Change Your Image
charleski
Reviews
Hard Candy (2005)
Ghastly and shallow
After seeing Ellen Page's wonderful work in Juno and Whip It I screened this film to get an idea of what else she'd done. If I didn't already know that Page is capable of far better performances I'd have written her off on the basis of what is shown here.
On the other hand, maybe it was the film-maker's intention for her to come across as a whiny, manipulative little brat, who knows? But by half-way through the film I was hoping the paedophile would escape from this nasty vindictive urchin. When you find yourself cheering for the bad-guy (and there's no doubt he *is* a bad guy) that's a clear sign the film has failed. And don't get the idea that this is the result of it portraying some sort of deep, complex moral question - the morality of the film is simple and stark.
While paedophilia is a pretty simple moral question, that's no excuse for the heavy-handed and distinctly vapid approach adopted here. 'Who are you?' Jeff screams towards the end of the film. The truth is that Page's character is nothing, just an empty shell defined solely by her desire for revenge. Jeff is just as empty, we are given nothing of his character other than a trite, if rather shocking, account of how he was sexually abused by his aunt at the age of 9. It's no surprise that Slade learnt his trade making music videos, this film has all the depth of an MTV clip.
You expect a psychological thriller to have two things: psychology and thrills. This has neither. And those looking for a strong performance from Ellen Page should look elsewhere.
The Art of the Steal (2009)
A polemic that argues for its opposition
The scenario in brief: Albert C. Barnes is an idiosyncratic, but very wealthy man who has a good eye for art in the early 20th century and manages to snap up a large collection of post-impressionist paintings that becomes very important. Instead of opening this up to public view, he hides it away in a suburb on Pennsylvania, accessible only to a select elite. If we are to believe this documentary, his act of cultural kidnapping was founded on personal animosity towards the eminences running the public works in Pennsylvania in his day. Hardly an excellent reason to deprive the nation of the opportunity to view great works of art.
But Barnes is not content with depriving his contemporaneous generation of these works and decides to drag his collection with him to the grave. He draws up an elaborate will that sets up a foundation that will keep the paintings sequestered away, mouldering under the gaze of small groups of specially-selected 'students'.
The film covers the efforts made to wrest control of this vitally important collection away from a group of preppy blue-bloods who wanted to remain true to Barnes' exclusive vision. We are shown a series of sniffy elitist aristos whining as the barriers that Barnes set up are slowly broken down. We are told, in shocked tones, that one common gent decided to leave the exhibition after remarking that Reubens' paintings contained a lot of fat ladies (gasp! - the implication is clearly that mere commoners should not be allowed to view and pass judgement on these cultural fetishes).
Finally, the Foundation teeters on bankruptcy and elected officials step in to ensure that the collection is maintained for the public good. In a final act of cultural vandalism they move it away from the tiny and vastly inappropriate secluded mansion Barnes provided and house it in a modern gallery where anyone can visit and enjoy these treasures. At this point the chosen talking heads erupt in a fury - the idea of common people leaving the imprint of their common eyeballs on work that should be restricted to the privileged elite is clearly beyond bearing.
Make no mistake, the intent of this film is to argue the case for the Barnes elitists, and it spends a lot of time spewing rants about how evil it was to open up the collection. I knew very little of the Barnes Foundation before seeing it, but based solely on the information the film provided it is blatantly obvious that the terms of Barnes' legacy had to be overthrown.
This art did not belong to Barnes, he only got to hold it for a while. This art belongs to the world, and the world finally has the chance to enjoy it.
The Informers (2008)
Good adaptation of bad source material
This film is an example of a director rescuing Ellis's cheesy rubbish and making something fairly decent of it. It's a decent exposition of pampered 80's wastrels with some good ensemble acting that would have been ruined by the vampire subplot Ellis wanted to insert. It certainly deserves better reviews than it got.
It's clear that the director faced a real problem in trying to make sense of Ellis's often incoherent babble, but he managed to pick-and-choose enough of the better bits to make a social commentary that has enough bite to sink home if you give it a chance. The film still contains some gaping holes which no amount of skill could paper over, but the fault for that lies with Ellis.