.png)
“The Love Guru”
2008
BOMB out of ****
Director: Marco Schnabel
Cast: Mike Myers, Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake
Remember that TV show “Cavemen,” with those goddamn cavemen from the Geico commercials? Remember how tasteless and how unfunny that show was? I do. I remember watching that show once and only once. But I can tell you this – if I had a choice between watching eight episodes of “Cavemen” and “The Love Guru” once, I would probably choose eight episodes of “Cavemen.”
“The Love Guru,” a lot like “Cavemen,” is unfunny, tasteless, and completely offensive. The comedy is bland and the laughs were silent. None of the actors added to the comedy and all of the jokes fall flat on their faces. “The Love Guru” is probably one of the worst movies that I will witness this year, and I’ve seen A LOT of bad ones.
Pitka (Mike Myers) is an American-born boy who was raised with a ton of gurus. When he eventually becomes a guru himself, he decides that he wants to be the new Deepak Chopra and be featured on Oprah’s TV show. I never noticed how many celebrities actually worship some gurus – Jessica Simpson, Val Kilmer, and even Mariska Hargitay. (Who the fuck is Mariska Hargitay?)
Anyway, Guru Pitka has to wear a chastity belt, which means that he can’t sleep with any woman until he finds the true reason of being a guru. He has a five step program called DRAMA, and he can develop acronyms from GURU and can turn the word “intimacy” into the words “into me I see.” His first step of gaining fame is helping a hockey player from the Toronto Maple Leafs.
All-Star Darren Roanoke (Romany Malco) recently was left by his fiancée (Meagan Good) for the Sacramento Kings goalie Jacques Grande. (Justin Timberlake) Since the two teams are playing in the playoffs, the Leafs owner (Jessica Alba) calls in Pitka to try and bring Roanoke and his ex together so he can pull himself together to win the Stanley Cup.
Does anyone else find it the LEAST bit funny that Jessica Alba owns a hockey team? Just typing up that premise made me laugh harder than I did in the movie.
“The Love Guru” is offensive and tasteless in its own way. I’ve seen tons of movies try to do what “The Love Guru” does and it always ends the same way – bad. There is a scene in “The Love Guru” where Mike Myers offends a few Canadians in a bar by calling them poor, which not only did I find kind of offensive in a Canadian point of view, but in my point of view as well. And I won’t even begin to explain how offensive the scene with Verne Troyer was.
I know people have been killing to see Mike Myers do an original character. The last live-action film he did was “Cat in the Hat” and we all know how that was. I really do miss the days when “Austin Powers” came out, because that character was actually pretty damn funny. But his character of Guru Pitka wasn’t even half of the genius that “Austin Powers” was. In a way, you have to feel bad for Mike Myers. Some people need the money and they are willing to do anything for it.
Or maybe after insulting those guys in the bar, maybe he doesn’t deserve the money.
I can’t bitch about Justin Timberlake. It’s too bad that he was only in the film for ten minutes even though he had such a big role in the film, because I actually found his accent to be pretty amusing. I miss the days when he played in quality films like “Alpha Dog,” “Black Snake Moan,” and I’ll throw “Southland Tales” in there too. If there was just a little bit more of him, the film might have been funny. Or just a tiny bit, maybe.
But even as unfunny as Mike Myers is, how unrealistic it is that Jessica Alba owns a hockey team, and how the filmmakers gave the best part of the movie the least amount of screen-time, nothing made me any madder than all of the hockey inaccuracies. Holy fucking shits, nothing made me madder than all of the hockey inaccuracies.
Now if you really know me, I’ve grown up with hockey ALL of my life. I used to play, my brothers still play, and the only sport that I actually pay attention to is… well… hockey. So tell me WHY the only thing I really hoped that I would like about the movie fails me in the long run? If you are a hockey fan, tell me that you didn’t spot the high-sticking goals? Did the audience ever notice how the referee calls the suspension on the ice?
It’s one thing if you are a bad movie, but it is another thing if you can’t even get the rules of hockey right.
I think that even those Geico cavemen could figure THAT out.
“Get Smart”
2008
*** out of ****
Director: Peter Segel
Cast: Steve Carell, Anne Hathaway, Dwayne Johnson
I’ve watched enough cop comedies to know that when you are referencing pop culture, it just doesn’t work. Even when you are spoofing a certain movie, the most likely results are that it will fail terribly. The only exceptions that I can think of are “Hot Fuzz” and “The Naked Gun” movies. I came out of “Get Smart” and saying that I’m glad that they didn’t fuck a lot of the film up. It could have been fucked up. Let’s face it – this is the same guy that made “The Nutty Professor 2” and “Anger Management,” and I’m sure none of you forgot about the terrorist attack code name “The Longest Yard.”
Surprisingly, the only film that I can really recommend on director Peter Segel’s resume is… “The Naked Gun 33 1/3.” Wow. This comes as no surprise.
But I can now also recommend his brand new flick “Get Smart.” Starring Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway as Agent 86 and Agent 99, the film is a rehash of the old television show that was created by the god of comedy Mel Brooks. Unlike most TV-to-film adaptations, “Get Smart” works in many ways. Instead of creating a homage to the audience who grew up with the show, Peter Segel creates a new fanbase for people who weren’t around to witness the show’s success.
I’ll admit that before walking into “Get Smart” that I had no idea what the TV show was like or what I will be getting from the flick, but what I got was a few good laughs and a lot of fun. If “Tropic Thunder” and “Pineapple Express” don’t deliver, this may just be the comedy to beat this summer. Its only competition is “Meet Dave,” and you know how hard that is to beat correct?
Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) is an analyst for CONTROL, a spy agency that monitors the works of a terrorist group called KAOS. Though they thought that KAOS was once gone, they rebounded by stealing the names of all of the CONTROL agents and killing every last one of them. Max always wanted to be an agent, and when the opportunity comes to be an agent, he takes it and expects to work with his hero Agent 23, (Dwayne Johnson) only to be astonished that he is working with some chick that goes by the code name Agent 99 who recently gotten plastic surgery done on her face. The Chief (Alan Arkin) sends Smart and Agent 99 to Russia where they try and figure out how KAOS’s leader Siegfried (Terence Stamp) is trying to take over the world.
“Get Smart” is packed with many laughs. I found myself laughing hardest at the scenes where it was Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway together. It might just be me but it seems like whoever works with Steve Carell has excellent chemistry with him. After the movie ended I found myself comparing Carell and Hathaway to Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow in “Iron Man.” In both instances, both duos don’t act awkward when the usual cliché says that you should be acting awkward. Or maybe it is just their excellent chemistry together. Whatever it is, Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway are fabulous together.
The rest of the cast is fantastic. I have a feeling that we will be seeing a lot more of Dwayne Johnson, or The Rock, in film. I don’t think that he is the best actor ever, but he is definitely shaping up into being one. He was flawless in “Southland Tales,” and gives off a hilarious performance here, even while keeping a straight face. Some guy upstairs dropped the almighty Alan Arkin outside the casting office. Thank god. He owns every little scene that he is in. He has an Oscar for a reason, you know, and I seem to be the only guy who rooted for him.
The biggest problem I had with the film was that the end result seemed forced. Segel obviously wanted to bring these characters all together too fast for the climax and since both sides are at separate ends of the Earth, he has to get them all together to unite at one building. Of course, not even the one side lives anywhere near Los Angeles where the climax takes place and miraculously, they all get there in the matter of five minutes. Even Steve Carell, who seems to be walking while talking on his shoe phone.
I can’t say for sure whether or not this will live up to the expectations of the people who grew up watching the show, but the way that I look at it is that if you loved the TV show, loved “The Naked Gun” movies, and loved that “Starsky and Hutch” film that came out back in 2004, then you will really like “Get Smart.” The humor is never the least bit dull and nowhere close to being raunchy (okay, maybe ONE is). Aside from “Wall-E” and “Kung Fu Panda,” this just might be one of the best movies to take your children to in the summer.
P.S. I have not been able to catch the spin-off “Bruce and Lloyd: Out of Control,” and from what I heard it isn’t all that great, but it takes place at the same time as this one was going on. Possibly this spinoff could answer the problem that I had with the film?
Death on Demand
Year: 2008
Director: Adam Matalon
Stars: Elizabeth Jamison, Jerry Broome, Krista Grotte
MPAA Rating: R
Studio: MTI Home Video / Evil Twins
Running Time: 90 Mins
Review Rating: 4 Stars
(Please note: This is an advance review).
Death on Demand is about an ice climber that goes insane, then kills his entire family prior to Thanksgiving Day. Twenty years later, a wealthy college student decides to organize a Halloween night event where three couples have to spend the night at the killer’s house while thousands of college students watch their every move. Soon, the couples move into the abandon house of the killer, but his spirit has come back to the house to exact more brutal killings. Now the couples must find a way to outwit this murderous maniac, before he brutally murders them all.
Death on Demand is a fun and gory horror film. Director Adam Matalon does a good job at making this very fun to watch. One of the main reasons why this film was fun were the way he directed some of the scenes. I liked how Matalon directed some of the scenes that gave it more of a voyeuristic view. It was like watching an episode of Big Brother where the hidden cameras cut to different parts of the house, as it gave more of a reality TV feel. The acting was good, as the actors did their best in parodying some of the most cliché reality personalities that is seen in the land of reality TV.
The screenplay written by Matalon, Kevin Burke and Brian O’ Hara was good. I thought that was a very fun screenplay. The screenwriters made this film interesting by adding elements of reality TV. They do that by creating characters that you would see on a reality show, such as the annoying bitch, the sweet innocent girl, the B-list celebrity, the macho guy, and the annoying host. Those are usually a recipe for disaster, but were perfect here, since part of the film’s story deals with reality TV. The writers also manage to put together some scares and a little humor to make this film fun. The other reason this film was fun was the fact that the film kept going back to the audience in the college dorm during some the voyeuristic scenes. It made it fun as you got some funny reactions from the college kids even though this psycho is terrorizing the couples. It also helped examine the current reality TV crazy and why young people are hooked on to this programming.
The film is up with Gutterballs as one of the year’s goriest horror films that I’ve seen. Death on Demand is one bloody reality TV show that will demand your attention.
Death on Demand hits stores this Tuesday from MTI Home Video.
DVD Extras:
Filmmaker’s commentary
Outtakes
Trailers
The Lodge
Year: 2008
Director: John Rauschelbach & Brad Helmink
Stars: Owen Szabo, Elizabeth Kell, and Kevin McClatchy
MPAA Rating: R
Studio: Brothers Shamus Pictures
Running Time: 83 minutes
Rating: ** out of *****
It’s a crisp summer day as the couple, Michael (Owen Szabo) and Julia (Elizabeth Kell) head to their romantic getaway. Michael has made a special reservation for a beautifully spacious log cabin ranch home in a secluded woodland area. Arriving at the cabin they are introduced to Henry (Kevin McClatchy), the cabin home attendant. Henry is first suspiciously unsure about the couple and their arrangement, but quickly re-remembers that a couple were coming for the weekend. The two love birds settle in for the weekend. Cooking and cleaning, Henry is affectionately resourceful for the two. They wine and dine and fuck like two rabbits that are test subjects to some weird sex drug. The couple soon learn that their helpful attendant, Henry holds a much darker secret. The love retreat for Michael and Julia soon turns into an absolute deranged apprehension of gore, rape, and incest.
The Lodge is not too bad for a first attempt by directors Brad Helmink and John Rauschelbach. Though, the acting is somewhat atrocious and the script by Deb Havener is downright cliché. The few things that were enjoyable about the film were the light touches of camera work and area footage. The feeling of being suffocated is an enjoyable technique in horror films but, I feel it’s used a little too much. Creating suspense should not be limited.
The acting is exactly what I should expect from a film like this; not very good. Though, I really don’t think that’s such a bad thing all the time. I actually find myself enjoying horror films with less accredited actors, rather than seeing actors like Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones (i.e. 1999 - The Haunting remake) in horror films. Of the three people that carried this film, Elizabeth Kell was quite far the most enjoyable.
Nonetheless, folks today don’t watch horror films to understand visual concepts and follow meaningful developments. They watch ’em to be scared shitless. That is where I believe the film’s script drops the ball. A coherent foundation is set pretty well throughout the film. It’s just the film’s development and final conclusion is boring and more or less… “I saw it coming before I hit play on my DVD player”.
The Lodge isn’t a great film, but may be enjoyable for the easy to scare crowd. The film is more of something I would catch on the Sci-Fi channel on a really boring Tuesday afternoon. I would only recommend the film if you enjoy cheap horror thrills that you can find in your five dollar bin at your local Wal-Mart.
Herzog narrates the documentary and it allows us to go inside his head on how he views the icy wilderness he went to, and of how views the people and the wildlife there. He makes it clear from the onset that when he was asked by Discovery Films to do this, he agreed to it on the condition that he would not be forced to do a “fuzzy” movie with penguins in it (a little jab at “March of the Penguins”). The first 10 or so minutes deals with the McMurdo Research Station on Antarctica which is full of buildings and tractors constantly moving all over the place. Werner finds himself wanting to get away from McMurdo right away as if we are corrupting the Antarctic island with our own self interest, and he remarks of the horrors there like “yoga classes.”
Eventually, he ventures out of the encampment and into the far off research facilities removed from the town. We see him and others there being put thru safety drills and emergency preparations to deal with the worst of circumstances. The group leader speaks of how the wind can get so bad that you can’t see your hand in front of your face or even hear yourself talk. This lends a chilling effect to an already chilling environment, and while it is exciting to be there, you feel the danger of it all throughout the documentary.
The best part of this documentary, and the reason I wanted to see it based on the trailer, is the underwater footage where you follow divers underneath the glaciers of Antarctica. The visuals on display here are both beautiful and extraordinary to see here, and there is a unique beauty to the underwater landscape that you would be hard pressed to find anywhere else. This is all reminiscent of James Cameron’s documentary “Aliens from the Deep” in which he went with scientists in submersibles down to the bottom of the ocean to see what lives down. While that was a fascinating documentary, this one is not encumbered with 3D effects and of looks at where the future will take us. It deals with the world right now, and doesn’t hide from how all this will disappear in the far off future.
I also just wanted to find out how these scientists were able to dive down into waters where they would not be expected to stay alive in for more than 5 minutes. They wear special suits that are heavily insulated to protect them from the cold, and they wear gloves that threaten to make them look like aliens from another planet. Director Herzog points out that the water they are diving in is -2 degrees Celsius, and that the divers go in with no ropes attached to their bodies to give them more room to move around. Still, this is very dangerous work they are doing, and if they get lost underneath the glacier, they will become a permanent frozen resident. You feel the danger of what they are doing, but you end up getting overwhelmed by the spectacular visuals they find underneath it all.
Another fascinating moment in the movie is when some scientists on the island play recordings of the sounds the local seals make underwater. The seals themselves steal some scenes from the human actors as they lie back lazily in the sun and look too tired to get up and acknowledge anybody. The underwater sounds of the seals sound so unreal, and you cannot help but feel that they are all computer generated. But they are indeed the real thing, and you experience the sounds along with Werner and the scientists as they put their ears down to the ground and take it all in. It’s an amazing moment in the film.
The other thing I really loved about this movie was how it was just not another average science documentary with a lot of talking heads telling you all the things you need to know about the environments that they are studying. There is science talk throughout the movie which is fine, but Herzog also looks at the individual personalities that he comes in contact with throughout his journey. Along with Herzog, you also wonder what could make all these people come to one of the most isolated places on the face of the earth, and how they stay there for so long. This makes “Encounters at the End of the World” all the more interesting to watch.
Among the people that Herzog meets throughout the journey are a philosopher who has a great quote at the end of the movie of how the universe is looking at itself through our eyes, and how we give life to everything in the way we view it. We meet one of the scuba divers who has a pensive moment where he takes in the fact that this is the last dive he will be making. One of the most powerful moments is when Werner meets up with a Russian who had escaped the Soviet Union after the fall of the Iron Curtain, and he almost loses it emotionally when he tries to describe how bad it was when he left. We also see that he has an escape plan at the ready with a big pack of supplies in case he needs to flee once again.
There are a couple of other people that documentary that just talk and talk about themselves and the adventures they have been on. Herzog cuts them off in his narration and says:
“To make a long story short…”
The documentary does have a bleak view of the future of humanity, and the scientists are fully aware of this as temperatures continue to rise, and the ice will eventually melt way off into the future. This is also shown as we see a group of scientists sitting around watching “Them,” a 50’s B-movie about radioactive ants that have grown to an enormous size. It turns out to be one of many apocalyptic movies they show to each other each week. I wonder if they have ever gotten around to watching John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” That’s what I used to think of when someone mentions Antarctica.
At the center of this movie is not just Antarctica, but Herzog himself. His narration throughout could have been annoying in a grandstanding way, but it serves to illuminate what a funny and interesting person he is. Clearly, he is attracted to madness in various forms throughout the world as is shown here and previously in “Grizzly Man.” I imagine that this is a big theme in all of his movies. We discover all there is to see through his eyes, and of how he views the beauty of the ice and how it forms. It does make me want to see more of his movies.
“Encounters at the End of the World” is currently in limited release, but I doubt that it will go beyond that to a wider release. This movie will most likely find its audience on DVD, and I imagine it will be an incredible viewing experience on Blu-Ray. Just remember what one of the men out there said in the movie and remember it always:
“Global warming is real.”
Wall*E
Director: Andrew Stanton
Cast: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard, and Sigourney Weaver
MPAA: G
Wall*E
The earth is such a copious place of colors. Ever lush green trees, a rhapsody of blue seas, and the harsh, but wise red rocky mountains. What could make a world more vibrant, expressive, or emotional? Well, would you believe me if I said a small, rickety, trash compactor?
It is the year 2815 and the planet we call earth, is vastly covered with trash. The once bustling city is now littered with a capacious amount of advertisement from a monstrous conglomerate only known as BNL (Big and Large). There is not one single human living on the globe. Streets and buildings are ghostly vacant. The dark dust-rusty wind bellows through the ever dead scenery, taking with it scraps of paper, empty soda cups, and random debris. There is nothing but the nothing itself…
Oh, but wait, there is a small moving object, which is not a scrap of paper, a soda cup, or even a random piece of debris. To be more precise, this object seems to have life. It seems to be a… robot.
Disney/Pixar’s newest animated film, Wall*E tells us the story of a small garbage compactor robot of the same name which stands for, Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class. Wall*E (Ben Burtt) is an unusual robot. He is programmed to compact trash but more importantly he has developed an interest in the life that created all of the junk. Wall*E is a bit of a packrat; he collects various items from the heaps and stores them in his home. Anything you can think of: light bulbs, hub caps, Rubik's Cubes, a VHS copy of the musical, Hello Dolly.
Even after hundreds of years have past, Wall*E does not lose his lovable curiosity. He has actually developed an immense personality with his collection. On a regular trash picking day for Wall*E, something out of the unusual has caught his eye. A large spaceship from the space station, Axiom, has made a landing onto Earth’s surface. The ship leaves a small lustrous white device that has been activated and appears to be a superior robotic being.
This entity turns out to be robot called EVE (Elissa Knight) EVE comes from Axiom with a mission to discover if life on Earth is possible. EVE is essentially Annie to Wall*E’s Alvy. She is clean, sleek, elegant, and absolutely everything a robot like Wall*E would be smitten by. Unknown is EVE’s mission to Wall*E; he is only interested in finding out more about EVE.
And the romantic comedy pursues…
I don’t want to really over explain this film… it’s not because I’m lazy. It’s because I believe the film creates a visual message that you can only understand by watching it.
The film is simple, but absolutely remarkable in its delivery. Andrew Stanton, the film’s writer and director has created a mesmerizing and poignant movie. Disney/Pixar has begun to interest me more and more with their films. Last summer’s Ratatouille was downright enjoyable. It created some of the best looking visuals and a story that made me believe children’s cartoons do not have to be non-stop stupid humor. Wall*E’s first act is quite possibly some of the best writing I have seen. In the fashion of a beautiful Shakespearean sonnet, the lack of dialogue creates a wonderful strong foundation to build a movie on. Along with vibrant, colorful visuals, I felt you could connect with Stanton in a weird visual sixth sense. I was also blown away by the creatively detailed camera work. At points I thought I was watching a Kar Wai Wong film. The best thing about this film (along with its visuals), is the fact that it doesn’t over analyze every freaking step. It creates an environment for minds to think. True, there is a system of diverse messages throughout the film, but I honestly do not think this is any worse than vegetables telling me about Jesus.
With a film that has less dialogue than a Jim Jarmusch movie, one would think that there must be no point for a decent cast. Well, you are wrong! The film’s star, Wall*E is voiced by the man that has created some of the great sound designs to films like Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Ben Burtt not only voices Wall*E’s delightful robotic speech, he also created a spectacular sound production for the film. There are also fantastic performances and voiceovers from comedic actors like Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard, and John Ratzenberger. An interesting Sci-fi tie-in the movie’s villain, AUTO has a nod to both Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey and voiceover from Alien star, Sigourney Weaver.
The only downside (and I use this term lightly!) to Wall*E is the film’s third act. I can understand the way it comes together, that there must be some kind of resolution. It’s like playing a major scale and ending on the sixth; it just doesn’t feel right! I wouldn’t dispense the final hour as being miserable, maybe cliché. Though I honestly think it still ends remarkably well for a Disney film.
The film has this gravitation about it. You are either going to love it or loathe it. I hope for a lot of people they can see how engagingly descriptive this film is. Overall, I would highly recommend catching Wall*E. This is most likely to be a film that will grow to be an all time classic, I guarantee!
The Freelance Rating: **** out of *****
Girl With Gun
Year: 2007
Director: Russ Emanuel
Stars: Tract O’Connor, Michelle Lee, Michelle Martin
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Studio: Russem Productions
Running Time: 15 Mins
Review Rating: 2.5 Stars
relationship with an ordinary guy named Dan and a best friend who lives a perfect life, but unknown to them, she lives a double life as an assassin known as the Nightingale. Her alter ego helps protect the people who can’t help themselves. Soon her relationship and business cross paths, when she sees Dan at a restaurant where she is targeting her latest target, an underground mafia boss. Soon that mission goes wrong when she begins to lose focus of her mission, as another assassin comes in to save the mob boss from her. If things couldn’t get anything worse, her relationship with Dan goes up in smokes. This makes contemplate her life and existence, while she must decide what is going to be her next move.After watching Girl With Gun, I felt like I watched half a film. The good things that I took away from this film were the directing and the acting. Russ Emanuel’s direction was good. His direction of the action sequences was good for the most part. They were entertaining and helped made the film respectable, as the screenplay (which I’ll get to in a second) wasn’t that great. His direction of the actors was very good also. I liked how he was able to make his actors bring personality to their characters. It made the film entertaining.
Emily Haris’s screenplay is the film’s weakest point. It’s also, the main reason why this s
creenplay and film fails. This is short film that could have used an extra fifteen minutes or so. The main character that Haris creates is an interesting character but my main problem with this was that I wanted more about the character once the film ended. The screenplay also had an identiy crisis, as it felt like two films once we get the main character’s love life. The first film felt like an average superhero movie with some good action. The second felt like a relationship film gone wrong. Once the film got to into the main character’s love life, that’s where it went downhill, as it felt like those two films came crashing into one. She makes the main character’s boyfriend as another character that is just there to chew scenery because he never gets into any of the action scenes and we don’t know much about him. Also, I thought the film was left open-ended, where there was no resolution with the mafia plot line. I don’t know what he was trying to accomplish by that, but he should have been ended, instead of leaving it open-ended.
“It's always the same thing. It's when you start to become really afraid of death that you learn to appreciate life. Do you like life, sweetheart?”
-- Norman Stansfield from The Professional (Leon)
“People do it everyday, they talk to themselves... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it.”
-- Tyler Durden from Fight Club
“What the fuck have you done lately?”
-- Wesley Gibson from Wanted
Wanted is a highly stylized, over the top, gun play action film. Wanted takes Crank and Shoot ‘Em Up and throws them into a blender and says fuck you because I can do it a million times better. Wanted is Timur Bekmambetov’s answer to Michael Bay’s career and the results favor Mr. Bekmambetov. Wanted is the story about a slacker whose life changes while refilling a prescription. Wanted is about the arrival of Angelina Jolie as an action film valkyrie; Wanted is a chance to see Morgan Freeman in a decent role once again; Wanted wants to worship at the altar of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Johnny To while trying to top all of them at the same time; Wanted adores the style of The Matrix like no other film in recent memory; Wanted is a never-ending adrenaline ride of money shot after money shot of gun play madness, but Wanted makes very little sense when all is said and done. Wanted is the film that Tyler Durden and Vladimir Putin can watch together and enjoy for totally different reasons.
James McAvoy’s Wesley Gibson googles his name while at work. No results come up from his search. Wesley is a slave to the corporate machine, a slave to the endless banal grind that is his life. We meet our narrator after a screen title announces that over 1,000 years ago, a fraternity of assassins made up of “a clan of Weavers” who secretly decide matters of life and death for the world. We cut to present day Chicago, where Wesley is going through the daily grind. He is as self-pitying as they come. His girlfriend is screwing his best friend. His job at the insurance company is the epitome of dead end jobs. His boss, Janice, is an abusive, overweight woman who delights in tormenting him. He is a human doormat. Wesley is a 21st Century mix of Jack Lemmon’s C.C. Baxter from The Apartment, Ed Norton’s Narrator from Fight Club and Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man. Wesley cannot get a break. He takes anti-anxiety medication to help cope with all of this madness. He is fighting a hopeless war on every front. He has nothing in every sense of the word. He is in the ultimate rut; he is just plodding along with no possibilities. The American Dream is not dead to Wesley; he just does not have the drive to grab it. Those pills will dull your edge in no time. The rut comes to a smashing, exhilarating end when Wesley meets Fox (Angelina Jolie) at the drugstore one night to refill his prescriptions. Fox makes an unforgettable entrance as she has come to protect Wesley from the man who just killed his father. She tells him that his father was killed yesterday and that he is next. Fox has come to recruit Wesley into the fraternity of assassins.
Wanted is an ultra-slick, hyperactive and hedonistic joyride of an action film. To enjoy the film, I would suggest you leave reality behind as soon as you purchase your ticket. Reality does not seem to interest the film’s Russian director, Timur Bekmambetov. Bekmambetov directed the highly popular Night Watch and Day Watch films. Those films were highly influenced by the Wachowski Brothers’ The Matrix. He has a penchant for creating highly off the wall and silly action sequences. Wanted takes The Matrix and lots of Hong Kong action films to the furthest extremes. He is not interested in any obstacles to his vision-- walls are meant to be broken. The film is loosely based on a graphic novel by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones-- I have not read the graphic novel, but I have read that it differs from the film. The screenplay was written by Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan. Timur proved his visual flair with his Russian films. Night Watch and Day Watch are more style over substance than anything else-- I am looking forward to Twilight Watch for some reason. Wanted is his English language debut, quite an impressive debut it is. The film contains some of the best car chases and some of the best uses of cars in any action film recently. From the exciting car chase that follows the drugstore shootout to an explosive climatic train wreck sequence, Wanted delivers more hyper action than any other mainstream R-rated film I have seen recently. The film is loaded with enough visceral pleasures to make repeated viewings on DVD mandatory for many years to come. Wanted, like his previous films, is also style over substance, but he has so much more to work with here that it is unreal. I get a lot of shit for enjoying last year’s Clive Owen action vehicle, Shoot ‘Em Up. I know I am going to get a lot of shit for liking Wanted, but I really do not care anymore. If you did not like that film, you better stay away from Wanted; you can always go see The Love Guru instead.
Wanted could have easily been called the belated arrival of Ms. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. As Fox, Angelina Jolie may have found the perfect role. Before Mr. And Mrs. Smith, I would jokingly refer to her as the Anna Kournikova of movies. She is a beautiful woman, but her choice of roles has not been the best. I know she won a supporting actress Oscar for Girl, Interrupted, but her lead roles left a lot to be desired. Beyond Borders was a way to merge her United Nations role and Council on Foreign Relations role to her films. While she was the ideal Lara Croft, the Tomb Raider films never did anything with her and never did anything period. Her political activism and her role as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations has been her best work. She had a small, but memorable part in Sky Captain and The World Of Tomorrow, but it was not until she played Jane Smith in Mr. And Mrs. Smith that she had a role that was worthy of her talents. It helps that she had great chemistry with Brad Pitt. And the rest as they say is history. A Mighty Heart was a noble effort on her part; she turned in a good performance in the film, but it was more about her than Daniel Pearl. It was a true vanity piece. As Fox, Angelina Jolie is a cross between Dirty Harry and Trinity. She is the ultimate killing machine. Fox does remind me of Trinity from the Matrix films as Wesley reminds me of Neo. Fox is the perfect part for Jolie; it is the femme fatale that she has always wanted to play. (Still, how does she reconcile a character who embraces so much death and destruction when in real life she is global warrior for peace?) Fox is a member of a fraternity of assassins who takes orders from a mystical, giant loom in a textile factory in Chicago. The fraternity is led by a man named Sloan played by the always reliable Morgan Freeman in wise sage mode. Sloan is a cross between Yoda and Morpheus. It might be one of the meatier parts that Freeman has had in many years. The fraternity takes out people who are a threat to the world.
As Wesley, James McAvoy proves that there is in an action star waiting to break out of that slacker’s body. James McAvoy is a well rounded actor. He has done great work before in The Last King Of Scotland and especially in Atonement. He was very good in Bright Young Things, The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe and Starter For Ten. Wesley’s life changes forever when he meets Fox on that fateful night. He learns who is father was and that he has a destiny. Fox and her fellow assassins must break him down and build him up to be a great assassin like his father. Wesley goes through a grueling training regime that is a far cry from any Jedi training I have ever seen. He is beaten and cut up enough times to make this look like the worst and longest pledging period in the history of any fraternity. McAvoy plays Wesley like an unsympathetic whiner throughout most of the film. He is not as likable as Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker, but he does not display the blankness of Keanu Reeve’s Neo. In many ways, he reminds me of Ed Norton from Fight Club with a large dose of Chow Yun Fat double gun blazing goodness. Of all the assassins, it is Fox who must bring out Wesley’s special powers in order for him to avenge his Father’s death. The success of the film is partly due to the chemistry that McAvoy and Jolie have with each other onscreen. It is very much mentor/student relationship. They make a great pair. But make no mistake about it, this film is a glowing tribute to Angelina Jolie’s physique-- she makes no bones about her beauty and reminds us of it in every frame of the film. Angelina Jolie is the slickest weapon in the whole film-- a beautiful killing machine in the ultimate pulp wasteland. In Wanted, Angelina Jolie has finally embraced the myth, the hype and the object that is Angelina Jolie. She does not say much in the film and it works toward the film’s advantage.
I can honestly say this is the first film where Timur Bekmambetov finally finds his groove. In some ways, I think Wanted works a lot better than Night Watch and Day Watch. Both films have some great set pieces in them, but I could never get into them as a whole. Wanted makes no pretensions about what it is and what it wants to do. It is the R-Rated comic book film for people looking for a mean spirited break from the good natured PG-13 films of summer. Is Timur Bekmambetov the logical heir to such Russian masters as Sergei Eisenstein and Andrei Tarkovsky? Hell no!!! It is safe to say that he in no way resembles those masters. Bekamambetov worships at the shrine of John Woo and Ringo Lam and he is greatly influenced by their styles as well as well as the Wachowski Brothers Matrix films. He is a great admirer of David Fincher’s Fight Club. Fincher’s influence can be felt throughout the film-- especially the office scenes. Even though Wanted is an American film, Bekmambetov has made a film that Vladimir Putin would admire and even enjoy. He might have made it for Putin in the first place.
Part 1:“The Sixth Sense” (1999) ** out of ****
Part 2: “Unbreakable” (2000) **** out of ****
Part 3: “Signs” (2002) ***½ out of ****
Part 4: “The Village” (2004) *½ out of ****
The Shyamalan Experiment
Part 5
“Lady in the Water”
July 21, 2006
½ out of ****
Cast: Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jeffery Wright
“The other thing that you gotta look for is my own acting, which is worse… so bad… and I do this, like, girlish, like, girl scout scream, which is very awful.” – M. Night Shyamalan, on an extra feature on the “Signs” DVD
One of my favorite experiments put on film was Morgan Spurlock’s attempt at eating nothing but McDonald’s for thirty days. At the end of those thirty days, Spurlock had gained over twenty-four pounds, increased his blood pressure, and has a better chance of a heart failure than he did before. Earlier this year, comedian Doug Benson got high for thirty days straight. And I highly regret anything in my life, but the only thing that I regret doing with this experiment was not recording the entire FUCKING THING!
Okay, now I can take a movie like “The Sixth Sense.” It had great acting – I have nothing to say about that. If the twist was covered up much better, it would have been better received by me. “Unbreakable” is a fucking classic. I added that to my top thirty after watching it again. When I watched “Signs” again, I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. And as far as “The Village” goes… yeah, I won’t even begin to talk about that one.
I only have one more movie left, and I don’t think I can do this anymore.
Because after watching M. Night Shyamalan’s fifth film, “Lady in the Water,” I really don’t think that I’m doing this for my readers anymore. This is worse than anything that Eli Roth and a chainsaw can do. This is worse than waterboarding. This is worse than being put in a room with nothing but a toilet and a TV, playing nothing but “Hannah Montana.” “The Village” had a few redeeming qualities. “Lady in the Water” is fucking worthless.
Before the film actually starts, a voiceover done by no one other than Paul Giamatti tells us how retarded man has become and how we can’t listen. Ironically, M. Night Shyamalan casts Adrien Brody as a retard in “The Village” and he tries to tell us that WE can’t listen to the true art of his film? Yeah, fuck that shit. Anyway, Giamatti plays some guy named Cleveland, and no, he’s not fat, black, and awkward. This guy is just fat, white, and boring, as is with a lot of Shyamalan’s characters.
He runs a motel with a pool, and one day, he sees a narf named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) swimming in his pool. She has a message about the fate of the earth. Here at the motel are a colorful cast of characters. M. Night Shyamalan plays a wannabe writer. Cindy Cheung plays a young girl who knows a little bit about narfs. A guy played by Jeffery Wright can finish any crossword puzzle. Freddy Rodriguez plays a guy who can only work out with his right arm.
But nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can even compare to the character played by Bob Balaban.
Bob Balaban plays a film critic, who throughout the film irritates the shit out of the viewer by spotting numerous film clichés and reminding us where the film falls flat at. The film critic is not a work of Shyamalan, but it is based off of every single film critic that reviewed one of his films. More precisely, if you thought “The Sixth Sense” was overrated, thought “Unbreakable” was boring, watched “Signs” and felt no sympathy for the characters, and just despised the shit out of “The Village,” you were the inspiration for this annoying and very arrogant character.
That’s not even the best part of the film critic. See, you would think that since this was obviously inspired off of a few different film critics that M. Night Shyamalan would figure out his pacing issues and what works and what doesn’t work. Yeah, well I’m kind of guessing that when M. Night Shyamalan goes to sleep with his toy army helmet on his head he believes his own bullshit. Never mind the critics that criticize your work, but do whatever you want and let people hate you. That’s what George W. did, and that’s why we hate him.
So whenever this critic points out when the film gets the least bit boring, it actually does get the least bit boring. Before he gets killed, he believes the usual film bullshit. When a powerful person that is stronger than the hero tries to kill the hero, the hero will defeat the powerful one. You know what happens after he makes mention, right? And his death isn’t even the least bit impressive, and doesn’t do justice for the time that he’s been in the film.
Well, the critic is the only thing I can really say about the film, because the critic is the only thing that drives the film. “Harry Potter” is so successful is because we believe that we are in their world. The reason why “Lady in the Water” fails is because, otherwise the fact that it sucks, the audience can’t get used to being in this world. Shyamalan’s fans will probably respond back by saying that you are supposed to suspend your disbelief. How can you suspend your disbelief when you already can’t believe that you’re watching such a crappy movie? And you can’t get used to being in their world because there is nothing to picture but the world that you live in. I live right over the bridge from the place where this was shot at and I STILL can’t get into the movie.
Believe me, I would love to sit down and roast M. Night Shyamalan’s career like a pig hanging over a campfire, but this is one of those times when I’m actually begging for mercy. Something tells me that the last film of his will actually be the roughest of my travels. You can’t say that I’m not committed to my job as a reviewer, but you sure as hell can say that there is a time when you just have to stop what you’re doing, look yourself in the mirror, and ask why the hell you’re still doing something as painful as this.
The sixth and final part of my travels, "The Happening," will appear on the site in a few days. No idea when, but until then, there won’t be a UFC article until I’m finished watching all of these movies and have a week or two to heal.
“Wall-E”
2008
**** out of ****
Director: Andrew Stanton
Cast: Fred Willard, Jeff Garlin, Ben Burtt
Andrew Stanton’s last Pixar film, “Finding Nemo,” attracted everyone… but me. I hate that movie with a burning passion. It burns like the flames of hell and smells like the smell of Jennifer Aniston queefing up Vince Vaughn’s face (oh, and this will be the only place where you will read the word queef in a review for a child’s film). I hated that film back when it was released, and I hate it still now. The only difference between then and now is five years time and hairs on my ass.
But within these five years, Andrew Stanton pulled himself together; to not only create one of the best films of this year, but one of the best films of all-time. It kicks the shit out of “Ratatouille,” and that movie is a damn classic. I have to admit – even though I was greatly excited about “Wall-E,” I was ready for a failure. Of a three-part movie day, I decided to push “Wall-E” back to the last film. I realized after “Wall-E” ended that if I was to have seen that movie first, I probably wouldn’t have gone seen any of the other films that I saw today. I would have watched “Wall-E” two more times.
The story of “Wall-E” is a simple one at first glance, but in between it all, “Wall-E” is just as complicated as the process was to make it. The year is somewhere in the 2700s and every human has left Planet Earth and went onto a vacation on a spaceship called Axiom, thus decreasing productivity of every last bit of every single source that we had left. Actually, it really isn’t a vacation. Everyone is working for Buy N Large, which is similar to Wal-Mart.
The water soon begins to evaporate into the Earth until there is no more left, so that means all of the plants are dead. The only thing left on the Earth, aside from empty buildings, is a bunch of trash. While there were still humans left on the Earth, robots cleaned up the trash, until they all became defunct. Except for one… and that last robot on Earth is the main character of our story.
Wall-E, (Ben Burtt) short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class, wakes up everyday and repeats the same exact thing – he cleans up trash, finds bits and pieces that he finds interesting, and brings them back to his little shack, where “Hello Dolly!” is played 24/7 and tons of toys lie around. Unlike the other Wall-Es that came before him, the Wall-E we get to know has a personality, and by watching nothing but “Hello Dolly!,” all that he really looks for is love.
That comes one day when he is doing his usual duty and a spaceship drops another robot onto the ground. This robot that Wall-E meets is named Eve, and she came here in search for some type of life on Earth. When Wall-E shows her a plant he finds to try and impress her, Eve boards the spaceship again with the plant, after she finds what she was there to get. But Wall-E is tempted to make her his queen, and when he believes that she is in danger, he must go save Eve. He does so by holding onto the spaceship until it lands back on the Axiom.
Only if Wall-E knew that this discovery of a plant can bring an entire colony together…
The first forty minutes works because Andrew Stanton makes them work. Have no fear when I say that the first forty minutes is an easy comparison to the first half of last December’s “I Am Legend.” Instead of vampires and zombies replace them with trash and dust-storms. Our hero fears dust-storms because he doesn’t know what to do with them. He becomes so scared that he’ll lock himself in his little space and won’t come out until the next day. He’ll wake up and he will do the same thing every day, and he doesn’t realize that he could stop whenever he wants to, but something keeps Wall-E going. We’re never quite sure if it is the toys that he finds or the love that he longs for, but we can only assume that it’s both.
Whenever I read a review for “Wall-E,” I look at what the readers think. Most of the reviewers who reviewed “Wall-E” before it was released tend to overanalyze it. Yes, “Wall-E” is the type of film where you actually have to know what is going on in order to get it, but if you are going into the theater and just wants to see some robot loving, that’s all fine too. I will admit that the character of “Wall-E” is one of the most fascinating characters that Pixar has ever dreamt up. In one scene of the movie, I picked apart of all of Wall-E’s actual emotions, and I found at least fifteen emotions in the first sixty seconds of thinking.
But what requires more heavily thinking is how the Earth has changed since the last time humans have been on it. Two weeks ago, M. Night Shyamalan examined what would have happened if bees disappeared from the Earth. Andrew Stanton examines what happens if we all just up and left. Stanton creates a horrific atmosphere while creating “Wall-E.” You don’t want to see what will happen one day if we all up and leave from here. I very rarely feel bad for anybody, but Christ, you just have to feel bad for the next generation. They have to pay for our mistakes because we don’t care about the Earth anymore. We keep acting with this attitude and the world will be gone in another thirty years, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
It isn’t only on the Earth where you must analyze, but you must analyze the setting in space. When one generation came aboard the Axiom, they arrived as skinny and boney as every. Now that the characters live in a place ruled by a Buy N Large on every corner, they replace walking with chairs that move around themselves, replace healthy foods with fat and unhealthy shakes that pack just as much calories as a meal does, and don’t work any longer. Instead of working, getting exercise, and eating healthy, we now have become a fat and obese society where we no longer have to worry about having a bad day.
Hey, it’s what you all wish for right?
Some wouldn’t believe me when I say that the romantic subplot is just another way to continue the story. It almost acts like a MacGuffin, but it doesn’t use any of the strengths that a MacGuffin does. Rather than drive the story, the romantic subplot is just another way to drop our characters off at situations where they can try and be the usual Pixar hero. And though it might sound like a bad thing, you must know that the romantic scenes work better than any of the other scenes in the film. By the time the movie is over, you don’t want to leave. You want to spend more time with the two lovers. “Wall-E” isn’t only the best science-fiction film since “E.T.,” but is the single best romantic film since “Casablanca.” The last time that we saw such a great romantic film was sixty-six years ago.
The scenes on the ship aren’t any less but breathtaking. I’m sure some people will say that it is the slow point of the film, but I beg to differ. I’m sure you probably had heard that there is very little dialogue as far as “Wall-E” goes, and within the first forty minutes, there are only a few lines of dialogue. But the second half is loaded with a bit more dialogue. It can easily be called Pixar’s silent movie, but if you want to call it that then you will have to call “2001: A Space Odyssey” Kubrick’s very own silent movie. This movie owes a lot to “2001.” Not only is the villain much like the villain from “2001,” but the movie wouldn’t be without the theme song from “2001.”
I can go on and on about “Wall-E,” but I think I’ve said enough. Without trying to spoil too much of the final act, I really want my readers to go into the movie hoping the best. Some will be on the fence, saying that there is too little dialogue and too much visual. You probably said the same exact thing about Charlie Chaplin movies. I won’t be afraid to admit it when I say that “Wall-E” is excellent, but the next step up from calling it my favorite movie of 2008 is by saying that it is my favorite film of all-time.
Oh fuck it, I’m buying myself a ticket to see it again tomorrow.
“Roman Polanski's here. Get him!”
-Steve Martin at the 75th Annual Academy Awards. That same year, Polanski won the Best Director Oscar for “The Pianist.”
We all know this story. Of how Roman was put on trial for unlawful sexual conduct with a 13-year old girl, and of him fleeing America to avoid sentencing. Since that time, he has never come back to the United States, and he would be arrested if he does. This scandal has remained a big shadow on Polanski’s career even as he went on to direct many other movies like “Death and the Maiden” and “The Pianist” among others. Making a documentary about this subject would seem pointless because we all know how it ends. But there turns out more to this story than many people realize. After watching this documentary which never excuses Roman for what he did, you won’t be able to blame him for fleeing America.
“Roman Polanski – Wanted and Desired” is a fascinating documentary, and a necessary one. It deals with the trial of a celebrity accused of a serious crime, and of the media circus that followed it to the end. Since then, we have had dozens of other celebrity cases, the biggest being the O.J. Simpson Trial from the 90’s. Even back in the 70’s, celebrity cases were a thing to be followed every second, and to be constantly overexposed to sell hundreds of newspapers. The documentary was directed by Marina Zenovich, and she successfully maneuvers through the complex politics of this infamous case, and ends up uncovering a misuse of the judicial system that ended up making Polanski something of a victim.
The biggest character of this film is Roman of course, and while he is never interviewed on film (understandably), the footage from all those years ago observes him at different parts in his life. Before and after this trial, Polanski is seen as a tragic figure whose talent for directing is never in doubt. We learn that his mother was killed during the Holocaust, and we see his utter devastation when he learns of Sharon Tate’s (his wife at the time) death. The footage of Roman with Sharon, who was ever so beautiful, is very sad to witness as we know what will eventually happen. We get to understand him through his experiences, and through the movies he makes. The theme of the corruption of innocence over water in his movies is especially eerie considering how Polanski was shooting this 13 year old girl naked in the Jacuzzi in the backyard of Jack Nicholson’s home (he was not there at the time).
The documentary does make you feel bad for Polanski, even while it never excuses him for the crime he pleads guilty to. Through watching this, you can kind of see why he ended up doing what he did, but it never hides away from the wrong that he did. Still, the scenes of Polanski coming back after finding out about the death of his wife Sharon are devastating to witness. Even worse is the way the press treats his wife and Roman after her murder. The press paints Ms. Tate as an unofficial member of the Charles Manson cult, and that she and Roman were basically having orgies at all the parties they held. So, we once again how the media distorts the truth, and people are not open-minded enough to see past it.
When we get into the specifics of the trial, we get introduced to the other big character of this piece who has since passed away: Judge Rittenband. The way he is described here, he comes across as the same person that Polanski became after Sharon’s death; a womanizer and a constant partier. Rittenbrand is also portrayed as a media hungry guy who clearly relished the attention that this scandalous trial brought. This media attention however proved to be the Judge’s undoing as he ended up making decisions that clearly went against what the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense had agreed upon with him. The fact that there was such a loss of trust between the lawyers and the judge makes it all the more understandable as to why Polanski fled America and has never been back since.
Another big character in this documentary is the victim herself, Samantha Geimer. I remember watching her on Larry King around the same time that Polanski’s “The Pianist” received several Oscar nominations including Best Picture. She publicly forgave the director and proclaimed that she was “so over” what happened to her years ago. Watching her now and being so forthcoming about what happened, you have to admire her strength of character and her persistence in not letting this event define who she is as a person to herself or those closest to her. You do feel sorry for her in that people still bug her about this case so long after it happened. It’s clear that she participated in this documentary to put to rest what happened, and to give a reason for people to leave her alone for good. It almost makes you feel like Chris Crocker who defended Brittany Spears and yelled out:
“LEAVE HER ALONE!!!”
The documentary is excellent in getting at those specifics of the trial, and of the bungling of the case by a Judge who clearly became more obsessed with how he would come out of this. With a celebrity being charged, he clearly did not want to be responsible if Polanski was hurt or killed while in his 90 day stay under psychiatric study. Special consideration appeared to be unavoidable, and while he should have been treated like anyone else in that same situation, he wasn’t any other person.
“Roman Polanski – Wanted and Desired” walks a very delicate line between sympathizing with Polanski over what has happened in his life, and criticizing him for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor which he did plead guilty to. Polanski did serve some time (albeit only 42 days at Chino), but that was not enough in the eyes of many. At times, the movie threatens to be more biased towards defending Polanski, and Polanski did serve time as directed by the DA’s office, but it never does forget what Roman had done. But at the same time, if Samantha Geimer is willing to forgive Roman for what he did, shouldn’t that be the end of it? This case became so convoluted that there was no way that anyone could have been satisfied by the outcome.
Today, Roman lives in Paris where is loved by the people, and he has been married for several years and has two kids. Samantha Geimer has been married for several years as well, and has a couple of kids. Everyone involved in this case has moved on with their lives, yet this case hangs over everyone involved like a dark shadow that will hover over them forever.
Marina Zenovich made an important documentary that brings to light the facts of the trial that have been lost to many, and to those who have only heard about it. What could have been an average documentary about a seemingly perverted filmmaker is really about celebrities and trials, and of how this one was messed up by a judge who got caught up in the limelight. It is not perfect, and it does seem a little imbalanced as the scales tip a little too much to one side. But it is still very good, and a must see for fans of the director and of those interested in the workings of the law. This was a documentary that I think needed to be made because the past is not easily remembered, and we need to keep learning from it in order to keep from repeating it.
***1/2 out of ****
Honeydripper
Year: 2007
Director: John Sayles
Stars: Danny Glover, Charles S. Dutton, Lisa Gay Hamilton
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Studio: Screen Media Films
Running Time: 126 Mins
Review Rating: 5 Stars
Official Website: http://www.honeydripper-movie.com/
Even though, this film came out very late year, as it only played in two cities, I consider this to be one of the best films that I’ve seen this year, so far.
Honeydripper is a very entertaining and fascinating film. Writer/Director John Sayles does it again with this film. His direction of this film was great. Sayles does a great job capturing southern life in the 1950’s, as he gets a sense to what that time period was like. He does that by making sure that the sets that were used in the film resembled that time period. The sets are definitely an important thing in these period pieces, because if they don’t resemble it, then the setting of the film doesn’t work and so does the film. Another thing that Sayles made sure to get right was the music for that period. The music in the film was one of the film’s highlights. I liked how Sayles makes this a major point in the film, because the music here was very effective. He does that by hiring actual musician turned actor Gary Clark jr. Clark really does a good job brings the music to life, especially the number near the end of the film, which I won’t spoil.
The acting is this film was excellent. This film is the best performance from Danny Glover since the Lethal Weapon films. He brings a lot of dramatic charisma to the role, as the owner of the Honeydripper club, who haunted about the things that he did in the past. There are also some very good supporting performances from Stacy Keach as the sheriff, Charles S. Dutton, as Glover’s best friend and newcomer Gary Clark Jr.
Sayles’s screenplay was also very good. One of the things that he does well here was developing the story and its subplots. What makes a story and it subplots very good was the fact that the film had very interesting characters. One of the characters that I liked in the film was the blind guitar player. Sayles does a great job making the character, this mysterious mythical character that appears when thing look down for both Clark Jr. and Glover’s characters. He puts that character into the story because he brings the sort of wisdom that helps those characters stay on a path where they lives are starting to go downhill. Another thing that Sayles does well with this screenplay is to explore the racial tensions that happened during this time period. He uses that in one of the subplots, because he needed to in order to create that time period and sadly there was no way to avoid it.
Honeydripper is truly a memorable film with its great performance and it’s great music.
Part 1: “The Sixth Sense” (1999) ** out of ****
Part 2: “Unbreakable” (2000) **** out of ****
Part 3: “Signs” (2002) ***½ out of ****
The Shyamalan Experiment
Part 4
“The Village”
July 30, 2004
*½ out of ****
Cast: Bryce Dallas Howard, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody
Well it is suddenly getting harder. “The Sixth Sense” isn’t very good, but “Unbreakable” is a freaking classic and “Signs” is probably one of the best alien films of all-time. After “Signs,” shit has been going downhill. Everyone has said that “The Village” is the film that displays M. Night Shyamalan’s true suckiness, but I didn’t want to believe it. Out of the six films, not including “The Happening,” this was the first Shyamalan film that I haven’t seen prior to doing this little harmful experiment of mine, so I went into this film with no thought other than being astonished that Adrien Brody would be cast in a Shyamalan movie.
I don’t even have a joke for that. Shyamalan cast Brody as a retard. Shows what happens when you pick a shitty script.
“The Village” is the worst film that M. Night Shyamalan has made. It’s stupid, retarded, and boring. You can’t even understand half of the story while it is going on. It’s poorly acted and just tiring. I understand that this movie will never be as respected as “The Sixth Sense,” but when it is coming from someone who doesn’t respect “The Sixth Sense” worth of dick, you would think that M. Night Shyamalan would make a decent film, like “Signs” and “Unbreakable.” Yeah, right.
The movie takes place in present time in a village where everyone thinks that they live in the 1850s. Yes, I just spoiled the ending. But it’s not even a twist. Shyamalan may think it is, but the movie goes without a twist. To even call it a twist ending is giving a bad name to a twist ending, and that includes “The Sixth Sense.” Anyway, a guy played by Joaquin Phoenix asks to go through the forbidden woods in the village to search for medicine. In this village, there are a bunch of old hags, a blind lady, (Bryce Dallas Howard) and a retarded Adrien Brody.
May I add that in these forbidden woods hides a monster, a monster that can tear this village apart, not by being vicious, but by bringing out the true secret of the village. Wanna know the secret? There is no secret. Well, between the characters there are, but not with the audience. Think about it for a second – if there is a monster that lurks around a small village, and if a guy comes out of nowhere with modern day clothes, wouldn’t you believe that something was up with the village’s time-period? And who in the hell would want to live in the 1850s? I’d rather be Amish instead of being around those fucks.
And tell me, why in the hell would you send out a blind girl, who is your OWN DAUGHTER, to go get medicine, while you clearly know that there is a monster and your daughter is blinder than Helen Keller. If you think that your daughter can climb over the wall to get your village medicine while being blind, you are just about as dumb as the filmmaker. It’s common sense. The funniest part about it is that they don’t want anyone to know that there is another world that is more high-tech than the one that they are living in outside of their gates, so they send the blind girl so she can’t spoil anything. That’s kind of like sending a dumbass but very biased Shyamalan fan to review his film. The fan knows that if it will surprise him, he thinks that it will surprise everyone else too.
I’m sorry, but if you think that sending a blind lady into the woods and have her pick her way out is a good idea, you should be hung and have your carcass fed to wild wolves.
It’s quite obvious that “The Village” was inspired by many things, but not many great things. I know many people are quite fond of “The Wicker Man,” but I absolutely hated that movie. I even think that the remake starring Nicolas “Fu Manchu” Cage is much better than the original, and I hate that one too. The quite obvious comparison between the two is the conspiracies that the two groups of villagers have of the village that they live in. The group in “The Village” thinks that by not letting everyone know that there is a world outside, it would make their world so much better. The group in “The Wicker Man” thinks that by sacrificing some character, it will help the harvest. I didn’t like it any more in “The Wicker Man” than I did with “The Village.” Now that I think about it, I hate it even more.
Nothing makes me mad more than the lack of acting by these actors. Yes, sure they don’t have much to work with, especially with a shitty script with shitty dialogue and a shitty plot, but they don’t do much to help. You know something is wrong when Adrien Brody, an Academy Award winning actor, is playing a retard. William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver don’t do much to help this film either. Even Joaquin Phoenix is unimpressive. The only one that I can give kudos to is Bryce Dallas Howard. You would think that with a shitty role like this that it would require shitty acting. Well you’re wrong, because she gives the performance of her life in this role.
If you noticed that in the first part of the Shyamalan Experiment, I explained how boring “The Sixth Sense” was. You shouldn’t be surprised that I was bored while watching this too. In some instances, I became so bored that I forgot that I was watching a movie. At times, I didn’t have a single clue what was going on, and this was while I was paying attention to what was going on. But when I compared this movie to “The Sixth Sense,” I saw just how much more I respected that movie. Even though it was boring and uneventful, it had the potential to be great. The twist was great, but if it wasn’t so clear for the beginning of the movie, it would definitely be his best film.
But with “The Village,” there is no twist. There is no plot. It is a bunch of ideas that Shyamalan had while sleeping. He put them together into one big arbitrary script and out came one of his worst ideas ever. If you can say that you watched this movie without laughing, then your face is too tight. It is so funny that it definitely kicks the shit out of “The Love Guru” twice, and that is supposed to be a comedy.
I only have two films left in my Experiment, and already I’m getting Shyamalan fatigue. Imagine how miserable I am, add it by two, and then you will already get of what I think about “The Happening.” Shyamalan owes me, and everyone else, his paychecks for his last few movies after this project. There isn’t a single great thing about this movie, other than the score by the masterful James Newton Howard, who was nominated for an Oscar for his work. Still, I got a couple more days left. If I can get through this, you all promise to buy me a cold beer?
Part 5, "Lady in the Water," will be coming Thursday night. Until then, go watch "In Bruges," "Definitely, Maybe," and "Charlie Bartlett," which are all on DVD this week.
Part 1: “The Sixth Sense” (1999) ** out of ****
Part 2: “Unbreakable” (2000) **** out of ****
The Shyamalan Experiment
Part 3
“Signs”
August 2, 2002
***½ out of ****
Cast: Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin
Part one of my experiment was a part that I found clearly overrated. Part two of my experiment was a part that I found clearly underrated. Part three of my experiment, “Signs,” has been called both.
I watched “Signs” for the first time five summers ago. I woke up at around 4 in the morning and couldn’t fall back to sleep, so I decided to pop in two movies in the DVD player that I rented the night before – “Signs” and “Donnie Darko.” I watched “Donnie Darko” first, and at that time, I found it stupid and boring (one will find it funny that now it is one of my favorite movies ever). After that, I put “Signs” in my DVD player. I found it stupid, awkward, and just not scary.
And I have seen my fare share of bad-acting. The last UFC I did was for “The Hottie and the Nottie” and not even the beauty of Paris Hilton could have saved that movie. But the biggest problem with “Signs” was that this was only a one-man movie. With only four actors that actually take most of the space up, three of them were nominated for Oscars, and the only one that was worth a damn in this movie was Mel Gibson. Not even Joaquin Phoenix (who stars in part four of my travels) could save this movie. Basically, I wouldn’t like this again a single bit.
But as it turns out, when I revisited “Signs” for my experiment, a lot changed on me. Sure, it is still a one-man movie, but it is even better the second time around. I’ve come to notice about Shyamalan three movies in that he relies on human emotions more than scares, and “Signs” has the most emotions out of all of his films. It deals with thoughts of religion, death, beliefs, faith, and family. The reason why I found “Signs” so boring was I expected a horrifying movie that dealt with jumps and scares. Truth is, “Signs” is still a very scary movie, but one that doesn’t have to deal with jumps and scares. It pushes you to the limit and asks the questions– just how far can one go to protect their family, if it is something that they don’t believe in?
Reverend Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) has lost all faith in his religion after the death of his wife. (Patricia Kalember) He lives in a house in Bucks County (about fifty miles from where I live) with his two children (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) and his younger brother Merrill. (Joaquin Phoenix) On one random day, he wakes up to find his children in disbelief when they find out that there are circles where crops once stood.
Before this, Graham hasn’t had a single good conversation with his kids or his brother. His son doesn’t even like him, he is always complaining to his daughter about how she leaves half-full/half-empty water glasses around the house, and he doesn’t even want to associate with his brother half of the time. Mostly, their house has been filled with awkwardness and a lot of television watching.
But this event brings them all together, because they all begin to realize that it isn’t just there in Bucks County where the crop circles are appearing at. Oh hell no, they are appearing all over the place. So with the help of a baby monitor, a few books, and some old news clips, they all form the opinions that this is the works of aliens… except for Graham. He doesn’t know what to believe anymore, but throughout the movie he tries to reconcile with his family. When it comes to the point where he will have to reconcile and help save them, can he do it?
Alfred Hitchcock was the master of suspense. Most people consider his best film to be either “Vertigo” or “Rear Window,” but I consider his best film (and the best film ever) to be “Psycho.” In the film, Alfred Hitchcock sets up the main character to steal an envelope filled of money and it brings her all the way to the Bates Motel, where she will later be murdered. Alfred Hitchcock set this entire event all up into motion to finish the rest of the movie. It hasn’t become a case as to who stole the money, but who murdered the main character. In the movie business, this is called a MacGuffin, a plot device used to drive the story and the emotions or intentions of the characters, which are later forgotten by the end of the film.
The reason I bring the MacGuffin up is because M. Night Shyamalan relies on the apparent alien attacks to drive the movie, but the alien attacks aren’t so much as to show fear and terror, but rather to show just how Gibson has to bring the family together. He doesn’t want the aliens to be the reason why we are so scared of the outcome. He uses this alien attack to bring all of these characters closer to each other. By the end of the film, aliens are forgotten about and we just care about this family spending their possible final moments together.
A scene shows Joaquin Phoenix’s character watching the TV and seeing a clip of a bunch of Brazilian kids seeing an alien walk in the backyard during a birthday party. Yes, this scene is definitely scary, and it sure as hell scared the shit out of me after I saw it, but I didn’t look at it the same way the audiences did. I didn’t care about the Brazilian kids. I cared about the Hess family. If you replaced the Brazilian kids with the Hess family, imagine the true horror of the film. And this was when they were still mad at each other.
And I’m sure that no one forgets the true reason why everyone watches these M. Night Shyamalan movies – their twists. You would think that with a film like “Signs” that there would be a great twist. Truth is, there really isn’t one. If there was a twist, it would have surely ruined the film. The only problem with the film that I had was the ending however. It was a let-go, but after being in the front seat of a ride like that, what else could you want other than a happy ending for these characters?
The acting didn’t bother me the second time around. Mel Gibson is still brilliant and Joaquin Phoenix engaged me in many of his scenes. The score was frightening, as it is with Shyamalan’s previous two films. If we cut out the last ten minutes of this film, “Signs” would probably be one of my favorite movies of all-time, needless to say my favorite film of his.
I'll probably have Part 4, "The Village," up later tonight. It's basically half-finished. Just don't expect nothing good.
“The Sixth Sense” (1999) ** out of ****
The Shyamalan Experiment
Part 2
“Unbreakable”
November 22, 2000
**** out of ****
Cast: Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Wright Penn
I really enjoyed some of the positive feedback on my “Sixth Sense” review. I posted it on Digg and realized that at least fifty people clicked on it to read it. Some of them, who didn’t comment on my actual post, sent e-mails to my FilmArcade e-mail address and praised me. One of them even offered me Shyamalan’s address so I can send a letter to him. I declined because, well, I don’t have the money for stamps. I don’t even have money for his one movie starring Rosie O’Donnell, let alone for stamps. And they cost less (not much less, you can probably find that movie in a two dollar bin).
But one comment from a guy who clicked on my article sent an e-mail to me. In a nice and very understanding way, he told me about how wrong I was about the film. He even brought up a point that since I didn’t like the twist, I didn’t like the movie. I love constructive criticism when it comes to my reviews, and even Fred the Wolf dissed “The Blair Witch Project” in the one comment for my review, and this guy did it in a perfect way. Not the least bit ignorant and very understanding. I like that.
I just guess that no one really “got” my opinion. I don’t hate “The Sixth Sense” because of the twist. First off, I don’t hate “The Sixth Sense.” I hate “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” but not “The Sixth Sense.” And secondly, I don’t hate the twist. Actually, if Shyamalan didn’t make it so clearly obvious within the first thirty minutes, it would have been a perfect end to the movie. I don’t like the movie because it was boring and just not scary. It’s overly predictable and unless if you wear a helmet on your way to work as you drive in your car, you could figure that out.
But his film after that, “Unbreakable,” is much different than “The Sixth Sense” was. Whereas “The Sixth Sense” is boring and very predictable, “Unbreakable” never loses speed and the twist at the end is very surprising. I’m sure that everyone, including me, will be comparing the two films together, with “The Sixth Sense” probably winning most battles, but there isn’t a doubt in my mind that “Unbreakable” is Shyamalan’s masterpiece, and probably the second best comic book film ever (behind my favorite film of all time).
And not only was “Unbreakable” great, but it showed a different kind of side of M. Night Shyamalan. It shows the geeky and true master of suspense. He doesn’t beat Alfred Hitchcock, but when you compare “Unbreakable” to that film starring Rosie, you got a guy who has improved over the years. Shyamalan clearly shows how much he loves comic books. He throws in references here and there, gives props to some of his favorite heroes and villains, and ends the film in a perfect way. We can cheer for the hero, but even the villain is just part of the hero’s discovery.
From the day that Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) emerged from the womb, he came out with broken bones. He was born with Type I osteogenesis imperfecta, a disease where bones break easily. During school, kids tormented him and called him Mr. Glass. There was only one thing that kept him from going insane – comic books. He later started to believe that if he is as weak as he is, there is someone who is unbreakable and invincible like the people that he reads about.
On the other end is David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a security guard at a football stadium that was never able to live the life of a football star due to a car crash. He lives with his wife Aubrey (Robin Wright Penn) and his son Joseph. (Spencer Trent Clark) After a massive train-wreck that killed one-hundred and thirty-one people, David came out as the only survivor. Elijah meets David one day and tells him that he believes that David is invincible, that he is more than just human. Joseph believes it also, and so David and him go downstairs into the basement, and in probably one of the greatest scenes ever in a superhero film, David begins to lift weights. First he lifted 250, then 270, and then 350. Maybe he is a superhero after all.
You could have sworn that I just gave you the twist to this film but all I have left to say is expect nothing of the sorts. What could have been a superhero origin movie where the superhero already knows that he has powers and fight against a villain, M. Night Shyamalan decides to take the entire movie into the origin of the superhero. He decides to let Willis get used to his super powers. Other than lifting the weights, there is a scene where Bruce Willis searches a drug dealer (played by Shyamalan, no less) and he tries to get used to his superpowers. This scene is so perfect that it begs the question whether or not it is Shyamalan trying to fuck with the viewer or Willis.
I can’t say that the film is flawless. The reason why I took off half of a star when I reviewed “Iron Man” was because it didn’t have a great villain. Usually, the rule of a superhero origin film will end with the hero killing the villain, or bringing him to justice. The film never has a clear villain, but you can’t complain. This is probably the most in-depth superhero movie that I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t need a villain as long as there is a conflict for the superhero. The conflict for this film is (other than Willis trying to get use to his powers) who Willis should decide is right – his son, who believes that Elijah is right, or his wife, who believes that he is nuts. It wasn't a problem with me, but I'm sure someone will have their panties in a bunch over it.
The other best part about the film is the acting. Bruce Willis is perfect as a superhero. When he is no longer the dead person, he is the person who will never die. Samuel L. Jackson is awesome in his role. He’s perfectly believable. I’ve seen people like his character before, but I think Sam plays them better than they do. Those final moments create the real intensity between the two. And just so I don’t get another e-mail in my box, I actually LOVE the twist ending.
My only problem is that “Unbreakable” is too short. According to Shyamalan, he wrote one very long script that dealt with the origins and a few villains. Instead of including the villains, he decided to focus on just the origin of the superhero, which he thought was the most interesting part of the script. I don’t think that I’m alone when I ask for a sequel for this film. Can M. Night Shyamalan possibly start one of the greatest superhero franchises ever?
If all of his films were like “Unbreakable,” my job would be easy.
Due to the unavailability of "Signs," I'll have to skip it for now and go to his next film - "The Village." That one will be posted probably Monday night.
UPDATE: I JUST received a copy of "Signs" from my video-store, so I'll do that one first. It will be posted as soon as I watch it.
Summer School
Year: 2006
Directors: Ben Trandem, Lance Hendrickson, Steven Rhoden, Troy McCall, and Mike P. Nelson
Stars: Simon Wallace, Amy Cocchiarella, Tony Czech
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Studio: Random Creatureface Films
Running Time: 98 Mins
Review Rating: 5 Stars
Official Website: http://www.randomcreatureface.com/summerschool
Summer School is about a kid named Charlie, who runs a website devoted to movie reviews of some of the most macabre films out there in the horror genre. Well one night, he decides to have a movie marathon to catch up on his reviews. The ne
