answer why these crusaders destroy planets they might have to one day inhabit, that is, if they plan to convert "everyone".
This "unholy crusade" leads Riddick on the run, and unfortunately, that's about it. One thing I was rather confused by was the movie's lack of purpose for him. The story begins on a chilly ice world where Riddick outsmarts some bounty hunters, then follows him to a New Mecca where he witnesses the first of the Necromongers invaders. When Riddick runs again it's to the underworld prison on a fiery planet that looks like the inside of a meat grinder. The sets are impressive but a little overbearing. The acting is about as good as it gets for a movie like this, but with such little story impact it would have helped to be better. There are whole characters here that don't seem to have purpose, including Judi Dench as a sort of elemental spirit. Each new character held promise in their introduction. Instead of applying them with the slightest creativity, all we get are fierce showdowns of brute strength that are nowhere near as interesting as the conflicts in the first film.
Unfortunately we've reached a peak for these kinds of films. Audiences have been blown up too many times by massive armies of marching metal like we see here. After the panning vistas of the "Lord of the Rings" it's just too boring to sit through yet another crusade of endless battles.
It's disappointing not to be able to recommend this movie because Riddick's nature so often contradicts itself. The first film found a use for him that this movie only seems to be searching for every now and then. I thought more could have been made of the bounty hunters who are also running from the Necromongers. Wouldn't Riddick be a good candidate for leading other convicts into battle?
It seems obvious that Riddick 3 (or maybe The Further Adventures of Riddick) will be in order, and hopefully by then the murkiness of this film can help be brought into the light. Riddick's dark worlds have so much potential.