atliel Reviews

The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)

This should not have been theatrically released.

[5/10 · 7 December 2008]

With the theatrical release of this film I thought, finally we get to see Fox and Scully get together to solve another X-file. But what I saw instead was a paint-by-number serial killer film. Yes, I was disappointed. Not because it was a mediocre film but because this may have been the one and only chance to resurrect the series and Chris Carter chose a story (one that he had been working on for years) that had absolutely nothing with the X-Files mythology to kill it. I've read in numerous reviews that Chris Carter decided to shoot this story because it wouldn't confuse newcomers. What newcomers was he expecting? And why would a newcomer have been any less disappointed with a story about faith involving relationship issues between Scully and Mulder and the redemption of a former priest accused of being a pedophile? The plot uses the killings as a way to push forth faith issue and you realize this in the end when the "shocker" of why the killings took place is quickly revealed. This could have been a decent episode, one of many with a closed ending but why Carter thought this story was the one is a mystery. Nothing about it actually affects the X-Files universe. As a matter of fact the case itself isn't really an X-File. The use of a psychic in the field is not uncommon and there was nothing paranormal about the killer so why was Mulder summoned? Who cares about his past cases? What is he going to do that's any different from any other agent? Nothing except for a lot of complaining. This movie may have finally killed the franchise.

Next (2007)

What's NEXT for Nicholas Cage?

[1/10 · 30 November 2008]

With the current crop of garbage that Nicholas Cage has starred in no one would believe me that the man actually has skills as an actor. I mean compare his work in "Raising Arizona" or "Leaving Las Vegas" and then watch "Next" and you'll wonder what happened to this guy. But that's not what makes this film bad, on top of the bad acting (Julianne Moore runs around in this film like a chicken without its head collecting her pay check) we have a idiotic script, poor directing and bad visual effects. Most of this stuff I would forgive if the story was innovative. I have seen low budget productions with bad acting, directing, etc. but utilizing a great script and I've walked away satisfied. The script in "Next", which is adapted from a short story by Philip K. Dick that I have not read (I'm a fan of PKD), does a terrible job in fleshing out Frank Cadillac (Nick Cage) a magician in Vegas. It actually does not flesh out anyone in the script including the bad guys who we never know why they want to blow up anything anyway. With no character development you're left with a concept but unfortunately the concept, a psychic who can only see two minutes forward in time must stop a nuclear warhead from being detonated, never tries to be innovative. I never cared for the characters, I wasn't intrigued by the plot, too many of its established rules keep getting broken throughout the film and no one seemed to care that they were in this film in the first place. It was stupid. They should take the original negative and embed a thick scratch right down the middle and then pour glue all over it and then cover it in broken glass.

Doomsday (I) (2008)

What do you get as a result when Neal Marshall makes a film with a big budget?

[3/10 · 16 August 2008]

Another example of style over substance. I guess I had high hopes, considering that The Descent was so good, I may have over-hyped the film for myself. As violent or gruesome as The Descent was none of it was gratuitous simply because those scenes pushed the narrative forward. However, in Doomsday, the violence and the gore were there for their own sake. I actually thought about what the film would be like had those scenes been edited out and I realized it would have made no difference. I need to make something clear here, violence and gore don't bother me, I'm a big horror buff and "Dead Alive" is one of many films I recommend to watch. What bothers me are gimmicks, stylistic choices that provide nothing to the story. For example, multi-colored punks a-la "Mad Max Beyond Thunder-Dome", city landscapes not unlike "Escape from New York" and the wipe-out of a population by a virus in the vein of "28 Days Later" are strewn about in the script with no particular rhyme or reason. Sure all those films are great and I don't blame him for being influenced by them but what's the point? -The main character is neither worth hating or liking, she's simply a video game heroin who goes from point A to B and whose background is glossed over.

-The villain is really Malcolm McDowell playing himself so that can't be it...

Something tells me that there's a really good story hidden in all that but his ideas were just not fully realized. Which is too bad because the film could have been a cult B-film classic. As it stands it just comes off as a film that rips off of other cult classics and uses exaggerated violence as a crutch. Which, by the way, if you like exaggerated violence you may want to check it out especially for a hilarious and absolutely unnecessary scene involving a bunny rabbit.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

I really wanted to like this

[4/10 · 14 June 2008]

I really wanted to like this even after I was warned that of the four films this one was the weakest. The way I see it is if I show up to a theater with low expectations there's probably a chance I might enjoy it more than I would had I hyped it to death. But man was I wrong. The film starts off strong with a great first act (some hokey moments involving a family of gophers but forgivable none the less)displaying the trademark Indiana Jones action we've come to expect from top caliber film-makers like Spielberg. After a half hour or so the movie just goes down hill. Maybe it was the introduction of Le Bouf as a clichéd 50's biker a la Marlon Brando or bringing in Karen Allen as she takes away more than what she adds. She simply looks pasted onto the actual celluloid as a gimmick for the fans than serving a purpose for the story. Regardless by the time you're within the second act everything becomes a weird blur containing bad green screen effects, a Tarzan tribute?...I think, and an army of large red army ants who apparently like feasting on human flesh. What do they eat when there aren't people around? But if that's not bad enough wait till you get to the third act where it all ends in hardcore fantasy. A bad Lucas nightmare come to life. The odd thing is I still don't think the film sucks. The script absolutely sucks but the quality of the other filmmakers/actors output is evident as it saves the film from being absolute garbage. Put it this way, if you're a fan you'll probably be disappointed and if you're unfamiliar with Indiana Jones you may walk away wondering what the hell you just saw. That may just as well be the way to go to see this film as you might enjoy it more than if you knew how great it all once was with Raiders.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)

One Of The Best Terry Gilliam Films

[10/10 · 7 May 2008]

When this film was released in the theaters it went under the radar for the general public simply because Columbia Pictures didn't have faith in it. They spent a good amount of money for production but decided not to spend it in marketing (they also didn't know how to market it) and it was eventually released in a very limited run. That's unfortunate because I can't think of too many films that are as imaginative and inspiring as this film. Terry Gilliam made a name for himself as a director with Time Bandits (I love Brazil but to this day it is still considered a true cult film) and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen follows in those footsteps. Although it's disguised as a period piece it's really more of an urban fantasy utilizing Greco-Roman mythology (for ex.Mars/Vulcan and Venus) and European folk tales. But ultimately it has Terry Gilliam's stamp as an auteur: elaborate production design, different types of animation, Pythonesque humor, very animated acting, but most importantly a disdain towards power and government and bureaucracy. On the surface we know that faith in the imagination makes the Baron youthful and logic, fact, science is what ages him (for ex.death disguised as a doctor) but beneath the surface is a commentary against the powerful and corrupt who busy themselves with paperwork (check out Brazil for a better example) and lie to the public to keep themselves in power. Hence the fact that Mr. Jackson (Jonathan Pryce) keeps a watchful eye on the public within the theater as they are kept busy with bad plays instead of focusing on what the government is really doing outside of the city's gate. But really this is besides the point, the point is this film is fun, it's pure eye candy, it's inspired lunacy and yet the lunacy makes sense, it's funny and poignant. This is why Terry Gilliam is one of my favorite directors. It's a treasure that the public needs to discover and the blu-ray edition is the best it has ever looked so it's a great place to start.

Iron Man (2008)

Excellent

[10/10 · 4 May 2008]

Iron Man may seem to the uninitiated as an unlikely choice to be a superhero of blockbuster status but for fans of Marvel comics in general it makes sense. But that being said it still has to attract a public who is not completely familiar with him and yet ride that fine line where it appeases those who know everything about him and this film does just that. A great screenplay supported by an excellent cast is what carried this film into the realm of believability. A good amount of time was spent fleshing out Tony Stark, who for the most part, was not made to be a sympathetic character. He's arrogant, he doesn't take life seriously and he's got more money than he knows what to do with and yet in the end he has a change of heart and you'll wish you were him donning the suit. Now that's good writing. The writers and Jon Favreau try not to stick with minor details, technicalities and such from the comics, instead they paint in broad strokes using universal themes that are familiar throughout adventure stories. Keep in mind this is an intro and not just for those unfamiliar but for fans as well because this will ultimately become a movie franchise and at this rate hopefully a consistently good one.

There was always a disconnect between the reality of characters in the comic book format and how Hollywood studio's figured they should be translated on screen. The recent trend to present comic book characters in a mature light is a trend I hope doesn't end. Enough of the campy crap of directors like Joel Schumacher who never took the characters seriously and never thought that the fans did either. Having comic fans direct these films (ex. Jon Favreau, Chris Nolan) is a blessing and their success is probably an eye opener for studio executives who rather not take those risks. If they put this much energy into Captain America and the revamp of The Punisher then it's safe to look forward to a great collection of superhero films coming soon.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

A Comedy That Does It's Job....Making You Laugh

[8/10 · 20 April 2008]

I've read some critics complaining about the plot of the film but still agreeing that it's funny. Did I miss something here? Isn't that the point of a comedy? To laugh? If it did its job then it's good! Right? Well, I enjoyed it for all its silliness but even more so because it's easy to relate to. What's great is that none of the characters are card board cut-outs (clichés). As much as you would like to hate Sarah Marshall and her boyfriend there are moments where you sympathize or side with them, not because they're great people (you'll still side with the protagonist) but simply because you get them. You know where they're coming from and this adds a level of complexity missing from too many comedies who run with an overdone Hollywood formula and don't take any risks.

It's an interesting thing to have a particular type of comedy become known solely for its creators: "from the guys who brought you Superbad or Knocked Up or"...you get the point. It's almost like owning your own sub-genre and this wouldn't be very far fetched considering that the Apatow crowd do follow certain conventions that have become expected within their brand of comedy. For example dirty high school humor from guys who seem trapped between adolescence and adulthood but who, for the most part, are pretty decent people who just want to have fun without the complexities of old age. But those complexities always catch up to them and in the end they confront these problems as mature adults and become wiser for it. I bet most critics never thought of applying film theory to these films but there you have it.

Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden? (2008)

It's a smaller world than we think

[6/10 · 18 April 2008]

If you are a serious news junkie with an affinity towards the Middle East and you get your information from numerous sources chances are you are not going to learn anything new in this film in terms of geopolitics. However, what you will learn from this film is what you won't get get from the general media, the Islamic world from the perspective of its inhabitants.

In "Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden" Morgan Spurlock is more concerned with educating an American public whose majority will never travel outside this country and therefore will never meet the very same people that are typically vilified on our news. That's what makes this film important simply because he adds a human face to Muslims in a way that most journalists can't because it simply doesn't bring in good ratings. In other words fear sells and how can we fear someone that looks like we could hang out with and have a good laugh? And that's the genius behind the film in that he injects humor throughout the film both in voice over commentary and in the interviews and many times his interviewees express the same brand of humor right back. What we are left with is a broader picture of a people who share a lot in common with us but have been belittled by the politics of their own governments and ours (a sentiment that we also share about our own state of affairs). If that's not enough to see the film then see it for the hilarious animated sequence of Osama Bin Ladin dancing to MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This".

30 Days of Night (2007)

Better than most horror nowadays

[6/10 · 15 April 2008]

I really want to say that this movie was one of the best horror films I've seen in years, that it was a great addition to the Vampire horror sub-genre (a genre in need of a boost) and was worth owning in one's collection. And technically, considering the massive amount of crap Hollywood throws at us including bad Japanese Horror re-makes, "original" horror films borrowing Japanese style clichés and an abundance of slasher/torture porn I would be right in making that claim. However, on its own, its flaws keep it from being the classic it should have been.

The concept is great, a town in Alaska is raided by Vampires taking advantage of its Winter Solstice which causes the area to be shrouded in complete darkness for 30 days. What a great setting, reminiscent of the isolation in John Carpenter's film "The Thing" we are introduced to a small working class town where everyone knows each other and not much in the way of crime happens. So it is fitting that our protagonist is a law-man, Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnet), who is used to dealing with one empty jail cell and assisted at home base by his grandmother and younger brother.

Although the concept is great it unfortunately isn't fully realized on the big screen (I have not yet read the comic book). The feeling of isolation by being trapped in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by snow and ice is dealt with rather quickly. The cell phones that were burnt, the killing of a pack of dogs, the blackout were nice touches but were rushed. Was everyones communication to the outside world really destroyed? And the Stranger in town was really able to kill all those dogs? And no one heard a thing? And what took those vampires so long to figure out that killing the towns people during the winter solstice was a good idea? Where were they hiding out all this time? Note that I didn't hate the film either, I may be a bit nit picky but I'm also realistic. The performances and most of the scenes were well done. The battle between the sheriff and the lead vampire seemed to end too quickly but the ending itself was satisfying.

I just wish there was more emphasis on the isolation which may have led to better development of the characters (I just didn't feel anything for the victims). But considering the attempt at something more thought provoking and original than the current crop of horror I would still recommend this film.

The Mist (2007)

One of the better Stephen King horror adaptations

[7/10 · 14 April 2008]

There aren't enough horror films out there that utilize character development as part of their narrative or at least try to say something whether it's about society or the individual. Fortunately, The Mist makes an attempt, albeit not the best, in trying to examine fear and how it affects people in an enclosed setting. Needless to say it results in the inevitable mob mentality as witnessed in numerous tales (Lord of the Flies, J.J. Abram's "Lost", etc.) but in this case the antagonists are not from our world. This is a nice touch in that in no way can the audience relate to the creatures in any way. They show no emotion nor any motivation in their killing almost as if they were going about their business as usual. There is a similarity to "The Old Ones" of H.P. Lovecraft's "Cthulhu" where he describes their indifference to life around them and even note the monster at the end of the film with tentacles as if a nod to Lovecraft. That being said we are left to focus not on the creatures but on the struggle inside the supermarket between a growing religious fanaticism amongst the many against the few who hold onto using logic. This alone is enough to garner ten stars from me as this is the stuff that makes classics but unfortunately the third act falls apart rather quickly.

I won't give it away here but when you do see it I wonder if the general public will agree with me in wanting to know why everything had to lead up to this. Why does our lead protagonist David Drayton (Thomas Jane) deserve this? The problem isn't the down ending, which I typically enjoy in films, the problem is simply what does it all mean? What are we left with when the lights go up? That religion was the way to go? Or just wait a little longer and everything will resolve itself so don't fight it? I can't help but think that the ending's sole purpose was shocking for the sake of shock value and nothing else. Which leads to my next question: What is the deal with Stephen King endings anyway? I've read his books and somehow they end just right at least on paper but on the big screen they seem to fall apart (check out IT or The Stand as examples). There's something about the relationship between the reader (their imagination) and the written word and how it can dupe you into buying any convoluted plot that works to this very day. However, on the big screen, the filmmaker has to make his interpretation of said ending work for everyone. He can't convince it's right or wrong, it just has to work that one time and that's it. The majority of this film is entertaining, great atmosphere, good character actors and although this film's third act can be chalked up with all the other unsuccessful Stephen King endings the first two acts do make up for it.

Halloween (2007)

Who Let Rob Zombie Write This?!!!!

[3/10 · 3 April 2008]

What happens when you give a horror fanatic like Rob Zombie the liberty to do as he wishes on a horror franchise like John Carpenter's "Halloween"? Unfortunately you get bored to death with one cliché ridden scene after another. What the hell happened? I didn't think his first two films were bad, not great, but not awful either. I figured the major problem here is the same deal you'll get from Tarantino or Rodriguez, they're film enthusiasts. They're better skilled at creating tributes to the films they love than adding any original ideas of their own. That being said the film isn't a complete remake. If you've seen the original "Halloween" you'll remember that it starts with Michael breaking out of the asylum. In the new revamp version Zombie, in the first act, gives us a glimpse of what Michael was like as a child and what led him to be locked away in an asylum in the first place. Oddly enough I think the first act (all the scenes that eventually lead into his killing spree) is excellent. I would have rather have seen a film about a child growing up into the killer instead of just a simple explanation for the sake of exposition. Imagine what a riskier and much more controversial film that would have been! And what a way to reawaken the franchise which was originally hit or miss anyhow. Regardless, once Michael escapes the asylum we are treated to simple slasher film clichés with no rhyme or reason for half the killings. Were any of these people in his way in the first place? How does he know to find his sister? Basically he just goes on a killing spree for the sake of a killing spree and several times I found myself yawning and losing interest. Forget about tension because without that rhyme and reason you get none. I wanted to enjoy this film but it was a total let down.

However, I have to give Rob Zombie credit for playing the original Misfits "Halloween" in the background, nice touch.

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006)

Why bother with the story when you've got A-list actors, good lighting and well-to-do pretentious freaks

[5/10 · 9 March 2008]

What better way to display the coming of age of a woman trapped in the confines of a claustrophobic 1950s and then show her "escape" into the dark and mysterious world of side show circus freaks than this film? Well it could be a film with a tighter script...unfortunately that's not this film.

It tries to realize her by digging into her essence, what made her who she was through metaphor instead of relying on cold hard facts. So who was Diane Arbus? I'm still not sure. Not to say that it's a bad film as it does have its redeeming qualities such as Downey's performance but it has trouble selling Arbus' relationship and subsequent affair with his character Lionel. Get it Lionel? Lion? A lion is hairy like him? Fur? ...whatever.

So he's a freak and his friends are freaks, so what? Show us the freakiness! Let's experience what it is like to be one, have her explore what that humiliation is like and what it's like to be a part of that fraternity! There are obvious attempts to show the tragic side to Lionel such as the shaving scene and her portrait of him but the attempt is shallow. Oddly enough the tragedy in the film was not her confines (as claustrophobic as it was) or Lionel's affliction but what the husband was going through. Unfortunately they dropped the ball exploring that further.

I know it wasn't a traditional biopic as this was a re-imagining of her life but it could have been more interesting. So what went wrong? What went wrong was that there was too much attention paid to how pretty every frame of the film was and little attention to fleshing out the characters, realizing this interesting concept and sticking to a direction. And for those who have the terrible habit of claiming that those who did not enjoy this film did not "get it" all I have to say is get over yourselves. It's far from being an art house film that took any risks. It's a Hollywood film utilizing the typical three act structure, there's nothing difficult or vague about the story.

The Lost City (2005)

Andy Garcia's Love Letter to Cuba

[9/10 · 6 February 2008]

I remember reading reviews for this film when it was theatrically released (a very limited release) and for the most part the reviews were so-so. It seemed that the critics were bothered by the fact that it was Garcia's love letter to Cuba and therefore wrote it off as self indulgent. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of paying attention to those critics and waited to see it on cable. Obviously I enjoyed the film and now wish that I could have seen it on the big screen simply because it deserves that kind of respect. In other words I find it rare that Hollywood releases a film worth buying a ticket for (sometimes even for Oscar nominated films).

Therefore, I have taken to watching older movies simply because it seems to me that most contemporary filmmakers are scared to make films with metaphors, symbols, motifs, etc. Are contemporary critics scared to praise a film that utilizes these important narrative elements? Sometimes I wonder...

Yes, this film is a love letter to Cuba and the screen displays the blood, sweat and tears Garcia went through to get it shown to the public. That alone is commendable but the acting, the cinematography and most importantly the script are high caliber. Self indulgent? Not at all, but it does display Garcia's feelings about the contentious issue of pre-revolutionary versus post-revolutionary Cuba. It's clear that his version of Che Guevara conflicts with "The Motorcycle Diaries" version but putting that aside his biases are not historically inaccurate. This is Garcia's Cuba and therefore we are seeing it through the experiences of Fico who for the most part doesn't play an active role in the government or in the revolution. He's not a politician, he's an entertainer whose world is disrupted by a new popular "faceless" ideology (note that we never see an actor portray Fidel to the camera, his back is all we ever see). He's neither a fan of the old regime and all he sees in the new regime is the same all over again.

Once this is made clear the film explores Fico's personal crisis through metaphor. Take the role of "The Writer" played mysteriously by Bill Murray who introduces himself as a stand up comedian as a good example of a narrative device. The only time Bill's character shows up are at moments that are tense. He plays a sort of "fool" type character (not unlike the fool in King Lear) who adds commentary to what's going on. It is almost as if it were Fico's consciousness traveling with him and troubling him all at once. Notice that he has no name and it's made clear throughout the film that when he's asked his name he either changes the subject or is interrupted before he says anything.

However, the greatest metaphor in the film is the role that Aurora embodies. She is the physical representation of Cuba, better yet, she IS Cuba. This allows Garcia's Fico to express his feelings towards his "lost City". Note that she was once married to another man who died for his ideals (like a country who goes from one government to the next) and has now moved onto becoming the "Widow of the Revolution" enamored by the ideals of Fidel. This breaks Fico's heart and he expresses his love to her, to Cuba and where he stands in this hostile climate.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not praising the film for its politics and I won't express here where I stand as far as the real Cuba is concerned. What I am praising is the work as a piece of art. Garcia took great care in creating something personal but also something most exiled Cubans and probably most exiled people of any country could relate to. This care resulted in a powerful display of film-making, the kind of film-making that unfortunately doesn't break box office records. That's why I wished I had seen it on the big screen, just so I could add a little support to the kind of films that are rarely made.

Rambo (2008)

I got my money's worth

[7/10 · 2 February 2008]

I'm not sure what has inspired Stallone more in resurrecting his iconic 80's films, the influx of bad Hollywood flicks that use fx instead of traditional stunts or the fear of being forgotten as he grows older? Whatever it may be, his latest work shows that he is inspired, tapping back into the old school way of making action films which is sorely missed in today's cinema. As a character Rambo has disassociated himself with America and whatever changes that now affect it. Basically he's trapped in a time capsule and Burma (modern day Myanmar) suffers from the same problem. Both the cinematic and the real Burma have disconnected themselves from the rest of the world because of its brutal regime and have been that way since the 1980's. How perfect then that Stallone (who co-wrote) chose a land frozen in the same era that spawned Rambo. That being said this film could have gone wrong in so many ways but Stallone has discovered how to resurrect the primal essence of what hardcore action is all about. He understands the genre conventions that belong to it, the expectations that an audience brings and is able to raise the bar to gory heights. What can you do? We are a desensitized audience and anything less would have forced the film to join the ranks of mediocre fare such as Crank and Transporter.

That being said the film more than satisfied my expectations. It's all there, blood and gore and explosions and one-liners. The blood and gore is outrageous and most of the fights are memorable. If you are a Rambo fan then you won't be disappointed and if you are an action fan then this is a must see to believe.

The 39 Steps (1935)

Rough around the edges but great none the less

[8/10 · 27 January 2008]

When you hear about Hitchcock, his film "39 Steps" doesn't typically come up unless you are talking to a film fanatic and for good reason. The editing, the lighting, the sound work, the use of time and place and most importantly the acting were extremely creative. That's not to say that his later films were not great (my favorite being "Strangers on a Train") it's just that obviously there were more restrictions in place when it came to making this film. Those restrictions allowed for creative work and one of those restrictions was the film stock which obviously needed a certain amount of light for exposure (notice the exterior shots at night at the Palladium). Also note the sound work, most of the acting relied on expressions and looks courtesy of Robert Donat. Coming from directing silent films, Hitchcock wasn't a big fan of dialogue so he only used it when absolutely necessary. An excellent example of the use of time and place being manipulated by editing can be seen in the scene where Robert Donat's character has taken refuge at the police station giving us the impression that everything we have seen up until this point was the result of his telling his side of the story.

Okay, I'll say this, I'm a film fanatic and I enjoyed this film and you should do yourself a favor and watch this simply because they rarely make good movies like this anymore. The studios don't care and there are too few good films made each year and even worse they are remaking this film for 2009. But at least we have a catalog from the golden age, take advantage, rent it, save it on your dvr.

Godzilla (1954)

A rubber suit, toy cars and a nuclear Japan in a nutshell

[7/10 · 27 January 2008]

The best horror or monster films as of late are the ones with some sort of meaning, be they political or social. I say this mostly because those particular films tend to resonate more for me. Maybe it's my affinity for history or my addiction to the news but if those films carry a theme that is universal and yet depict a culture specific issue I tend to connect with those more. In the case of Gojira (the original Japanese without Raymond Burr) we get a post World War 2 Japan and more importantly a post Hiroshima, Nagasaki Japan whose trauma is represented in the form of a mysterious monster. It turns out that this monster has been around for generations and revered by locals through traditional sacrifice rituals which with time have been mostly forgotten and have been diluted into a simple dance. Is this another way of saying that the modern post war Japan has forgotten its identity? Or is Gojira a representation of Japan, the Empire now transformed into a post nuclear holocaust. It may seem like I'm really pushing it in terms of film theory especially since most people will flock to this film simply to watch Godzilla destroy Japan. However, the film does not hide from its supposed underlying message as posed by a monologue at the end of the film about Nuclear testing. Regardless, I enjoyed the film just as much for its rubber suit wearing actor who gets to trash toy houses and toy vehicles. Although I wish the night scenes weren't so dark.

Premonition (I) (2007)

Disjointed time used as a cover-up for a weak script

[1/10 · 27 January 2008]

I like movies that have a redeeming factor in them. It doesn't matter if it ends on a down note, I just want a reason for having watched it in the first place. Why the events take place the way they do in this film is not clear: Time travel? Psychic visions? And to what avail? So she can get an opportunity to have her husband change his mind about cheating on her and have it end with her getting pregnant to a bastard child...yaaay for that kid. Maybe the concept isn't bad (for a good one check out "The Jacket") but how it's handled is pretty lacking. It throws a number of disjointed events at you as if there was some profound mystery to solve. Unfortunately, when you do put it together, it turns out that the screenwriter basically took a weak story of a happy couple going down the drain and simply rearranged the scenes and figured "hey, if Chris Nolan can do this with "Memento" maybe I can get away with it too" and disguised it as a paranormal thriller. There's nothing paranormal or supernatural about it.

Oh yeah, and all the characters in the film suck. Her own mother wants to give her up to the authorities without a second thought because her grandkids face is all scratched up even though we later find out why and it's blatantly obvious that the other characters know very well how it happened! Speaking of that...her kids are retards! What's with the oldest one running into the glass door? What's worse, she smashes right through it even though she was barely running fast enough to break the damn thing! And why does the husband want to cheat on her? Have things gotten that bad? If so show me! Instead what we get is a lot of dirty looks as if we missed something but what? I know what I missed, the events that took place involving me renting this, taking it out of it's protective sleeve and placing it into my DVD player and then watching it. How did I allow it to happen will remain a mystery more profound than this piece of crap.

Cloverfield (2008)

Rob! Rob! Rob! Rob! Rob! Rob!

[7/10 · 27 January 2008]

Oh Rob, how romantic of you to drag your closest friends across a horrifying and incredible monster battlefield all for a girl you had a one night stand with. Never mind that they all die, what's important is that you got the girl in the end, actually you got the girl killed in the end. She might have survived had you left her in the apartment but we may never know that. At least we as the audience get to see glimpses of the monster, a cross between Godzilla and a crustacean and it's little parasitic shrimp spiders as you and your friends travel through the ruins of what was Manhattan. We would have never seen the destruction, the looting, the monster, what the smaller monsters are capable of, what the military were doing about it and what the final move on the part of the military would be had the search for Beth never come about.

If you have not figured it out the love interest in the story line is a narrative device. Even now I ponder on whether or not I sympathized with the characters. That being said I still enjoyed the film because it hits the mark on issues that modern horror films especially monster films sometimes lack; this film gets straight to the point. Who cares why the monster appears? It just does and it destroys and everybody dies and that's what I want. My summary comes off a bit sarcastic but really...how many times do I have to hear Rob's name shouted before I notice I'm watching a movie?! Besides, I find it as a great redeeming factor that these yuppies all die in the end anyhow!

I Am Legend (2007)

Good fun but it could have been Great

[6/10 · 16 December 2007]

First lets start with the good: Will Smith's performance. Is there anything this guy can't do? For sure there are a lot of haters out there but how can any of them argue that his portrayal of loneliness and madness in the face of isolation from a world that once looked up to him and now wants to tear him apart is anything but genuine? You believe, through his interactions with his dog and the ruins that was once New York City (including some mannequins), that he is in fact the only man who walks the Earth. His portrayal of Neville is easy to connect with the audience because of his compassionate drive to save humanity. An interesting thing to note is "Omega Man" Charleton Heston's portrayal of Neville was almost the complete opposite, but good nonetheless. Heston's was arrogant, and although he was also working on a cure, he seemed to be comfortable with the isolation.

Regardless, Will Smith actually saved this film. Why? Because once we start to interact with the zombies we realize that they're nothing but a bunch of cartoons ripped straight out of a first person shooter video game. How can the same film have amazing cgi that transformed NYC into a port-apocalyptic nightmare and then have cheap cgi of zombies that look like something out the movie "Mummy"? I can understand it if they used cgi for background zombies but why not have real human actors with real good make-up and costumes for the foreground, especially for the leader?! I can buy that the cartoonish quality of the zombies helps in Neville's and our disassociation with them. I mean how could we possibly sympathize with them when they're obviously not even real? But had they been real actors there could have been a more interesting interaction between Neville and them (watch Omega Man to see how they pulled that off in that department but please ignore the cheesy afro).

Also take into consideration that these creatures are the result of a virus that has made their skin vulnerable to sunlight, wouldn't it stand to chance that they might also be physically weak as well(the leader smashing the glass with his FACE)? And why are they suddenly so acrobatic or nimble if you will if they weren't that way in normal life? Even if one argues that the zombies have resorted back to the primitive mind why would they be so mindless? Are they dead? I say mindless because for the most part they run about, smacking into one another, killing themselves to kill Neville acting like a pack a wolves and yet they own and I assume feed and train dogs? Are these the same zombies that tricked Neville with the Mannequin trap? Give me a break.

I must first admit that I was looking forward to this film and had high hopes for it so there is no doubt that I hyped it up a bit much. Even though I feel they dropped the ball with the end of the second act and the third (the ending was rushed) I still enjoyed the film. It could have been so much better or at least an improvement on Omega Man, but it is still thrilling and enjoyable and smarter than most of the summer popcorn films. And at the rate these studios are turning out one bad over budgeted film after another it is with a sigh of relief that this film is not one of them.

Wolf Creek (2005)

This is not your parents Crocodile Dundee

[5/10 · 26 November 2007]

First off this film is far from gory so don't let reviews from critics like Roger Ebert hold you back from watching this. Second, it seems most people were put off by the fact that the characters were likable and because of that felt that the torture scenes made the film unwatchable. However, these two negative comments are what make Wolf Creek interesting. Is the film about obnoxious party kids who deserve to be hurt or is it really about a sinister entity that makes you think twice about Australian identity? An identity which has always been perceived as friendly. Most people usually conjure up images of Crocodile Dundee, Steve Irwin or the various tourist commercials out there. What this movie does is it twists that identity and offers something horrific but not in terms of blood or gore (there is a little) but in terms of trauma. We do sympathize with the victims and its this relation to the characters, which are introduced carefully in the beginning that's putting everyone up in arms. As entertainment value goes, it's not bad or great just simply OK but in terms of seeing an Australian film destroy a well known stereotype, that part makes it interesting.

Bottle Rocket (1996)

A rough sketch of what's to come from Wes Anderson

[6/10 · 25 November 2007]

If there is one recurring theme in any Wes Anderson film it usually involves a look into the lives of grown men who have not done much in the ways of growing up. In Bottle Rocket three best friends, all grown men living in a middle class suburb, find meaning in their lives by being thieves. It's not clear why they want to steal but they never bother to go legit. What we have instead of a plot driven narrative is a character study about men who still think they're thirteen years old. Don't take this the wrong way, I enjoyed the film for the most part but it clearly is a directorial debut for Wes Anderson as the film structure is very rough. Within the film you can kind of make out his style that we know he will ultimately improve in his other films but what I find interesting is that theme I mentioned.

In Rushmore, although the protagonist is in High School, it's easy to see the immaturity of the adults that surround him (and what will become of him in adulthood?). In The Royal Tannenbaum's the adults of the family are dysfunctional because of the way they were raised so the character's have to come up with what they "believe" how grown ups are supposed to act. In The Darjeeling Limited the main characters act very much like they most likely did as children, with one character upset at the responsibilities of becoming a father.

I remember when MTV had done a quick featurette on this film, shortly before it was released, it contained a quick interview with the Owen brothers detailing Cahn's dismay with not being able to get an answer as to why the film was called "Bottle Rocket". The brothers got a kick out of it and it's no surprise that their sense humor in the interview is very much like the one displayed in the movie. Regardless, the film had piqued my interest but for whatever reason I didn't see it. Since then I have seen every Wes Anderson film, including The Darjeeling Limited and it wasn't until after seeing his last film that I decided to back-track and see this. In other words I did not witness his evolution as a film maker in any linear sense but now it's clear what he's been trying to do and say with his characters and I'm not sure I would have noticed it had I not seen his films in this order.

Put it this way, because of his other films, I was able to appreciate Bottle Rocket and if you are a fan of his and have not seen it then you should do so as I think you'll like it. However, I'd be hard pressed to recommend this to someone who isn't familiar with his work.

Southland Tales (2006)

A Visual Trip into an Alternate Earth

[7/10 · 25 November 2007]

Enjoyable. Wild. Insane. Ridiculous. Stupid. Insightful. Too long. Too short. Funny. Cringe worthy. Pointless. Dumb. Inspiring. Eye candy. Fun.

That's what I would say if the average person asked me what I thought of it.

But if you're like me and you like : The Pixies, Jane's Addiction, Philip K. Dick, 90's Saturday Night Live, comic books, video games, Revelation and any other apocalypse theories, conspiracy theories like "Behold the Pale White Horse" or getting a kick out of "The Anarchist Cookbook", the creepy old psychic from Poltergeist, Viola from Moonlighting or Bugger from Revenge of the Nerds, porn, the internet or anything involving paranoia (both drug induced and not) then this film is for you.

In other words I enjoyed the film for what it is (a visual trip with many ideas) and what it's not (self indulgent and pretentious). Several established critics (they were probably booing this film at Cannes as well) called it self indulgent and a complete mess. I gather that when a critic doesn't comprehend what's going on they're quick to label the film self indulgent (they said the same thing about "The Fountain"). They might do this out of fear of admitting that they didn't have the foresight to see that a whole new genre (sort of, I mean you have to give credit to the Avant-Garde) of film is emerging albeit with an American face. This isn't to say that they're completely wrong, I mean the film is a mess but it's an enjoyable mess of moments. I don't think Richard Kelly is interested in typical Hollywood story structure, that is, linear plot with plot conventions, I think it's more about encapsulating different emotions and ideas and stringing them together for a different experience. Conventions allow the audience to walk in to a theater with certain expectations and walk away with an understanding of whether or not those expectations were met. Southland Tales is not about expectations and if you require a strict use of genre conventions then this film is not for you. But if you have an open mind then I whole heartedly recommend this film.

The Price of Sugar (2007)

One Man's Stand

[9/10 · 29 September 2007]

I had heard some time ago a story about how modern day Haitians were going through some form of slavery in the fields of Dominican Republic. That's all I heard and never heard anything more on the topic. However, being of Dominican origin, the relationship between Dominican Republic and Haiti had always interested me. Many studies have been published about this but are typically aimed at anthropologists thereby making this topic unknown to the general public, that is, until now.

With the promise of better pay and quality of life in comparison to their home in Haiti, Haitians are driven by the bus load into a terrible trap, forced labor on a sugar cane field run by the mysterious sugar barons known as the Vicini family who have ties within the Dominican and American governments. They are forced to stay within a labor camp infested with all kinds of dangers and with no way to quit or to walk out without the risk of being shot. But thanks to the work of Father Christopher Hartley, a missionary priest sent to a nearby parish where the Bateyes (slave compound) are located. Through his work, the lives of some of the Haitians do improve but with it come the death threats and riots instigated by the Vicini to oust the priest.

This documentary is important for both Dominicans and for Americans to be educated on a topic that rarely ever makes a blurb in the papers. Slavery should not exist in the twentieth century yet there it is in our own backyard.

Beyond Rangoon (1995)

To go up we must first go down

[9/10 · 28 September 2007]

I always wanted to see this film and when I finally got to I knew I was in for a nice surprise when John Boorman's name appeared on the screen. Known mostly for his epic films (he directed the first Conan and wrote Apocalypse Now) put together in the classic Hollywood structure, this one fits nicely with his catalog.

I also can't express how perfect the timing was considering that Myanmar (Burma) is once again experiencing an uprising by monks and students against the military "junta" run government which is the very same one (there has been a change of leadership since but it's essentially the same) depicted in the movie from 1988. Now more than ever this film needs to be aired on television (caught it on IFC) because of recent events.

Stigmata (1999)

Woe is me oh Lord, why has thou forsaken us with this bad film

[4/10 · 23 September 2007]

The bath overflows with the pain of no fulfillment spilling across stained tiles, spattering it with the crimson of a time forgotten. The city lights blare through windows that reach into the heavens offering no cover from its tears.

If you like this kind of pretentious crap conjuring up images that lack any meaning then this film is for you! The film itself does offer an interesting take on church politics (that's why I didn't give it a 1) which has definitely picked up steam as a sub-genre thanks to "The Da Vinci Code", but it loses itself in a war of stylistic nonsense over substance. The cinematography is great, freeze any frame in the film and you'll have an amazing photo but if you cut out most of the emphasis on the rain, dripping ceiling, never ending array of lit candles, car lights cutting through the dark you'd have a much shorter, straight to the point film. I didn't hate all of this, as a matter of fact it did add to the story in a grimy, uncomfortable way (the heavy clothes she wears looks like a burden on her) however, the filmmakers rely so much on it that it becomes a sensory overload that's not worth the payoff. No spoilers about that payoff but when I figured it out midway I wasn't happy that I still had another hour of this to go.