I'm a gay man who willingly saw this with one of my close friends FOR FREE and I think it was the biggest piece of trash I've seen in a long while. The film shifted focus between like seven different plot-lines (most of them better than the main story), The character's actions had NO motivation at all other than for convenient scenes and it was two and a half tedious hours of middle age women spending money frivolously and doing things that made no sense! Some of the laziest writing i've ever seen coupled with mediocre acting and melodrama at it's worst really paints a portrait of how women are perceived in pop culture today. Give them a man and a louis vuitton bag and they'll live happily ever after. It makes me sick that this was even green lit while potentially great scripts gather dust on shelves somewhere.
Reviews
17 Reviews
Silent Hill
(2006)
Game Over
22 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The newest addition to the ever increasing video game turned movie list, "Silent Hill" opened everywhere on April 21st. It is easily one of the most impressive movies on that list, but sadly that doesn't say much. This film had potential, but squanders it all with a predictable storyline, shallow characters, horrible dialog, lack of scares, mediocre acting, repetitive scenes and ridiculous plot twists.
The cinematic adaptation of "Silent Hill" opens with a chase sequence. A woman named Rose is chasing her sleepwalking daughter, Sharon, to the edge of a rocky cliff. When the girl finally comes back to reality she is screaming "Silent Hill!!" Seeing as this is a horror movie, it is not surprising to find out that Sharon turns out to be adopted from an orphanage in West Virginia where Rose locates a ghost town called Silent Hill. So, despite the foreboding websites, Rose decides to take Sharon to Silent Hill in hopes of setting her daughter's mind at ease.
On the way to Silent Hill, an officer named Cybil Bennett who wears what looks to be an unusually form-fitting police uniform tries to pull Rose over, but Rose can't stop now, she's too close! So, she puts the pedal to the metal and speeds towards the town of silent hill, not even slowing when the car is consumed in a dense fog. However, she does swerve when she sees something moving ahead of her resulting in a painful looking bump on the head. She awakes hours later, alone in her car, in what appears to be another dimension where white fog and falling ash is always on the forecast. She sees the welcome sign and realizes that she has arrived. Now, to find her daughter
Normally I'd go into more depth with the plot up to a certain point, but that pretty much covers everything. The remaining hour and a half simply follows Rose as she runs from place to place in search of her elusive daughter. What we know about the characters is what I've told you, there is nothing deeper, no background, nothing at all to help the viewer relate to the characters and get somewhat involved in the horrors unfolding around them.
The film does a superb job at creating the town of Silent Hill and the various demons that dwell within it. The special effects used to transform the decaying daytime town into a hellish nightmare are great and the monsters are some of the most disturbingly realistic creations ever put on film. There's no denying that this is a pleasing film for the eyes, but it is a completely different story for the ears and mind.
The dialog arouses more laughs than thought, particularly when the few residents of Silent Hill begin rambling on about witchcraft, religion and danger and the only thing you can think about is why Rose keeps chasing something that looks like Sharon, but is clearly not. The actors do what they can, but the script doesn't give them much to work with. Radha Mitchell, who plays Rose has a moment in which some talent shines through, but it's brief. Like most horror heroines, Rose blindly puts herself in one terrifying situation after another. There's no denying that she is scared, but the same cannot be said for the theater audience. There are not even any "cheap scares," every monster comes slowly and from a distance giving Rose and the audience ample time to prepare.
This film is very faithful to the games, but fails in instilling the psychological horror that the game does so well. This film has the entertainment value of watching somebody else play as you gradually grow annoyed because their turn is lasting too long. The obvious is clarified (I found this thing from a hotel, Sharon must be there) but the mystifying is left unexplained. By the end, I didn't even know who was who and I doubt it would have made sense even if I did. It seemed like a lot of things were being done for no other purpose than to generate an epic spectacle, but ultimately it's a little pointless when all of the characters feel disposable. Some great visuals are not enough to redeem a movie that fails in every other sense. 4/10 stars
The cinematic adaptation of "Silent Hill" opens with a chase sequence. A woman named Rose is chasing her sleepwalking daughter, Sharon, to the edge of a rocky cliff. When the girl finally comes back to reality she is screaming "Silent Hill!!" Seeing as this is a horror movie, it is not surprising to find out that Sharon turns out to be adopted from an orphanage in West Virginia where Rose locates a ghost town called Silent Hill. So, despite the foreboding websites, Rose decides to take Sharon to Silent Hill in hopes of setting her daughter's mind at ease.
On the way to Silent Hill, an officer named Cybil Bennett who wears what looks to be an unusually form-fitting police uniform tries to pull Rose over, but Rose can't stop now, she's too close! So, she puts the pedal to the metal and speeds towards the town of silent hill, not even slowing when the car is consumed in a dense fog. However, she does swerve when she sees something moving ahead of her resulting in a painful looking bump on the head. She awakes hours later, alone in her car, in what appears to be another dimension where white fog and falling ash is always on the forecast. She sees the welcome sign and realizes that she has arrived. Now, to find her daughter
Normally I'd go into more depth with the plot up to a certain point, but that pretty much covers everything. The remaining hour and a half simply follows Rose as she runs from place to place in search of her elusive daughter. What we know about the characters is what I've told you, there is nothing deeper, no background, nothing at all to help the viewer relate to the characters and get somewhat involved in the horrors unfolding around them.
The film does a superb job at creating the town of Silent Hill and the various demons that dwell within it. The special effects used to transform the decaying daytime town into a hellish nightmare are great and the monsters are some of the most disturbingly realistic creations ever put on film. There's no denying that this is a pleasing film for the eyes, but it is a completely different story for the ears and mind.
The dialog arouses more laughs than thought, particularly when the few residents of Silent Hill begin rambling on about witchcraft, religion and danger and the only thing you can think about is why Rose keeps chasing something that looks like Sharon, but is clearly not. The actors do what they can, but the script doesn't give them much to work with. Radha Mitchell, who plays Rose has a moment in which some talent shines through, but it's brief. Like most horror heroines, Rose blindly puts herself in one terrifying situation after another. There's no denying that she is scared, but the same cannot be said for the theater audience. There are not even any "cheap scares," every monster comes slowly and from a distance giving Rose and the audience ample time to prepare.
This film is very faithful to the games, but fails in instilling the psychological horror that the game does so well. This film has the entertainment value of watching somebody else play as you gradually grow annoyed because their turn is lasting too long. The obvious is clarified (I found this thing from a hotel, Sharon must be there) but the mystifying is left unexplained. By the end, I didn't even know who was who and I doubt it would have made sense even if I did. It seemed like a lot of things were being done for no other purpose than to generate an epic spectacle, but ultimately it's a little pointless when all of the characters feel disposable. Some great visuals are not enough to redeem a movie that fails in every other sense. 4/10 stars
Pearl Harbor
(2001)
pointless, but watchable
19 April 2006
Why was this movie made? Was it to tell the story of The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed thousands of Americans or an overly predictable love story? I think it was neither. This film was made with the intent to follow in "Titanic's" profitable footsteps by combining romance with disaster, but the only difference is that the love story served "Titanic's" goal to convey the tragedy on an emotional level never before achieved on film whereas in "Pearl Harbor," it just gets in the way. The characters are wooden and the love story is as unbelievable as Ben Affleck is playing a soldier. The only decent performances were Jon Voight (as FDR) and Cuba Gooding Jr., but neither have large parts. There are very few good things that I can say about this film because, as a whole, it has no point and carries no message. Luckily, it is kind of nice to look at, the cinematography is good and the special effects are, at times, brilliant. That's enough for me to watch it maybe once a decade.
War of the Worlds
(2005)
An unexplicable failure
19 April 2006
This is such a disappointment and a prime example of Spielberg's unique ability to fail in an extravagant way. This film should have, by all means been great. Tom Cruise (as much as I don't like the guy) has talent as does fanning and Spielberg can turn out great work when he puts his mind to it so what went wrong? It could have been the shallow characters (the rebellious son, the know it all daughter, the dad seeking redemption etc) or maybe the dominance of the special effects which should enhance the human narrative and never steal the show, Dakota fanning's constant shrieking, one of the most half-baked endings in cinematic history or a combination of all of the above, but regardless, this film failed. It starts off entertaining, and is a somewhat good alien invasion story, but situations become repetitive and more and more unbelievable. You can only watch tom cruise hiding in a basement for so long before you're ready for him to get out there and make this a two sided war but only disappointment awaits the viewer when he finally does. The only thing that redeems this film is a few good special effect shots and a pretty intense chase scene. However, looking at the DVD cover art is still more satisfying than watching the movie.
Downfall
(2004)
Downfall is a high point for cinema
19 April 2006
This is the best foreign film I've ever seen. It's story transcends the language barrier and gives a new depth to the infamous Adolf Hitler. The story is told from his side, for a change, and gradually unveils the incredibly poignant story of his downfall. Everybody knows of the things he's done, so his crimes are hardly mentioned and never dwelled upon. Instead we see Hitler's mental deterioration as the war front grows closer and closer to his bunker. He must face something he's never had to face before: defeat. Bruno Ganz gives one of my favorite male performances of all time as Hitler. Not only does he physically resemble the notorious leader, but he also possesses the same assertiveness and odd mix of anger and fear which brings the character to life. The film is also sandwiched between actual footage from an interview with Traudl Junge (Hitler's personal secretary) which gives the film a firm foundation in reality and an unparalleled emotional core. This film is a masterpiece in every sense.
V for Vendetta
(2005)
V for Very Good!
19 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot
" These English, nursery rhyme lyrics are undoubtedly a great source of inspiration for the new film "V for Vendetta." Similar to the famous rhyme, "V for Vendetta" chronicles one man's crusade against an oppressive government.
The film takes place roughly two decades from present day. In this abysmal future, England has become a totalitarian state led by Adam Sutler (John Hurt) - a ruthless dictator who forces his people (by any means necessary) into submission. Our first glimpse of the film's hero, known only as the letter V, comes when he saves Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) from being sexually assaulted by a pair of fascist officers. Outwardly, V (Hugo Weaving) is a combination of Zorro and the Phantom (from "Phantom of the Opera") with matrix-like fighting ability, but beneath the black robes and Guy Fawkes mask, he is a mystery which reveals itself throughout the course of the story. It is November fourth in a world that has forgotten November fifth, but V has planned a potent reminder. At midnight, He and Evey watch as the Old Bailey courtrooms go up in flames. The government does their best to censor this attack, calling it a planned demolition the next day, but there is only so much they can do when V takes control of a television studio and goes on the air live, challenging the public to rise up against their oppressive leadership exactly one year from this day outside the houses of Parliament. "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people," he states.
Fearing for Evey's safety, V takes her back to his lair where they await the coming of November fifth. Though resistant at first, Evey quickly develops compassion for V. She even offers her assistance after a while because she too carries a vendetta: While a child, the government murdered both of her parents who were prominent, political activists. Evey is strong, but openly admits to being afraid all of the time. Over the next several months she must overcome her fears and V must continue his preparations for the rapidly approaching November fifth when he plans on finishing what Guy Fawkes started in 1605. " Guy Fawks, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent to blow up the king and the Parliament."
This movie is taking a lot of heat from critics who claim that it advocates terrorism. In many ways the story does revolve around two opposing terrorists. There's Sutler who exploit's the bleak condition of his country to instill fear within his people and there's V who uses violence and destruction to get his message across to the world. Seeing historical landmarks fall has become a sensitive issue these days and it occurs more than once throughout the film. However, these instances never result in the needless death of innocent civilians, but rather serve as a powerful cinematic tool. For example, the explosion of the Old Bailey courtrooms serve as a visual reference to the disintegration of that which the courtrooms once stood for, justice. It is important for people to remember that they are watching a movie. This is not a documentary, it's purpose is not to promote anything, but rather to entertain. Terrorism has always and probably will always be a real problem in the world. I see no reason why the topic should be avoided in cinema. Common sense should tell the viewer that you should not go blow something up. It is no different than watching "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and knowing not to go on a killing spree with a chainsaw.
Weaving and Portman excel under the direction of James McTeigue, who has been assistant director in films like "Star Wars episode II" and "The Matrix" trilogy . Hugo Weaving does more as a voice behind a mask than most actors can do free of such restrictions and Natalie Portman, in what is likely her most challenging performance to date, is fascinating. Her facial expressions alone are so powerful, she could tell the entire story without ever uttering a single word. With a screenplay based on an 80's graphic novel, the Wachowski brothers (writers of "The Matrix") have once again created a unique piece of work on an epic scale. This film has all the elements of a blockbuster without insulting the viewers intelligence. It raises questions about government and freedom while offering insights into human nature. "V for vendetta" is beautiful, gripping, thought provoking and easily the best film Hollywood has delivered to the public so far this year. 10/10 stars
The film takes place roughly two decades from present day. In this abysmal future, England has become a totalitarian state led by Adam Sutler (John Hurt) - a ruthless dictator who forces his people (by any means necessary) into submission. Our first glimpse of the film's hero, known only as the letter V, comes when he saves Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) from being sexually assaulted by a pair of fascist officers. Outwardly, V (Hugo Weaving) is a combination of Zorro and the Phantom (from "Phantom of the Opera") with matrix-like fighting ability, but beneath the black robes and Guy Fawkes mask, he is a mystery which reveals itself throughout the course of the story. It is November fourth in a world that has forgotten November fifth, but V has planned a potent reminder. At midnight, He and Evey watch as the Old Bailey courtrooms go up in flames. The government does their best to censor this attack, calling it a planned demolition the next day, but there is only so much they can do when V takes control of a television studio and goes on the air live, challenging the public to rise up against their oppressive leadership exactly one year from this day outside the houses of Parliament. "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people," he states.
Fearing for Evey's safety, V takes her back to his lair where they await the coming of November fifth. Though resistant at first, Evey quickly develops compassion for V. She even offers her assistance after a while because she too carries a vendetta: While a child, the government murdered both of her parents who were prominent, political activists. Evey is strong, but openly admits to being afraid all of the time. Over the next several months she must overcome her fears and V must continue his preparations for the rapidly approaching November fifth when he plans on finishing what Guy Fawkes started in 1605. " Guy Fawks, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent to blow up the king and the Parliament."
This movie is taking a lot of heat from critics who claim that it advocates terrorism. In many ways the story does revolve around two opposing terrorists. There's Sutler who exploit's the bleak condition of his country to instill fear within his people and there's V who uses violence and destruction to get his message across to the world. Seeing historical landmarks fall has become a sensitive issue these days and it occurs more than once throughout the film. However, these instances never result in the needless death of innocent civilians, but rather serve as a powerful cinematic tool. For example, the explosion of the Old Bailey courtrooms serve as a visual reference to the disintegration of that which the courtrooms once stood for, justice. It is important for people to remember that they are watching a movie. This is not a documentary, it's purpose is not to promote anything, but rather to entertain. Terrorism has always and probably will always be a real problem in the world. I see no reason why the topic should be avoided in cinema. Common sense should tell the viewer that you should not go blow something up. It is no different than watching "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and knowing not to go on a killing spree with a chainsaw.
Weaving and Portman excel under the direction of James McTeigue, who has been assistant director in films like "Star Wars episode II" and "The Matrix" trilogy . Hugo Weaving does more as a voice behind a mask than most actors can do free of such restrictions and Natalie Portman, in what is likely her most challenging performance to date, is fascinating. Her facial expressions alone are so powerful, she could tell the entire story without ever uttering a single word. With a screenplay based on an 80's graphic novel, the Wachowski brothers (writers of "The Matrix") have once again created a unique piece of work on an epic scale. This film has all the elements of a blockbuster without insulting the viewers intelligence. It raises questions about government and freedom while offering insights into human nature. "V for vendetta" is beautiful, gripping, thought provoking and easily the best film Hollywood has delivered to the public so far this year. 10/10 stars
Crash
(I) (2004)
Oscar Worthy
17 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While this film may not have been my choice for best picture, it was likely the best of the nominees of a mediocre year for cinema. This was certainly a step up from the academy's 2004 choice which in my opinion robbed superior films like "Hotel Rwanda", "Finding Neverland" and "Eternal Sunshine." Anyway, back to 2005: What makes Crash distinct is it's way of probing the viewers own subconscious. It questions the viewers own racial beliefs without ever condemning them for it. The events are somewhat unlikely and the plot relies heavily on coincidence, but the story transcends logic. This film features one of the best ensemble casts I've ever seen. Sandra Bullock stood out most to me as a white woman who reaches the paramount of her racism and ultimately winds up miserable and alone. This film is complex, deep and thought provoking - certainly Oscar worthy.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
(1994)
Why do people hate it?
25 February 2006
This movie takes a lot of heat from critics. I disagree with them. I think it was slightly ahead of it's time and, if it came out today, it would be widely celebrated. This film is a great adaptation of Mary Shelley's unforgettable tale of playing God. Unlike it's predecessors, the monster is not a monster, there are no bolts in his neck just scarred flesh. The "monster" of this film is made quite human by De Niro who plays the part with the curiosity and innocence of a child. The ability to make the audience sympathize with such a grotesque character is an enormous feat and that alone makes this film respectable. It's actually difficult to decide who to root for at times. Then there's the special effects which are, for the most part, excellent. The climactic fire sequence still amazes me when I watch it. This films only downfall in my eyes, is it's over dramatization of events. Sometimes you find yourself thinking, OK, calm down enough is enough
it's just too over-the-top. However, a little too much drama is easily overcome by the many things this film has going for it.
Casino
(1995)
A Masterpiece
25 February 2006
One of Scorsese's best films and one of the best films of the 90's; "Casino" in a no-holds-barred criminal drama that never ceases to entertain while at the same time, telling an extremely intriguing story. I'm not a big fan on gangster/mafia films (only a few exceptions), but this transcends my personal biases. The acting is phenomenal. De Niro, Stone and Pesci are perfectly cast and deliver performances with depth that is rarely seen on the big screen. Scorsese crafts this film with all of his usual intensity and the result is a masterpiece that certainly doesn't feel three hours long! Whether you like mafia films or not, give this one a try... you might be surprised. I certainly was.
The New World
(2005)
A slow paced visual masterpiece
4 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most enduring American legends has made it's way to the silver screen under the title "The New World." In this new adaptation of the Pocahontas story, visionary writer/director, Terrence Malick weaves together a realistic tale of love, loss and betrayal against the epic backdrop of the first European settlement in America and striking images of natural beauty.
It is a seemingly average April day, in seventeenth century Virginia, as the natives carry out their morning rituals, when they sight three mystifying vessels on the waterfront. Among the curious onlookers is the pure and exquisite Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). Little does she realize the significance of this moment - that the 103 European men inside the ships will change her life and alter her world for all time.
While the Native Americans ponder the foreign vessels and their contents, the Europeans disembark. With few volunteers, Smith is selected to lead a small group of settlers upriver to speak with the local chieftain, Powhatan (August Schellenberg). After a short, but perilous journey, Smith is captured by the natives and taken directly to Powhatan who sentences the outsider to death. However, fat steps in when Pocahontas throws herself on Smith pleading for her father (Powhatan) to show mercy.
Pocahontas' act of compassion promptly sparks a relationship that would never be forgotten. Their love transcends language and ethnicity it just is. The two breathe each others' breaths, learn to communicate with one another and develop a bond stronger than either has ever known before. However, their romance is short-lived because Powhatan, who is made uneasy by his daughters closeness to this stranger sends Smith back to the European settlement from which he came. Upon his return, he finds the colonists in poor health and is forced to help them survive the harsh winter. As spring approaches, the relationship between the settlers and natives grows tense and Pocahontas' lingering devotion to Smith provokes her father to disown her. The times ahead are filled with hardships for everyone as the Natives and Europeans fight for the land. Obviously, we know who wins.
As more colonists and supplies arrive, the colony can finally prosper and Pocahontas has come to live with the Europeans. She and a changed Smith try to pick up where they left off, but Smith knows that the relationship can't last. He will soon be embarking on another voyage in pursuit of a passage to the Pacific. As he departs, he instructs John Rolfe (Christian Bale), a fellow settler, to wait a certain period of time and then tell Pocahontas that he had died. Needless to say, he does not plan on returning.
In the time leading up to and following Smith's departure, Pocahontas is transformed into an entirely different person; a proper lady, complete with corset, massive gown and heeled shoes. She even loses her name when she is baptized as Rebecca. However, it is not until she is told that Smith had died, that she looses the dynamic spirit which had always made her so unique in the community. For weeks, she does not speak. She has lost everything imaginable and goes day to day without ambition, in a state of utter sorrow until John Rolfe, who has always had feelings for Pocahontas, decides to act on them and before you know it, they are married with a child together. He loves her unconditionally, but it is evident that little has changed in her heart when she gets word that Smith is not dead. With this new news, she jumps at the invitation she receives from the royal family to appear at a celebration in her honor. The remainder of the film follows her own journey of discovery in a world that is new to her.
Contrary to what the trailers would have you believe, Colin Farrell is not the star of this film, which primarily focuses on Pocahontas as the world she had always known comes to an end and a knew one begins. This film has a phenomenal cast. Colin Farrell and Christian Bale are perfect in their respective rolls, but it is Q'orianka Kilcher (in her feature starring debut) that easily gives my favorite performance by an actress in 2005. She effortlessly captures the exuberance, curiosity and childlike innocence associated with the historical character she portrays. Terrence Malick has returned to what he does best. With a script he wrote in the 70's and an artistic eye, he has crafted a film of an artistic caliber rarely seen on the big screen. Some doubt his methods, but it is hard to dismiss the final product.
"The New World" features some of the best cinematography (now nominated for an Academy Award) and art direction I've seen in any film this past year. The camera work is subtle and always appropriate. The sets are convincing, and the native occupants of the New World transport the viewer to a time before modern civilization spread through America. The only major flaw in this film is it's, at times, tediously slow pacing. This is by no means an edge-of-your-seat adventure epic and it shouldn't be. However, I think Malick greatly overestimated the importance of shots of nature. While, I cannot deny that nature is a pivotal aspect of this story, I cannot say that the abundance of these shots are an asset to the viewer who can often find them jarring (albeit tasteful) to the main storyline.
This is definitely a movie that people will love or hate, but I see no problem with it other than it's slow pacing which is easily compensated by it's remarkable story and superb visuals. "The New World" is a genuine work of art - the kind we don't see often enough. 9/10
It is a seemingly average April day, in seventeenth century Virginia, as the natives carry out their morning rituals, when they sight three mystifying vessels on the waterfront. Among the curious onlookers is the pure and exquisite Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). Little does she realize the significance of this moment - that the 103 European men inside the ships will change her life and alter her world for all time.
While the Native Americans ponder the foreign vessels and their contents, the Europeans disembark. With few volunteers, Smith is selected to lead a small group of settlers upriver to speak with the local chieftain, Powhatan (August Schellenberg). After a short, but perilous journey, Smith is captured by the natives and taken directly to Powhatan who sentences the outsider to death. However, fat steps in when Pocahontas throws herself on Smith pleading for her father (Powhatan) to show mercy.
Pocahontas' act of compassion promptly sparks a relationship that would never be forgotten. Their love transcends language and ethnicity it just is. The two breathe each others' breaths, learn to communicate with one another and develop a bond stronger than either has ever known before. However, their romance is short-lived because Powhatan, who is made uneasy by his daughters closeness to this stranger sends Smith back to the European settlement from which he came. Upon his return, he finds the colonists in poor health and is forced to help them survive the harsh winter. As spring approaches, the relationship between the settlers and natives grows tense and Pocahontas' lingering devotion to Smith provokes her father to disown her. The times ahead are filled with hardships for everyone as the Natives and Europeans fight for the land. Obviously, we know who wins.
As more colonists and supplies arrive, the colony can finally prosper and Pocahontas has come to live with the Europeans. She and a changed Smith try to pick up where they left off, but Smith knows that the relationship can't last. He will soon be embarking on another voyage in pursuit of a passage to the Pacific. As he departs, he instructs John Rolfe (Christian Bale), a fellow settler, to wait a certain period of time and then tell Pocahontas that he had died. Needless to say, he does not plan on returning.
In the time leading up to and following Smith's departure, Pocahontas is transformed into an entirely different person; a proper lady, complete with corset, massive gown and heeled shoes. She even loses her name when she is baptized as Rebecca. However, it is not until she is told that Smith had died, that she looses the dynamic spirit which had always made her so unique in the community. For weeks, she does not speak. She has lost everything imaginable and goes day to day without ambition, in a state of utter sorrow until John Rolfe, who has always had feelings for Pocahontas, decides to act on them and before you know it, they are married with a child together. He loves her unconditionally, but it is evident that little has changed in her heart when she gets word that Smith is not dead. With this new news, she jumps at the invitation she receives from the royal family to appear at a celebration in her honor. The remainder of the film follows her own journey of discovery in a world that is new to her.
Contrary to what the trailers would have you believe, Colin Farrell is not the star of this film, which primarily focuses on Pocahontas as the world she had always known comes to an end and a knew one begins. This film has a phenomenal cast. Colin Farrell and Christian Bale are perfect in their respective rolls, but it is Q'orianka Kilcher (in her feature starring debut) that easily gives my favorite performance by an actress in 2005. She effortlessly captures the exuberance, curiosity and childlike innocence associated with the historical character she portrays. Terrence Malick has returned to what he does best. With a script he wrote in the 70's and an artistic eye, he has crafted a film of an artistic caliber rarely seen on the big screen. Some doubt his methods, but it is hard to dismiss the final product.
"The New World" features some of the best cinematography (now nominated for an Academy Award) and art direction I've seen in any film this past year. The camera work is subtle and always appropriate. The sets are convincing, and the native occupants of the New World transport the viewer to a time before modern civilization spread through America. The only major flaw in this film is it's, at times, tediously slow pacing. This is by no means an edge-of-your-seat adventure epic and it shouldn't be. However, I think Malick greatly overestimated the importance of shots of nature. While, I cannot deny that nature is a pivotal aspect of this story, I cannot say that the abundance of these shots are an asset to the viewer who can often find them jarring (albeit tasteful) to the main storyline.
This is definitely a movie that people will love or hate, but I see no problem with it other than it's slow pacing which is easily compensated by it's remarkable story and superb visuals. "The New World" is a genuine work of art - the kind we don't see often enough. 9/10
King Kong
(2005)
A Modern Masterpiece
15 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Two years after his big hit "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," Academy Award winning director, Peter Jackson is back with yet another special effects extravaganza that triumphs as a modern, cinematic masterpiece. Like the 1933 classic, this version pushes the limits of current technology to bring "the eighth wonder of the world" to life like never before.
In Peter Jackson's "King Kong," Naomi Watts plays struggling vaudeville actress, Ann Darrow, who is discovered by enthusiastic (and at times, psychotic) filmmaker, Carl Denham (Jack Black). After a not-so-productive meeting with studio executives, Carl decides to take matters into his own hands rather than see his film get scrapped. Within a few hours he cunningly tricks the cast of two and crew to board a tramp steamer bound for a place that exists only in legend, Skull Island. Of Course, only Carl knows the true destination (I guess Skull Island isn't a very appealing name) and screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) is not at all pleased when assigned the task of rewriting the story for this new setting.
As the journey progresses, love flourishes between Ann and Jack who have a great respect for each others' work. Several days out, the ship encounters a dense fog and that's when they spot the island. After some hasty maneuvering, the ship gets pinned against a large rock and while the crew goes below decks to keep the boat afloat, the movie crew goes ashore to show the world "the last blank spot on the map," but what they find is a tribe of hostile natives who wish to kill them for the sake killing them. Most of the crew escapes this confrontation only to face them again later that night when they realize that Ann has been kidnapped. By the time the heavily armed crew members return to the island, Ann is being taken away by Kong.
An hour into the film, the star has arrived and he puts on an unforgettable show. As he gracefully swings through the jungle, snapping trees and rock formations like twigs and protects Ann from various, carnivorous monsters. Through a series of unfortunate events, Ann begins to feel compassion for her giant captor and so do we. As beauty and the beast bond, a team led by Jack ventures into the jungle in pursuit of Ann, but as the story progresses, the money loving director, Carl, sets his sights on a MUCH larger prize. Meanwhile, Ann and Kong enjoy a peaceful sunset, during which, she teaches him the meaning of the word "beautiful." This scene is executed very tastefully, and when coupled with a hauntingly similar scene near the climax, they create an emotional core that is the heart and soul of this entire story.
We all know the rest. Jack rescues Ann, Carl captures Kong and several months later, a red velvet curtain rises in Manhattan revealing "the eighth wonder of the world" to a sold out theater. Unfortunately for the good people of New York, Kong does not like the show and decides to walk out. Titanium chains and brick walls are no match for this rampaging gorilla. Once he takes to the streets, he frantically searches for the one other living being he loves and trusts, but it is she that ultimately finds him and the pair get to share a few enjoyable moments on a frozen lake in central park before forced to flee a barrage of bullets and explosions. With nowhere to go, but up, Kong mounts the Empire State Building for a truly tragic and surprisingly poignant end.
I don't even think that I have to mention the special effects, they don't get much better than this. It is quite obvious where the bulk of this films astronomical budget went. At roughly 207 million dollars, "King Kong" is officially the most expensive movie ever made - costing about 7 million dollars more than the record previously set by 1997's "Titanic." Naturally, the studio is praying that "King Kong" proves to be just as unsinkable at the box office.
Naomi Watts leads a phenomenal cast in what I think is one of the best performances of the year because she acts convincingly and sensitively to a nonexistent gorilla. Andy Serkis (Gollum in LOTR) is credited as King Kong for once again lending his facial expressions and body language to motion capture artists who used his movements to make the CG Kong look authentic. There is a lot of criticism regarding Jack Black and Adrien Brody who in my opinion turned in terrific performances reminiscent of their 1933 counterparts and director, Peter Jackson, once again proves what a master he is in the action/fantasy genre, breathing new life into this old story.
As I stated in previous reviews, my most common critique is running time. Now, at over 3 hours, this film is long. Yes, some scenes could have been shortened and yes, there's one too many chase sequences, but this is a great story and I give a lot of credit to everyone involved for FINALLY taking the time needed to tell it properly. "King Kong" has a powerful message - love in all it's forms IS beautiful and last but certainly not least, "it was beauty killed the beast." 10/10 stars.
In Peter Jackson's "King Kong," Naomi Watts plays struggling vaudeville actress, Ann Darrow, who is discovered by enthusiastic (and at times, psychotic) filmmaker, Carl Denham (Jack Black). After a not-so-productive meeting with studio executives, Carl decides to take matters into his own hands rather than see his film get scrapped. Within a few hours he cunningly tricks the cast of two and crew to board a tramp steamer bound for a place that exists only in legend, Skull Island. Of Course, only Carl knows the true destination (I guess Skull Island isn't a very appealing name) and screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) is not at all pleased when assigned the task of rewriting the story for this new setting.
As the journey progresses, love flourishes between Ann and Jack who have a great respect for each others' work. Several days out, the ship encounters a dense fog and that's when they spot the island. After some hasty maneuvering, the ship gets pinned against a large rock and while the crew goes below decks to keep the boat afloat, the movie crew goes ashore to show the world "the last blank spot on the map," but what they find is a tribe of hostile natives who wish to kill them for the sake killing them. Most of the crew escapes this confrontation only to face them again later that night when they realize that Ann has been kidnapped. By the time the heavily armed crew members return to the island, Ann is being taken away by Kong.
An hour into the film, the star has arrived and he puts on an unforgettable show. As he gracefully swings through the jungle, snapping trees and rock formations like twigs and protects Ann from various, carnivorous monsters. Through a series of unfortunate events, Ann begins to feel compassion for her giant captor and so do we. As beauty and the beast bond, a team led by Jack ventures into the jungle in pursuit of Ann, but as the story progresses, the money loving director, Carl, sets his sights on a MUCH larger prize. Meanwhile, Ann and Kong enjoy a peaceful sunset, during which, she teaches him the meaning of the word "beautiful." This scene is executed very tastefully, and when coupled with a hauntingly similar scene near the climax, they create an emotional core that is the heart and soul of this entire story.
We all know the rest. Jack rescues Ann, Carl captures Kong and several months later, a red velvet curtain rises in Manhattan revealing "the eighth wonder of the world" to a sold out theater. Unfortunately for the good people of New York, Kong does not like the show and decides to walk out. Titanium chains and brick walls are no match for this rampaging gorilla. Once he takes to the streets, he frantically searches for the one other living being he loves and trusts, but it is she that ultimately finds him and the pair get to share a few enjoyable moments on a frozen lake in central park before forced to flee a barrage of bullets and explosions. With nowhere to go, but up, Kong mounts the Empire State Building for a truly tragic and surprisingly poignant end.
I don't even think that I have to mention the special effects, they don't get much better than this. It is quite obvious where the bulk of this films astronomical budget went. At roughly 207 million dollars, "King Kong" is officially the most expensive movie ever made - costing about 7 million dollars more than the record previously set by 1997's "Titanic." Naturally, the studio is praying that "King Kong" proves to be just as unsinkable at the box office.
Naomi Watts leads a phenomenal cast in what I think is one of the best performances of the year because she acts convincingly and sensitively to a nonexistent gorilla. Andy Serkis (Gollum in LOTR) is credited as King Kong for once again lending his facial expressions and body language to motion capture artists who used his movements to make the CG Kong look authentic. There is a lot of criticism regarding Jack Black and Adrien Brody who in my opinion turned in terrific performances reminiscent of their 1933 counterparts and director, Peter Jackson, once again proves what a master he is in the action/fantasy genre, breathing new life into this old story.
As I stated in previous reviews, my most common critique is running time. Now, at over 3 hours, this film is long. Yes, some scenes could have been shortened and yes, there's one too many chase sequences, but this is a great story and I give a lot of credit to everyone involved for FINALLY taking the time needed to tell it properly. "King Kong" has a powerful message - love in all it's forms IS beautiful and last but certainly not least, "it was beauty killed the beast." 10/10 stars.
A Magical Experience
7 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, the film that has the potential to be the biggest blockbuster of the year has arrived. The fourth installment of the "Harry Potter" franchise has made it to the big screen. "The Goblet of Fire" opened across the United States on November 19 to very eager audiences. Making over 100 million dollars at the box office in just three days, it has easily claimed the fourth spot on the best opening weekend list.
"The Goblet of Fire" begins just as the book, in the Riddle house, where Voldemort and two of his more devout minions are plotting the untimely death of the one and only Harry Potter. The dark tone of this film is set right away, when Voldemort welcomes, the eavesdropping muggle caretaker, by way of an unforgivable curse. With a death in the first five minutes, it is clear that the films, like the books, are becoming more grim with each sequel.
Far away, Harry awakes in the comfort of the Weasley home, his scar in searing pain. Hermione has just arrived. After a very brief greeting, Harry and the gang depart for the Quidditch World Cup via portkey (an enchanted item, in this case a shoe, that transports those who come in physical contact with it to a predetermined location). For anybody who hasn't read the book, it would be wise to remember what a portkey is.
Unfortunately, the Quidditch World Cup is cut short due to a fierce attack by Voldemort's followers who are known as "Death Eaters" and before you can say "you know who" Harry, Ron and Hermione arrive at Hogwarts for their most eventful year yet! Almost immediately, the students are informed that this will not be an ordinary year (is it ever?) for Hogwarts will be host to the Triwizard Tournament (think olympics meets magic). The tournament consists of a series of three potentially fatal tasks, each designed to challenge the participants endurance and skill. Traditionally there are three champions, one from each of three magical schools, but in a mysterious twist Harry's name is spit out of the Goblet of Fire as the fourth contestant to compete for "eternal glory." After a heated debate, it is decided for Harry that he must compete. As the year progresses, the four contestants are pushed to their limits as they struggle to retrieve a golden egg from a fire breathing dragon, save their friends from a watery grave and navigate through a perplexing labyrinth.
As Harry fights for his life, he must also deal with his peers who have largely abandoned him in support of the other Hogwarts Champion, Cedric Diggory. Jealousy has even turned his best friend, Ron against him. Tension runs high as the story culminates to a climactic showdown with Voldemort, who is more than willing to finish what he started nearly fourteen years before. "After tonight no will ever again question my powers. After tonight they will only remember how you begged for death, and I, being a merciful lord, obliged."
As usual, the special effects are topnotch, but it is how they are put to use that makes them great. They never overpower the real story, which is that of Harry and his two closest friends. Daniel Radliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) have matured both as young adults and actors with each successive film. It is undoubtedly a great asset to the franchise that the studio has not recast the main roles as originally planned.
The Director, Mike Newell did a fair job in going from "Mona Lisa Smile" to this big budget blockbuster. This is also the man you can thank for convincing the studio not to release "Goblet of Fire" (a 734 page book) as two separate films as originally planned. His argument was that he could cut enough of the book's bulky subplots to make an effective film. I think two separate films would have been a complete travesty, but my biggest problem with this film is it's pacing. It is unbelievably rushed and the elimination of several subplots has a negative effect on the overall story. Film 4 is great if you have not read the book, but it's hard not to be a little disappointed if you have. Dobby, S.P.E.W., the giant spider in the maze, and the invisible stair are just a few things fans of the books may miss. Granted, the movie is 2 hours and 37 minutes, but SO much happens so quickly, that I can imagine those who haven't read the book getting lost easily. It strikes me as odd that the studio felt they had to rush the film as they did. I'm sick of guaranteed blockbusters like this and "Star Wars" playing it so safe. They need to pull all the stops, if it take three hours to tell the story the way it was meant to be told, than so be it. It's surprising how much studios will still fight to keep running time down even though giants like "Titanic" and "Return of the King" currently reside atop the all-time box office. There should be no time limit on a good story.
Despite the rapidity, several scenes (most of which I can't discuss) were executed flawlessly. One in particular was the ending which is the first of the Potter films to satisfy me (I hate the firebolt freeze frame of film 3 with a burning passion). This is by far the most exciting adventure Harry Potter has gone on yet and it earns it's PG-13 rating (at least by MPAA standards). I certainly hope this pleases most fans because it has to tide you over all the way until 2007 when "The Order of the Phoenix" is scheduled to be released with "The Half Blood Price" to follow a year later and the untitled film 7 expected to conclude the story in 2010. 8.8/10 (3 ½ /4) stars
"The Goblet of Fire" begins just as the book, in the Riddle house, where Voldemort and two of his more devout minions are plotting the untimely death of the one and only Harry Potter. The dark tone of this film is set right away, when Voldemort welcomes, the eavesdropping muggle caretaker, by way of an unforgivable curse. With a death in the first five minutes, it is clear that the films, like the books, are becoming more grim with each sequel.
Far away, Harry awakes in the comfort of the Weasley home, his scar in searing pain. Hermione has just arrived. After a very brief greeting, Harry and the gang depart for the Quidditch World Cup via portkey (an enchanted item, in this case a shoe, that transports those who come in physical contact with it to a predetermined location). For anybody who hasn't read the book, it would be wise to remember what a portkey is.
Unfortunately, the Quidditch World Cup is cut short due to a fierce attack by Voldemort's followers who are known as "Death Eaters" and before you can say "you know who" Harry, Ron and Hermione arrive at Hogwarts for their most eventful year yet! Almost immediately, the students are informed that this will not be an ordinary year (is it ever?) for Hogwarts will be host to the Triwizard Tournament (think olympics meets magic). The tournament consists of a series of three potentially fatal tasks, each designed to challenge the participants endurance and skill. Traditionally there are three champions, one from each of three magical schools, but in a mysterious twist Harry's name is spit out of the Goblet of Fire as the fourth contestant to compete for "eternal glory." After a heated debate, it is decided for Harry that he must compete. As the year progresses, the four contestants are pushed to their limits as they struggle to retrieve a golden egg from a fire breathing dragon, save their friends from a watery grave and navigate through a perplexing labyrinth.
As Harry fights for his life, he must also deal with his peers who have largely abandoned him in support of the other Hogwarts Champion, Cedric Diggory. Jealousy has even turned his best friend, Ron against him. Tension runs high as the story culminates to a climactic showdown with Voldemort, who is more than willing to finish what he started nearly fourteen years before. "After tonight no will ever again question my powers. After tonight they will only remember how you begged for death, and I, being a merciful lord, obliged."
As usual, the special effects are topnotch, but it is how they are put to use that makes them great. They never overpower the real story, which is that of Harry and his two closest friends. Daniel Radliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) have matured both as young adults and actors with each successive film. It is undoubtedly a great asset to the franchise that the studio has not recast the main roles as originally planned.
The Director, Mike Newell did a fair job in going from "Mona Lisa Smile" to this big budget blockbuster. This is also the man you can thank for convincing the studio not to release "Goblet of Fire" (a 734 page book) as two separate films as originally planned. His argument was that he could cut enough of the book's bulky subplots to make an effective film. I think two separate films would have been a complete travesty, but my biggest problem with this film is it's pacing. It is unbelievably rushed and the elimination of several subplots has a negative effect on the overall story. Film 4 is great if you have not read the book, but it's hard not to be a little disappointed if you have. Dobby, S.P.E.W., the giant spider in the maze, and the invisible stair are just a few things fans of the books may miss. Granted, the movie is 2 hours and 37 minutes, but SO much happens so quickly, that I can imagine those who haven't read the book getting lost easily. It strikes me as odd that the studio felt they had to rush the film as they did. I'm sick of guaranteed blockbusters like this and "Star Wars" playing it so safe. They need to pull all the stops, if it take three hours to tell the story the way it was meant to be told, than so be it. It's surprising how much studios will still fight to keep running time down even though giants like "Titanic" and "Return of the King" currently reside atop the all-time box office. There should be no time limit on a good story.
Despite the rapidity, several scenes (most of which I can't discuss) were executed flawlessly. One in particular was the ending which is the first of the Potter films to satisfy me (I hate the firebolt freeze frame of film 3 with a burning passion). This is by far the most exciting adventure Harry Potter has gone on yet and it earns it's PG-13 rating (at least by MPAA standards). I certainly hope this pleases most fans because it has to tide you over all the way until 2007 when "The Order of the Phoenix" is scheduled to be released with "The Half Blood Price" to follow a year later and the untitled film 7 expected to conclude the story in 2010. 8.8/10 (3 ½ /4) stars
The perfect making of doc
13 November 2005
I bought a region free DVD player and the 4 disc European set just for this documentary and you know what, I loved it! It just arrived yesterday, and heart of the ocean was my first stop. For me, this documentary completed the set. It was everything i wanted and didn't get from the US 3 disc "Titanic" SE set. It had the perfect blend of great behind the scenes footage and interviews (from 97-98) by just about everyone on the cast (seriously, jack rose, cal, mr. andrews, the captain... they all have at least one interview). And the whole thing is geared to honor the film and get people to want to watch it on HBO - it is, after all "HBO first look: Heart of the Ocean." It really quenched my thirst as a titaniac. This is easily my favorite special feature besides the restored film and the 29 deleted scenes. Oh, and it ended with a shot and a voice over from the movie that seriously almost brought tears to my eyes... very, VERY well done.
Titanic
(1997)
Utterly Perfect
13 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Why do I love this movie? ...where to begin?? To start out with, I'm a male and couldn't care less for DiCaprio. I went to see the film because I thought the sinking scenes looked cool. I still remember sitting in the theater watching the opening scenes and wondering what the hell I was watching. It wasn't what I expected. I sat watching with slight interest, a beautiful love story but I was always anticipating the iceberg's appearance. By the time the ship did begin sinking the love story had worked it's magic, I cared for Rose and Jack, I cared for the passengers and crew and Somehow I found myself hoping against logic that the ship wouldn't sink. When Jack died and Rose begins "1500 people went into the sea..." I was crying harder than I'd ever cried and I've never cried at a film before or since. It just hit me like a ton of bricks that 1500 people died the same way jack did, and while jack may have never existed, those other 1500 did. Some people bash this film for the love story, but it helps the audience relate on an emotional level and offers an unforgettable experience if you open your heart to it. For the last 15 minutes or so I kept hoping it wouldn't end because I doubted any ending would be satisfactory. I was pleasantly surprised though for I consider the final scene in this film to be one of the most satisfying cinematic endings ever. When the lights came on I looked around and I can honestly say that I wasn't the only person sobbing - not by a long shot. I left the theater (at nearly midnight not the least bit tired) feeling like I had just seen the best film ever made and that I would never again see something like it. Thus far, I stand by that.
I tend to find that a lot of people who don't like it, did not see it at the theater and I'm not surprised. It doesn't pack the same punch in a lit room, full of distractions and on a smaller screen. To add to that, these first time watchers are expecting to find out what all the hype was about. Bits and pieces shine through on television but the full experience is in a dark theater. Now-a-days it's cool to bash this movie. As with anything popular, there's always a backlash (look at the macarena if you want proof). This is the most successful film of all time. It is absolutely amazing how far this film reached, transcending all demographics. It was a phenomenon still unequaled and i look forward to watching it age, for it is truly a timeless classic. I doubt any of this changed anybody's opinion at all, but I hope it shed some light on mine.
I tend to find that a lot of people who don't like it, did not see it at the theater and I'm not surprised. It doesn't pack the same punch in a lit room, full of distractions and on a smaller screen. To add to that, these first time watchers are expecting to find out what all the hype was about. Bits and pieces shine through on television but the full experience is in a dark theater. Now-a-days it's cool to bash this movie. As with anything popular, there's always a backlash (look at the macarena if you want proof). This is the most successful film of all time. It is absolutely amazing how far this film reached, transcending all demographics. It was a phenomenon still unequaled and i look forward to watching it age, for it is truly a timeless classic. I doubt any of this changed anybody's opinion at all, but I hope it shed some light on mine.
Corpse Bride
(2005)
A work of Art
12 October 2005
In keeping with the eeriness that October generally brings, I have seen the latest effort by Tim Burton entitled "Corpse Bride" (contrary to popular belief, there's no "the" in the title). Like Tim Burton's 1993 stop-motion classic "The Nightmare Before Christmas," "Corpse Bride" takes something wonderful and makes it sinister - In this case, the accidental marriage to a corpse.
From the opening scene onward there's trouble brewing and you know very well that nothing can go right when you hear the parents of both wedding parties singing "everything must go according to plan." This song is probably the most memorable out of the entire film (which doesn't say much), but it does serve to set the stage. Indeed everything must go according to plan. The bride's parents are in dire need of money while the groom's parents seek a better reputation. Apparently this marriage can make everybody happy except the bride and groom.
It is at their own wedding rehearsal that our young couple, Victor and Victoria, first meet. They have a brief moment alone in which the pair seem to believe that they can make this work. Feelings of affection also begin to become apparent in this scene - perhaps they will learn to love each other.
As the rehearsal gets underway, we find out what a neurotic and scatterbrained person Victor is. He just can't get his vows right. The more times he makes a mistake, the more impatient everybody becomes, and the more likely he is to make another mistake. After SEVERAL attempts, chaos ensues and Victor flees. He ultimately finds refuge in a dark forest where he finally gets his vows right! He slips the ring, the symbol of his unhappiness, onto what he thinks is a twig, but is actually the remains of a woman's hand. Naturally he's taken aback by the dead chick in the wedding dress that pops out of the ground and says "I do." What can you do? Victor ran.
For a while Victor tries to rid himself of his corpse bride but he ultimately falls in love with her because she is more alive than those that can breathe. However, he also still has a soft spot for Victoria who, in Victor's absence has been betrothed, by her parents, to a Mr. Barkis Bittern who clearly has a more cynical role tin this whole story. Victor is being pulled in two directions but can choose only one.
Johnny Depp (Victor), Emily Watson (Victoria) and Helena Bonham Carter (Corpse Bride) lead an exceptional cast of voices. Tim Burton is, again, in his element here, creating a visually striking and sentimental work of art. The Music is okay. The songs are all forgettable and have little purpose except to fill time which this film definitely needed. At only 76 minutes, this film is barely feature length. There's little character development and everything feels a bit rushed, because, well it is. Pacing problems are bound to occur, though, when you're dealing with stop-motion animation. You simply can't tell how the final product will work out, and because of the time and effort it takes to film, you can't very well re-shoot things. "Corpse Bride" took a whopping fifty-five weeks to film and during this time one hundred nine million four hundred forty INDIVIDUALLY animated frames were arranged and shot. The animators had to create 28 frames just for the corpse bride to blink ONCE. You can't help but appreciate that kind of effort.
The story is quite original, yet oddly predictable. The dialogue is often simple but sometimes inspired - "Can a heart break once it's stopped beating?" As of this time, I'd say that "Corpse Bride" is a shoe in for "Best Animated Picture." It really hasn't been a great year for animation. I do not recommend shelling out nine dollars to see this film on the big screen. After only 76 minutes, you will feel cheated - it will pack the same punch on your television. Despite ALL it's flaws though, "Corpse Bride" is a true work of art and I give it 3 out of 4 stars.
From the opening scene onward there's trouble brewing and you know very well that nothing can go right when you hear the parents of both wedding parties singing "everything must go according to plan." This song is probably the most memorable out of the entire film (which doesn't say much), but it does serve to set the stage. Indeed everything must go according to plan. The bride's parents are in dire need of money while the groom's parents seek a better reputation. Apparently this marriage can make everybody happy except the bride and groom.
It is at their own wedding rehearsal that our young couple, Victor and Victoria, first meet. They have a brief moment alone in which the pair seem to believe that they can make this work. Feelings of affection also begin to become apparent in this scene - perhaps they will learn to love each other.
As the rehearsal gets underway, we find out what a neurotic and scatterbrained person Victor is. He just can't get his vows right. The more times he makes a mistake, the more impatient everybody becomes, and the more likely he is to make another mistake. After SEVERAL attempts, chaos ensues and Victor flees. He ultimately finds refuge in a dark forest where he finally gets his vows right! He slips the ring, the symbol of his unhappiness, onto what he thinks is a twig, but is actually the remains of a woman's hand. Naturally he's taken aback by the dead chick in the wedding dress that pops out of the ground and says "I do." What can you do? Victor ran.
For a while Victor tries to rid himself of his corpse bride but he ultimately falls in love with her because she is more alive than those that can breathe. However, he also still has a soft spot for Victoria who, in Victor's absence has been betrothed, by her parents, to a Mr. Barkis Bittern who clearly has a more cynical role tin this whole story. Victor is being pulled in two directions but can choose only one.
Johnny Depp (Victor), Emily Watson (Victoria) and Helena Bonham Carter (Corpse Bride) lead an exceptional cast of voices. Tim Burton is, again, in his element here, creating a visually striking and sentimental work of art. The Music is okay. The songs are all forgettable and have little purpose except to fill time which this film definitely needed. At only 76 minutes, this film is barely feature length. There's little character development and everything feels a bit rushed, because, well it is. Pacing problems are bound to occur, though, when you're dealing with stop-motion animation. You simply can't tell how the final product will work out, and because of the time and effort it takes to film, you can't very well re-shoot things. "Corpse Bride" took a whopping fifty-five weeks to film and during this time one hundred nine million four hundred forty INDIVIDUALLY animated frames were arranged and shot. The animators had to create 28 frames just for the corpse bride to blink ONCE. You can't help but appreciate that kind of effort.
The story is quite original, yet oddly predictable. The dialogue is often simple but sometimes inspired - "Can a heart break once it's stopped beating?" As of this time, I'd say that "Corpse Bride" is a shoe in for "Best Animated Picture." It really hasn't been a great year for animation. I do not recommend shelling out nine dollars to see this film on the big screen. After only 76 minutes, you will feel cheated - it will pack the same punch on your television. Despite ALL it's flaws though, "Corpse Bride" is a true work of art and I give it 3 out of 4 stars.
To Have and Have Not
(1944)
Nothing new yet still captivating
8 October 2005
There's not much to complain about this film. There's no edge-of-your-seat excitement nor is there a heart wrenching sorrow. This film follows a very neutral path, taking no risks yet somehow develops a slow, steady, and yet somehow intriguing tale of love and loyalty in wartime. The story is lacking (as I said) but with talents like Bogart and Bacall to pick up the slack, the result is exceptional. We all know what Bogart is capable of, but he is quite possibly outshined by Bacall who is giving her debut performance in this film as Marie "Slim" Browning. She is the boss, a women who can get what she wants and takes nothing from anybody. In every scene she walks out on Bogart - adding to her allure. This movie comes full circle ("Was you ever bit by a dead bee?"), which I always think is a good thing . The ending doesn't give complete closure but isn't entirely unsatisfying. Overall this is a very good movie but fails to show us something new.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
(2005)
Pretty Good
10 September 2005
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" By: Ryan DePesa
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" has a somewhat misleading title. "The Trial of Fr. Moore" would be much more suitable. While it is not quite what it is made out to be in the trailers that we've all seen running for months it remains a fascinating film all the same. It's been a trend recently to promote horror flicks as "based on a true story" ("The Amityville Horror" "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" etc). It is refreshing to finally see a horror film built on a foundation of reality that follows through.
The film begins as Fr. Moore, exorcist to Ms. Rose, is charged with reckless endangerment leading to the death of, you guessed it, Emily Rose. Fr. Moore's defense attorney is Erin C. Bruner, who will be made partner if the trial goes her way. In an effort to clinch the promotion, she bargains with Moore. In return for allowing him to testify (which the archdiocese is sorely against) and "tell Emily's story" he will allow her to do ANYTHING else it takes to win the case. It is through this story, told in short spurts by several different characters, that we see Emily's possession and exorcism.
Our first glimpse of Emily is that of a teen girl thrilled over receiving a college scholarship. Next thing you know, she's out of the little farm house and in a dorm. You know nothing good can happen in a horror movie when there's a close up of a clock at a particular time. In this case, it's 3:00am which we are informed is the "witching hour" for demons to attack (it is the opposite of the time that is believed to be Christ's time of death). Emily is awoken from a deep sleep by the smell of something burning. She goes out into the corridor to investigate and finds nothing but an eerie swinging door. She returns to her bed, a bit spooked, and is almost immediately pinned by an indiscernible presence which seemingly enters her body through her mouth. From this point on, she begins to suffer hallucinations, seizures, malnutrition, and as the evil spirit consumes her further: speaking in tongues, and stigmata.
As Emily's story of possession gradually builds, the trial keeps us optimistic as to the cause of Emily's behavior. The prosecutor, Ethan Thomas, has an explanation for everything. He believes that the hallucinations and seizures are a caused by "psychotic epilepsy," The speaking in tongues - a foreign language class, and the stigmata - self inflicted. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide whether she was possessed or suffering from an illness. One could find notable reasons to support each possibility. I'm still unsure which I believe.
If you're looking for a movie to scare you this is probably not it. There's about two moments that may shock you but no shots that are truly scary. I'm not complaining though, for the whole film retains an eerie atmosphere while never loosing it's plausibility. The acting is superb, there's no weak link in the chain. It's interesting to watch a federal court deal with a matter of faith and even more so to watch a self proclaimed "woman of doubt" (Erin) become a believer. In one of the most profound pieces of dialogue in the film, Erin describes how she came upon a locket, lying in the street, with her initials engraved upon it. She was taken aback by the idea that out of all the people who could have found it, she did. And for once in her life, she felt like anything she did wrong in the past was forgotten and she felt like she was on "the right path."
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is a thought invoking film with a real story and heart - 3 ½ stars.
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" has a somewhat misleading title. "The Trial of Fr. Moore" would be much more suitable. While it is not quite what it is made out to be in the trailers that we've all seen running for months it remains a fascinating film all the same. It's been a trend recently to promote horror flicks as "based on a true story" ("The Amityville Horror" "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" etc). It is refreshing to finally see a horror film built on a foundation of reality that follows through.
The film begins as Fr. Moore, exorcist to Ms. Rose, is charged with reckless endangerment leading to the death of, you guessed it, Emily Rose. Fr. Moore's defense attorney is Erin C. Bruner, who will be made partner if the trial goes her way. In an effort to clinch the promotion, she bargains with Moore. In return for allowing him to testify (which the archdiocese is sorely against) and "tell Emily's story" he will allow her to do ANYTHING else it takes to win the case. It is through this story, told in short spurts by several different characters, that we see Emily's possession and exorcism.
Our first glimpse of Emily is that of a teen girl thrilled over receiving a college scholarship. Next thing you know, she's out of the little farm house and in a dorm. You know nothing good can happen in a horror movie when there's a close up of a clock at a particular time. In this case, it's 3:00am which we are informed is the "witching hour" for demons to attack (it is the opposite of the time that is believed to be Christ's time of death). Emily is awoken from a deep sleep by the smell of something burning. She goes out into the corridor to investigate and finds nothing but an eerie swinging door. She returns to her bed, a bit spooked, and is almost immediately pinned by an indiscernible presence which seemingly enters her body through her mouth. From this point on, she begins to suffer hallucinations, seizures, malnutrition, and as the evil spirit consumes her further: speaking in tongues, and stigmata.
As Emily's story of possession gradually builds, the trial keeps us optimistic as to the cause of Emily's behavior. The prosecutor, Ethan Thomas, has an explanation for everything. He believes that the hallucinations and seizures are a caused by "psychotic epilepsy," The speaking in tongues - a foreign language class, and the stigmata - self inflicted. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide whether she was possessed or suffering from an illness. One could find notable reasons to support each possibility. I'm still unsure which I believe.
If you're looking for a movie to scare you this is probably not it. There's about two moments that may shock you but no shots that are truly scary. I'm not complaining though, for the whole film retains an eerie atmosphere while never loosing it's plausibility. The acting is superb, there's no weak link in the chain. It's interesting to watch a federal court deal with a matter of faith and even more so to watch a self proclaimed "woman of doubt" (Erin) become a believer. In one of the most profound pieces of dialogue in the film, Erin describes how she came upon a locket, lying in the street, with her initials engraved upon it. She was taken aback by the idea that out of all the people who could have found it, she did. And for once in her life, she felt like anything she did wrong in the past was forgotten and she felt like she was on "the right path."
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is a thought invoking film with a real story and heart - 3 ½ stars.
Tell Your Friends