Post A Movie Review Of Your Own
80 Comments Published by Site Editor on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 at 9:44 AM.
Have thoughts and opinions about a movie that you would like to share? Post it here at AmateurMovieReviews.com.
How, you ask?
Simply click on "post a comment" at the bottom of this article, then follow the instructions to post your comments. Enter your entire review. We'll take a look at it to make sure it is suitable, then we'll copy the article to the site itself, which will put it on our front page, and also give the review its own page.
Make sure and give yourself credit, including mentioning the url of your web page.
Hi, I could not find any link to your contact details so I hope i did the right thing posting my query here. How do I apply for a writing position in any of your blogs and what are the terms? I am a freelancer.Thanks My email address is penpushertoo@hotmail.com
Preston Nicholson
Award Avenue
http://awardavenue.blogspot.com
For Your Consideration is just the type of movie that most people in the industry should love. It pokes fun at a practice that, for the most part, is seen as a pathetic attempt to jockey for that pat on the back that you may, or may not deserve. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that the man at the helm, Christopher Guest, has a history of producing great comedy, with previous successes from Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and A Mighty Wind.
For Your Consideration breaks away from the usual patented Guest-brand of filmmaking, as the story is told in real-time format, as opposed to the “mock-umentary” style we’ve grown to love from his previous ventures. The film tells the story of the making of Home for Purim, a hammy film about a Jewish family seeking to re-congregate during war-time for a nice Purim dinner. However, when a spy on the set leaks the word to the Internet blogosphere that the film could be Oscar worthy, it makes the cast excited, and scared, at the same time. Marilyn Hack, the matriarch of Purim (played by Catherine O‘Hara), becomes the first cast-member to get the Oscar buzz. This buzz brings forth feelings of jealousy amongst the other cast, until they, one by one, start getting singled out as well. What ensues is a few months of pre-nomination morning prep, including talk shows, makeovers, production changes, and award prognosticators fawning over the film and its stars. This review won’t reveal what ultimately happens, but the ending seems ultimately appropriate.
A positive aspect of this film is definitely Catherine O’Hara. Her portrayal as Marilyn Hack is heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. As a conflicted actress who doesn’t know how to act regarding this possible surge in her career, O’Hara highlights Marilyn’s eccentricities and , by the end of the film, you are definitely rooting for her. The major laughs from the film come from her. I would wholly support an Oscar nomination for this performance.
O’Hara’s performance is almost the only thing about this film that is laugh out loud worthy. Many other aspects of the film felt empty, or like something was missing. An example is Jennifer Coolidge. Coolidge plays Whitney Taylor Brown, a producer who might not even know what the word “producer” means. I have always been a fan of Coolidge, and I generally enjoy her here, but her character felt very underdeveloped. Guest has utilized Coolidge’s comedic genius in the past, so the fact that she was a little more subdued in For Your Consideration was very surprising. The same goes for the majority of the rest of the cast. Nothing in particular stands out about the rest (when in past Guest films these stars have done remarkable things), except I must admit I chuckled a few times at Jane Lynch’s portrayal of an Access Hollywood-esque “reporter.”
Overall, the film kept me engaged, I think mainly because of my interest in the subject matter and not so much due to the quality of the film. It's not inherently a bad film by any means, but it doesn't meet expectations of what it could have been. For the hardcore Christopher Guest fans, I would say definitely watch it, but don't make it the last film you watch in a Christopher Guest film marathon.
Grade: B-
Casino Royale - $9
James Bond is back and better than he's been for a long time. Actually in Casino Royale James Bond is just beginning. The 21st Bond film takes us back to the beginning and lets us watch James Bond become OO7 and evolve into the man we've watched 20 other times.
Daniel Craig is the new Bond and I, like many others, was skeptical when I heard he had to learn to drive standard and had never held a gun before this movie. Craig proved me and all of his critics wrong with the best Bond performance since the great Scot himself. Craig plays Bond with the usual sophisticated confidence bordering on arrogance; what he also accomplishes is the tough side of Bond that was less than convincing in some of the past actors who played the fictional legend.
Casino Royale is a great action movie and a great Bond movie. As cliche as it may sound, I was literally on the edge of my seat during some of it. One scene in particular, where Bond chases a bomber through a high rise under construction, could be the best chase scene I've ever witnessed.
The movie centers around a classic Bond villian with a physical disfiguration. He is an understated villian named Le Chiffre who is not trying to take over the world but rather he is a financier of terrorists. Le Chiffre needs to make millions of dollars back to save his life and he plans to do this by winning a big-pot poker game at the Casino Royale. Bond's plan is to break Le Chiffre for good at the gambling table, and the $10 million buy-in is financed by the British Treasurey and delivered by Vesper Lynd who is the anti-Bond-girl in every way.
The only part of this movie I thought could have been better was the love story between Bond and Lynd, we see the sensitive side of Bond and we also see the context behind his womanizing ways and why this sensitive side is never to be seen again. I acknowledge that this part of Casino Royale was necessary for the plot but Craig was slightly less convincing as the romantic lead man.
Overall this is one of the best Bond movies I've ever seen and certainly the best action movie produced in years. I highly recommend seeing Casino Royale, especially if you are a Bond fan. The gag and gadget centered themes of the past few Bond movies are stripped away and the audience is left with a simplified movie that centers on the characters, low-tech real action, and a newly invigerated Bond character. I'm looking forward to #22.
I put this movie on my 'Watch It' list and give it a value of $9.
by: David Russell-Coutts
http://watchitmovies.blogspot.com/
I got your email re: my Casino Royale review. I'm glad you liked it. I'd love to be a contributor on your site and have you link to mine. I linked your site on mine: http://watchitmovies.blogspot.com/
Here's another review for you to consider.
Fearless - $7
Fearless is the true story Huo Yuanjia, or at the very least it is the telling of his legend. Yuanjia was an early 20th century Chinese martial arts master who is credited with uniting China and bringing it respectability in a time when China was short of both.
Yuanjia is kept from learning martial arts as a young boy by his Father but he trains in secret. As a young man he becomes skilled and arrogant and after defeating all challengers he is named the local champion fighter.
Yuanjia takes to drinking and partying and due to events that are partly his fault, a serious tragedy strikes his family. Devastated, he leaves his home town and disappears to the Chinese countryside, living as a simple farmer. Here he learns the value of hard work, humility and the respect of human life and returns to his hometown years later. What he finds is not the town he left; the people are poor and foreigners are controlling the economy. The Chinese people are belittled here and all over their country by foreigners. Eventually Yuanjia answers a challenge to take on fighters in different styles from all over the world to disprove the reputation of the Chinese as the "weak men of the east."
I went in to this movie with low expectations and truly enjoyed it. I don't typically enjoy martial arts movies that have little more than choreagraphed fighting in them. This movie provided more than martial arts though as it goes through the maturing and learning stages of Yuanjia after his family tragedy.
Jet Li plays Yuanjia and though his acting is not what has made him famous, he does an affective and convincing job in Fearless.
The fights in this movie are impressive and though I am thankful that they are not all there was to it, they are choreographed well and are a huge part of why I enjoyed this movie. The cinematography was surprisingly impressive as well, clearly the movie maker took great pains to make this movie about more than just martial arts.
This movie will not blow you away but as I said it was a pleasant surprise and I enjoyed it.
I put Fearless on my 'Watch It' list and give it a value of $7.
Here's a review for 'Fast Food Nation'.
My movie review blog has loads more: http://paddycmoviereviews.blogspot.com
The verdict: Great cast, not so great a script. A ‘Fast Food’ version of the book.
The rating: 6/10
The Book-to-movie adaptation is a unique type of media experience for the audience member. There is a certain idiosyncratic familiarity that can be enjoyed when reading a book over the course of twenty hours or so, allowing the reader to develop an intimate knowledge of characters, situations and plot developments. This type of experience has traditionally been difficult to replicate in a two hour movie. However, translations from printed page to silver screen have had no shortage of successes in the past, and show no sign of letting up in the future. Think the ‘Lord of The Rings’ trilogy of course, but also a long list including, among many others ‘The Shining’, ‘Schindler’s List’, and, um, ‘The DaVinci Code’. (Hmm… only because it made a shed-load of cash, I’ll allow that last one – Ed).
However, this type of movie adaptation can trigger visceral reactions from fans of the book. A classic example of this was the screen version of ‘American Psycho’, which made an enjoyable dark comedy experience out of a book considered by many to be repulsive at worst, and almost entirely unfilmable at best. The movie ended up more of a companion piece to the book, providing a deeper understanding of the main character’s story, and also produced a fantastic performance from Christian Bale.
'Fast Food Nation' is a curious type of book-to-movie adaptation, and one that most likely would fall into this companion piece category. For the uninitiated, Eric Schlosser's book was a didactic, well-researched account of all that is wrong with the American fast food industry, establishing links between the burger joint production line, and various aspects of the cultural fabric of the United States. From high-powered marketing executives, to cattle ranchers and Mexican slaughterhouse labourers, all the way down the chain to high school kids flipping burgers to earn a few bucks, and the millions of happy customers chowing down on big macs every day, the book is far-reaching and extremely informative. As each chapter draws to a close, the gathering weight of the overall conclusion rolls on relentlessly, and almost operates as a guide to quitting Big Macs, in the same manner as Allen Carr’s ubiquitous guide to quitting smoking. By the time the reader has finished the book, it is unlikely s/he will be rushing into a Mickey D’s or BK in the near future.
In the book, strong links are forged between the product offered by these fast food joints and many insidious cultural problems faced by Average Americans, such as obesity, employment issues and the pervasion of big corporation marketing into schools, with companies such as Burger King and Dr. Pepper sponsoring underprivileged schools to build 'lifelong consumers of the brand'.
However, Richard Linklater's adaptation - which was co-written with Schlosser - is a dramatisation, foregoing the obvious possibility of a documentary approach for a more character-driven story with a traditional narrative. (He does still talk about the shit in the meat though - Ed)
In what now seems to be the mandatory narrative structure of choice these days, 'Fast Food Nation' is three stories in one, with each separate vignette following the progress of characters involved in the fast food industry, albeit in very different ways.
Raul (Wilmer Valderrama), Sylvia and Coco are Mexican immigrant labourers, risking a hazardous border crossing for the prospect of work. Don Henderson (Greg Kinnear) is a marketing executive for a large – fictitious – fast food chain named Micky’s, and is enjoying unprecedented success with their latest beefy offering: ‘The Big One’. Meanwhile, Amber (Ashley Johnson) is an honest middle-class high-school kid working in her local Micky’s to earn the few bucks to help her get by, and possibly help out her mom, played by Patricia Arquette.
Although you might remember Wilmer Valderrama from ‘That 70’s Show’ (Fez!? Dude, no way! .. ahem – Ed), he’s actually quite good in this, albeit playing an everyman character, but he’s an honest guy with good sense, who just happens to be swallowed up by the meat-packing industry, and does his best to cope. This storyline is the device to allow the camera to poke around the slaughter-house, and although these scenes are the most horrifying in the movie, the characters themselves were a little caricatured for my liking.
Amber’s story takes a turn when she receives a visit from her uncle, played by Ethan Hawke. He encourages her to think twice about working for a company such as Micky’s, and his coherent arguments re-evaluate her choice to work for Micky's, a choice driven simply by the fact that it was the first job she could find.
Greg Kinnear’s story is the most implausible at the outset, and although he’s a great actor, and does well enough with the subject matter, this story is really just a device to allow the corporate side of the fast food industry to be lampooned. He visits a rancher (Kris Kristofferson) and talks to a rep from the meat-packers (played very well by Bruce Willis) and his journey enlightens him as to the type of corporation he’s working for.
As a political piece of work, ‘Fast Food Nation’ is brave, daring even, for it is challenging one of the foundation industries of the United States, and encouraging people to do the unthinkable – think. Amber’s story, the most interesting of the three for me, involves an intense period of learning and questioning for the young girl, and is possibly the only one of the three that produces any kind of positive outcome. Unfortunately, it becomes a little mired in political sensitivities towards the end, with Avril Lavigne’s character in particular providing an unwelcome addition to an otherwise very watchable support cast (including Paul Dano, who you might remember from ‘Little Miss Sunshine’).
So, it may be politically brave, but the ultimate question is, is it a good piece of movie entertainment? Well, unfortunately, it left me a little cold. I felt that, for the most part, the stories explored in the movie were a little lightweight, losing much of the power of the arguments presented in the book of the same name. Also, by presenting this story in an easily digestible package such as this, I felt as if the film was ultimately nothing more than a fast food version of the square meal the book had so capably delivered.
So instead of hanging around to watch Jeremy Thomas get presented with his Volta award after the Dublin Film Festival screening, PCMR decided to head off for a Whopper meal on the way home instead. (Dude, totally sick burn! – Ed)
Another review from http://watchitmovies.blogspot.com/
Spider-Man 3 - $2
Spider-Man 3 made a lot of money. It is an action packed movie with amazing special effects which appealed to a young audience and die hard fans of the comic. Unfortunately Spider-Man 3 is not a good movie. It is in fact terrible.
The 3rd installment of this franchise is a massive disappointment in comparison to the far superior 1st and 2nd movies of this same series.
The action is good, of that there is little doubt. The director is the same person who directed 1 and 2 and the action sequences are again amazing, the pace is fast and is likely the main reason so many people have already gone to see this movie. Though it could be said that there is also really nothing new here.
What went wrong then you ask? Basically everything else. The love story of Peter Parker and MJ is awkward and I found myself a little bit pleased when it wasn't working out during the movie. The dialogue in Spider-Man 3 is truly awful, cheesy jokes and lame one liners dominate a script that is devoid of the quality character development and tension that the first 2 movies contained. The villains in this movie were underdeveloped, we were left to guess how they were able to do most of what they could do and their hatred of Spider-Man was not believable to me.
The most glaring problem with Spider-Man 3 however is the major plot line. A living black sludge that falls from space attaches itself to Parker's scooter and later to his Spidey suit; this sludge (as Parker's chemistry teacher explains) increases the aggression of its host when it attaches itself to something. That's all we're told about it really. When Spider-Man is affected by this material he turns black and becomes more vengeful. Parker however basically turns into a bigger nerd with nicer clothes and a new hairdo.
There is a scene where the post-black-sludge Parker goes shopping and takes a girl to a Jazz club, this scene was intended (I believe) to show that Parker has become cooler and darker since the affect of the space sludge. I can say in no uncertain terms that this was the worst series of scenes I've witnessed in a movie since Crawlers. The cringingly bad acting was only eclipsed by the terrible writing in this part of the movie. At one point I leaned over to my wife, who I was at the movie with, and said "is this really happening?"
Overall it was painfully obvious that Spider-Man 3 was written by a new team of writers and not by the successful team which wrote 1 and 2.
If you are a big Spider-Man fan you may want to check this out anyway but I adamantly put Spider-Man 3 on my 'Don't Watch It' list and give it a value of $2.
by: David Russell-Coutts
http://watchitmovies.blogspot.com/
For those of you who do not know The Bourne Ultimatum is the third in the Jason Bourne Trilogy which follows the exploits of an ex CIA Agent Jason Bourne. In the third movie he is attempting to discover his true identity and who created the man that he has become. In the first two movies he was trying to find out why an agency known as tread stone was tracking him down and why they were attempting to kill him. In the first movie he is regaining his memory and in the second knows fully well who Jason Bourne is and what he was trained to do, Kill for a secret government agency bent on taking out anyone that might cause harm to the United States of America.
I really did not know what to expect when coming into this movie, I had seen the trailers and had it in my mind that they were only making a third novel to generate more money for the company that created it. Similar to several other movies coming out this year such as Rush Hour 3, a movie simply being made for money and no artistic or any sort of purpose. I have scene spy movies before and both of the previous Bourne movies so I expected more of the same just to please an audience that will go see the movie simply because of the name. I decided to give it a shot considering the amount of great reviews that have been circulating around the internet and came away with much much more then I had bargained for. This movie not only does a great job of sending off the trilogy but does it with a bigger bang then any trilogy to come out in the past decade. Usually trilogy's play out like this; The first film is great, the second is alright, the third is a complete downer. This is how the Jason Bourne Trilogy plays out; The first is amazing, the second even more so, the third is the best in the trilogy and makes me regret to say that this is probably the last. There are no cheesy cliffhangers just in case they want to make a fourth, there is no mention of them even needing to create a fourth. What we have hear is a movie that defy s all the odds of being "just" the third movie and is sent into the outer limits of being one of the greatest spy movies ever created. There I said it, I think this movie was better then Casino Royal by miles. At times Casino Royal was a bore to watch but this movie was a pulse pumping thrill ride that had me on the edge of my seat from beginning to it's amazing end.Some may be wondering why I am comparing this movie to Casino Royal. It is the only other decent spy movie to come out in years and most likely the only one that even comes close to walking in this film's shadow.
The acting by returning cast members Matt Damon, Joan Allen, and Julia Stiles is amazing. They play out their roles extremely well,especially Matt and Stiles. Matt fleshes out the Bourne character even more now that we see he is driven solely by the need to find out who he really is. Joan grows and shows that while she is the same character in the second film, now she is finally fed up with what the agency is doing and takes a stand to change it. Stiles returns and like Joan, she hasn't changed a bit. She doesn't like where the agency is going and what's to put a stop to what they are doing and have done to Jason. Other new cast members play out just as good as the three I just mentioned, I never found a single flaw in their characters to stop me from believing that they are who they say they are.
Camera work is nearly flawless, you usually know exactly what is going on and there is nothing to make you ask what the hell just happened. There is one fight scene that I am not going to spoil that is amazing, except for the camera that makes you feel a little cramped and you can't really get a good feel for what's going on. This might have been done to create more tension for the battle and while it did, still found a way to bug me just a little.
The story and pacing moves seamlessly from one scene to the next. You are never forced to ask somebody what is going on because you will always know. All of the elements come together perfectly and there are plenty of "Woah Shit" moments for the most avid action movie fan. There is one spot that might bug a few realists to ask how the hell he did that because it doesn't seem realistically possible but it's a movie and I don't mind a bit of fantasy to make the character seem more articulate with a motorcycle then most professionals out there. This is just one tiny part of a scene though and most probably will not even take notice.
To sum all of this up, The Bourne Ultimatum is the best in the trilogy and every spy, thriller, and action movie fan should see it. I promise anyone that decides to pay the money to see this film will not be disappointed. If you are disappointed, tell me and take me down a few points with plausible reasons why it wasn't any good to you. Although I don't see any way a person could be. The acting, camera, and story come together and show you this is what they mean when they say movie magic is Bourne.
9/10
Go see the documentary My Name is Alan and I Paint Pictures, starting September 19th, 2007 at the Pioneer Theater!
Alan's been drawing since he was 3 or 4, and when he saw Salvador Dalí's "Metamorphosis of Narcissus" at the age of 10, he knew that's what he wanted to do the rest of his life. He was a wild child that used to frequently get drunk and sniff glue, and even after being accepted to the prestigious St. Martin's School of Arts, he immediately dropped out to paint leather jackets, and soon after he moved from England to New York. But what begins as the typical struggling artist story becomes a very interesting look at a man battling schizophrenia and finding release through his art as well as physical activities like boxing.
What I love about this documentary is how much access it gives us to Alan's art. Even the brief animation snippets in between the interviews utilize characters from Alan's paintings. Director Johnny Boston takes what could have been a very boring observation of Alan at work and infuses it with life and character. And in perhaps the most touching sequence, Boston shows Alan interacting with an ex-girlfriend, and then with his current girlfriend. We learn that his ex was unable to handle his intense need to stay at home all the time. We learn that at this point in his life, Alan wants to concentrate on his work, but that he still needs women in his life for sex and good cooking. We reflect that to some extent, this is universally true.
There is something archetypal at work here. I understand that every painter has different experiences, but I was shocked to find how precisely Alan embodies what making art has always been like for me. Alan's story continues past this documentary. He is still struggling to obtain his Green Card. He is in danger of being deported. And after seeing the documentary, I really believe we need Alan here in New York. He's the real thing.
A Review of the Feature Film Holly
By
Gil Lahav
Shot on location in Cambodia, with scenes filmed in actual brothels of Phnom Penh's notorious red-light district, Holly sheds light on the horrors of child prostitution and trafficking.
Patrick (played by Ron Livingston) is an American card player whose empty expatriate life is jolted out of its slumber when his motorcycle breaks down in the K11 village of child prostitutes. While waiting for his motorcycle to be fixed, Patrick’s moral universe is turned upside down when he meets Holly (played by the talented Thuy Nguyen), a 12-year-old Vietnamese girl who was sold by her impoverished family into sexual slavery.
As Patrick learns more about Holly's irrepressible thirst for freedom and normalcy and the brutally abusive conditions that will destroy her if she isn’t freed, he decides to risk his life of comfortable apathy to save one girl. But as the story progresses, Patrick learns that his simple desire is complicated by ever more insurmountable obstacles in an economically, legally and morally bankrupt system that condones and often encourages the conversion of children into sexual commodities.
Directed by Guy Moshe, Holly was crafted with a memorably gritty but vivaciously real cinematography. Rough angles and occasionally unsteady camera shots accentuate the shady and dangerous elements that govern the world of exploited children. A panoply of color and light capture the exotic locales of the story. Frequent close-ups of the characters provide an uncomfortably intimate look at the human victims that populate Holly's dark world.
In the film Holly, as in the grim reality it portrays, there are no easy answers. The social worker Patrick befriends explains to him that if he buys Holly's freedom then he only fuels economic demand for the very scourge he wants to eradicate. Bringing Holly with him to the USA isn't an option because of the corrupt Cambodian laws that prohibit it. Even the answer that is safest for the victim - leaving her with an NGO that protects children - is an emotionally hollow outcome for Holly, because it means that she must completely disconnect from the one person who has showed her unconditional kindness (Patrick). It also means possibly never seeing her family again.
Holly is a study in cinematic under-statement. While there is no nudity and only one brief scene of violence, the viewer is all too aware of both the appalling crimes to which Holly is subjected and the gritty dangers Patrick faces in his quixotic quest to rescue her. Entire conversations are conveyed with just a few piercing expressions, and simple acts of human kindness or cruelty manage to transcend all differences in age, gender, culture and language. In a film of few words, the motive behind each gift speaks volumes: is a piece of food given by a selfless friend with no agenda, a corrupt cop with money on his mind, or a pedophile in search of sexual favors?
Even the reluctant hero is rendered with subtlety. Accidentally thrust into the dark world of child sexploitation, his initial impulse is just to introduce a moment of compassion and dignity into the otherwise wretched life of the little girl tending to his room at the sleazy guest house where his motorcycle breaks down. There are no grandiloquent soliloquies about his political ideology or objectives. But Patrick’s calm persistence in spurning those who would sell him children makes it clear what side he is on, and his steadfast mission to save Holly becomes a moral one that will give new meaning to his life and hers.
Above all, the film Holly explores the limits of human kindness and courage, and provides a stark reminder of the basic human rights to which all children are entitled: to be free from physical and sexual abuse, to be with their families, and to receive a proper education. To that end, the producers of the film (http://www.priorityfilms.com/) created a companion political campaign (http://www.redlightchildren.org/) with the aim of raising awareness about the issue and effecting change. For its powerful message and for the child victims it represents, Holly is a film that should be seen and supported by every caring adult.
Preston Nicholson, We have now posted your review of For Your Consideration to the main part of our site. Thank you for submitting this review. ~AmateurMovieReviews.com
David Russell-Coutts, We have now posted your review of Casino Royale to the main part of our site. Thank you for submitting this quality review. ~AmateurMovieReviews.com
Gil Lahav, We have now posted your review of "Holly" to the main part of our site.
We have now posted the review of "My Name I Alan And I Paint Pictures" to the main part of our site.
The submitted review of The Bourne Ultimatum has been placed in the main page of our site.
The submitted "Spider-Man 3" review by David Russell-Coutts is now in the main part of our site.
The review of "Fast Food Nation", submitted by http://paddycmoviereviews.blogspot.com/, is now at the main part of our site.
The submitted review of "Fearless" has been put in the main part of our site.
Keep these great reviews coming everyone! We'll get them posted to the main page of our site much faster in the future. Also note, feel free to link to your blog or site in your review.
A Review of Disturbia
"Above and Beyond"
Disturbia is the teen suspense thriller that steps beyond its genre to bring a unique form of entertainment. When seventeen year-old Kale Brecht (Shia LaBeouf) punches his Spanish teacher for commenting on his dead father, the troubled teen is sentenced to three months house arrest. During this time, he must wear an ankle monitoring device to ensure that he stays within a hundred feet of his house. Carrie-Ann Moss plays LaBeouf’s mother, Julie Brecht, and constantly says, “Clean up your room.” When she finds Kale’s room in a mess, she resorts to cutting the cable TV cord and cancelling his Xbox Live and iTunes accounts. With the absence of technology, Kale starts watching the neighbors through his windows. He observes Ashley Carlson (Sarah Roemer), the girl that just moved in next door, performing yoga. In addition, he sees a house wife having an affair and pre-teens watching porn. When Kale, his best friend Ronnie (Aaron Yoo), and Ashley suspect Mr. Turner (David Morse) is a serial killer, they begin spying on him. Subsequently, Mr. Turner discovers he is being watched and the teens become caught up in an unforeseen circumstance.
Disturbia’s director, D. J. Caruso, examines the issue of privacy in suburban life. The movie is a retelling of the 1954 Alfred Hitchcock film, Rear Window, in which L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) and Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly) spy on suspected killer Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). This film was based off the 1942 short story, It Had to Be Murder, by Cornell Woolrich. Nonetheless, Disturbia is a retelling of Rear Window for the high-tech generation, not a simple remake. LaBeouf does not try to be James Stewart for today’s youth. He successfully plays a typical hormonal teenage boy who resorts to snooping. When Hitchcock’s film debuted, American’s were disillusioned. The public believed that everybody was respectable and trustworthy. In today’s society, Americans believe it is their right to be suspicious of their neighbors. This mentality allows them to gain a sense of self-justification in knowing what goes on in their neighborhood.
In addition, Disturbia utilizes suburban elements from the movie American Beauty. In American Beauty a depressed father decides to turn his life around when he becomes obsessed with his daughter’s friend. Both of these movies portray suburban life and its effects on relationships. For example in Disturbia, Ashley’s father is having an affair. She says that her parents moved to the suburbs because, “City life had its temptations.” This portrayal of suburban life is probable and teenagers whose parents are divorced could relate to her situation.
Consequently, Disturbia effectively appeals to America’s youth through cultural references. For example, Kale plays Xbox Live and listens to his IPod. These technological references appeal to the young audience, who are able to associate with Kale’s circumstances. The screen writers, Christopher Landon and Carl Ellsworth, did a superb job of depicting Kale and Ronnie as average teens. Kale drinks Red Bulls, builds a tower of Twinkies, and puts on a Ramones shirt. These are average activities a teenage boy might do over the summer. LaBeouf’s acting is exceptional not only in the delivery of his lines, but also in his facial expressions. When his father dies, his stunned expression is remarkably realistic. However, Aaron Yoo provides outstanding comic relief. For instance, Ronnie brakes into Mr. Turner’s car he says to Kale, “This is a lot harder than it looks on the Internet.” Yoo and LaBeouf perform as exceedingly realistic best friends with their casual buddy dialogue.
On the other hand, Roemer’s acting is not as strong as the other characters. In some of her scenes, she does not look scared enough given the situation. Also, the screenwriters were not as successful with Roemer’s character, Ashley, who does not completely depict the average teenage girl. She does make cliché girl comments such as, “I love her shoes.” Yet, she flaunts around in a bikini and climbs to her roof to read which is not typical of the average suburban teen. Carrie-Ann Moss does a better job with her role as Julie Brecht. Her scenes are few but adequate enough for the audience to understand her love and frustration towards her son. Undoubtedly, the best acting is produced by David Morse. He is said to have not talked to LaBeouf during the production of the movie to enable him to immerse himself in his character’s mind. His calm tone of voice and precise delivery of ambiguous dialogue is guaranteed to keep the audience guessing. Mr. Turner snickers as he states, “So now you know you’re not the only one who’s watching.” The screenwriters had exceptional dialogue to give the character a sinister ambiance that is essential in an impressive suspense thriller.
There are several things that Disturbia does not accurately portray. Although the setting is the conventional suburb, it is improbable that numerous neighbors do not have adequate blinds. Kale is able to pick up the binoculars and look into several homes with unrealistic ease. When Kale and Ashley spy on Mr. Turner, Kale states, “Only in Disturbia. Where else are you gonna get this kind of entertainment?” This mentality is anticipated of teenagers who have grown up watching reality television. Furthermore, this statement depicts their immaturity and lack of respect for privacy that could be expected of some preteens, but not of teens their age. There are also flaws in the continuality of the movie. For instance, when Kale is tiding up his room he throws a shirt on top of the tower of Twinkies, but in the next two scenes the Twinkie tower is uncovered. In addition, Kale puts stickers on his ankle monitor, but in the next scene there are not stickers on the device.
Although there are flaws in the movie, it does move beyond the genre of a teen suspense thriller to also include aspects of comedy, romance, and drama. Typical teen thrillers tend to have lots of blood and gore, but this movie appeals to the audience’s suspense factor instead of showing blood gushing everywhere. The music adds to the suspense, because it is successfully positioned during moments of high tension. The suspenseful music allows the audience to bite their nails and remain on the edge of their seats. Comedy is present, when Ronnie makes witty remarks during moments of suspense. The movie displays the romance element through the cat and mouse relationship between Kale and Ashley. Finally, in scenes with Kale and his mother, the dialogue is especially dramatic. By adding several genres into one movie, Disturbia goes above and beyond the average teen thriller to establish a film that appeals to today’s youth.
mmbell, We have just posted your review of Disturbia to the main page of our site. Thank you for submitting this excellent review.
Note that we fixed some text issues in your posted review, for example where it reads "Disturbia’s" instead of "Disturbia's." For your knowledge, this is usually caused when writing reviews first in MS Word, then copying them into a comment field. Word fancies up text with curly quotes, etc., which text based programs do not recognize, causing these issues. You can avoid this in the future by writing in WordPad, TextPad, or some other text based program, or by turning off the curly quotes preference in MS Word.
Regardless, we fixed it; and we'll fix any others with similar issues.
Thanks again for the great movie review. Keep 'em coming!
~AmateurMovieReviews.com
THE RULES OF ATTRACTION
danessf@yahoo.com
"If this is actually the college experience... consider trade school."
by dane youssef
Roger Avary's "The Rules Of Attraction" is a look at the "experimentation" of college life. Alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide and sexual escapades.
That's not to say that the movie is all about--oh wait, it pretty much is. There are a few moments of outside "experimentation," but it is mostly an orgy party. This is the kind of film Avary is best at. He showed this with his style and energy in movies like "Killing Zoe" and "Pulp Fiction."
He's been gone for about a decade working on this and has claimed that the "unfilmable" novels by Brett Eastern Ellis ("American Psycho" and "Less Than Zero") had been horrid adaptations because they strip Ellis’s storytelling style (told through accounts of multiple narrators giving their fuzzy testimonies).
In this new film, Avary tries to get that confused feeling down with different style techniques: rewind, fast-foreword, split-screen and multiple narratives.
It sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't. Perhaps this movie directed more like Christopher Nolan's "Following" and "Memento" and Steven Soderberg's "Full Frontal" instead of Fisher Steven's "Just A Kiss."
The performances are pretty strong, the best from James Van Der Beek ("Dawson's Creek," "Varsity Blues") playing the lecherous and sexually and neurotically charged Sean who's pastimes include anonymous sex and the use of every narcotic known to man.
He has a creepy glare made famous from most Stanley Kubrick films and a sardonic and uncaring nature. An "emotional vampire" he calls himself.
Shannyn Sossamon plays a college student who has eyes for her boyfriend, Victor (Kip Pardue) and is saving her virginity for him. She looks at gruesome books about STD's and other vaginal diseases to keep herself out of having sex.
What Lauren doesn't know is that Victor is in Europe and perhaps having sex with with the entire Continent. He narrates a capsule summary of his incredible escapades and is one of the best sequences in the movie.
Poor Lauren. She plans to lose her virginity to Victor, but as we see in the movie in the opening, that doesn't quite pan out.
Ian Somerhalder, model and all-around pretty boy plays the now openly-gay Paul who has eyes for Sean and tries to get him to succumb to his side. In the original novel by Ellis, Sean is a bisexual who sleeps with Paul. In the film, the two are seen kissing and making out in Sean's room. But is it real or is it all in Paul's head? The split-screen makes it all so confusing.
Jessica Biel ("7th Heaven") plays Laura's promiscuous roommate who's libido is running non-stop and drug intake is piling up. She gets a nosebleed ("rusty pipes") and sleeps with the men important to Lauren.
Eric Stoltz, Faye Dunaway and Swoozie Kurtz play the only adults in the movie who are really no better than the kids. A bit of Mr. Avary's creative license kicks in here (Stoltz's foppish teacher, Mr. Lawson) was not in the original novel. He states he cannot deflower Ms. Hyde because he is married with children and she is an undergraduate.
But oral doesn't count, right Mr. President?
Avary's technique sometimes works with the opening's bungee-jumping narrative, as well as a split-screen shot approach showing how two characters on completely different paths walking along and minding their own business meet up at the same location. And once a character's shades come off, the shot completes--indicating love at first sight. Really nice, Rog.
And the back-packing trip to Europe with the mysterious Victor who hosts and stars in this orgy of FF>. Some characters are kinda fun, but it feels too much like Avary is indulging himself too much to dig a little deeper into these characters.
In Ellis'es book, they let us get inside the characters. Right into their heads in a way we did in "Memento." A more style like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and insider feel like "Memento" I think would have been a better approach.
Still, Avary is a stylist first and foremost. He gave "PF" and "KZ" it's hyper-kinetic juice. So it's not a bad movie, not at all.
Still, it is commendable, if not a lot more. For a great inside feel of these characters heads, read Ellis’s novel. For a wicked orgy-rush film with a college backdrop, check out Avary's film.
"Rules of Attraction" is worth a look any way you cut it.
By the way, last I heard Avary was working on... Oh yeah, another Ellis novel.
Anyone out there know what Avary is up to now?
Dane Youssef, Thanks for submitting your review of The Rules of Attraction. This has now been posted in the main part of our site. Keem 'em coming! ~AmateurMovieReviews.com
NIL BY MOUTH
Nil by mouth... something to say...
by dane youssef
"Nil By Mouth" is the very first film written and directed by the great Gary Oldman, a seasoned veteran actor who has still yet to give a bad performance. Oldman grew up in the poorest ghetto of South London, where this film takes place.
And while this movie has been rumored and believed to be a semi-autobiography of Oldman's childhood and family (who wouldn't watch this movie and believe so?), Oldman himself has said that this is not him or his family.
Hey, I believe him. Although he grew up in this environment, he was not directly in the line of fire, if you follow me.
The film sets it’s sights on a South London family that defines the term “domestic unrest.” A woman, her husband, daughter, brother, their mother and grandmother. As well as the people outside their family who they are connected to.
"Nil By Mouth" represents many of the other families in South London, not Oldman's. The colorful cockney ways of the Great Britain. But more than anything, it’s problem of casual brutal urban violence.
We've seen many abusive types in movies--usually one-dimensional and sanitized. But "Nil By Mouth" refuses to white-wash. The fact that this is not a big-budget Hollywood star-vehicle allows this to be a real film-going experience.
This movie wishes to illuminate. Not entertain or delude. This is "slice-of-life," not escapist fantasy. I've told members of my family about it and they've given very mixed reactions. My father and sister disliked the dime-store production values and no-name actors. They asked me why I would rent such a bitter and hateful film. My mother says she has spent her life shunning this type of humanity and lives as if it does not really exist.
"The Way Of The Ostrich."
This is one of those frightening on-screen performances in recent memory. Ray Winstone deserves high praise and immortalization for his acting here in the role of Ray. He seems to be one of those unsavory, brutal characters in movies that stay with us. Like Hannibal Lecter in "Silence Of The Lambs," Like Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet," Like Norman Bates in “Psycho,” this performance haunts us like a ghost. The scorned ghost of a murderer...
There is a cringing moment in which Ray answers his wife's question as to why: "I do it because I love you." We cringe because his answer feels more familiar and common than it should.
Ray is not merely an abusive drunk; he is a horrible bastard, always prone to violent outbursts. When his wife hangs out with a casual male acquaintance, he suspects that she may be having an affair and damn near kills her.
Ray Winstone delivers a powerhouse performance in the role of Ray, a working-class man who loves his family, especially his daughter. But this man has demons. Demons that are so numerous and deep, they cannot be repressed. He can be a likeable, laid-back guy, like everyone else.
But we see that without serious provocation, he instantly becomes raving and homicidal. A side that most movies (and people) tend to shy away from. He will make your blood run cold and near the end, make you cry.
Kathy Burke, best known for her role on “Absolutely Fabulous” takes an enthralling dramatic turns as Valerie, Ray’s wife who’s sole purpose seems to be to keep the family strung together while putting up with her husband’s monstrous outbursts, almost sadomasochistic ally. This is an unforgettable performance.
Whenever there’s someone like Ray, there's almost always someone like Mark. Mark is sort of a sidekick or cheerleader for Ray and his violently domestic antics. He seems to be something of a drama queen, hitching his trailer up to the pain in Ray's life. It perhaps gives him an excuse to explode and go ape-shit the way he does. It's mentioned at one point that Mark himself was worked over by Ray's father---maybe this explains the tie that bond these two.
Jamie Forman is effective as Ray's little right-hand man. Apparently, Forman himself is the son of a real-life legendary gangster in London.
There are scenes where he shows the true symptoms of a violent criminal. I wonder... is the caustic streak of the father burning through the son? Jamie, unlike his old man has apparently chosen a more legal profession. Kudos for him.
Is he just a great actor? Jamie may actually have some demons himself.
And while Ray may be the black sheep of this family, all that really means is he's the blackest of the black. No one here is walking on water. Valerie smokes and drinks despite knowing full-well she's pregnant. No one around her really speaks up in protest about her indirect poisoning of her child.
Valerie's little brother, Billy is a severe heroin addict. Despite the fact that he's occasionally allowed to sleep over at Ray and Valerie's, Ray even feeds him and gives him a banknote here and there, Billy steals a score of dope from their flat.
You can only imagine how Ray takes to this. Billy is scorned, but although he is cast out, he still stays with his side of the family and even retaliates against Ray, stealing an irreplaceable family heirloom.
After this, Billy is not really in trouble.
He is all but dead.
Billy is a severe junkie and spends a lot of time with his friends. And since Billy is a junkie, there's only one kind of clique of friends he can afford: more junkies.
One of his pals, Danny is one of the movie's strangest characters. Danny is literally covered from head-to-toe with tattoos and body-piercing. He defines the term "body art." His whole body is like a big collage explosion.
But he's not the one-dimensional freak/weirdo/thug we'd expect just by getting a quick glance at him. He shows compassion and even sweetness at time like all the other characters, even Ray.
Nearly everyone drinks and smokes. Nearly everyone says "fuck," "shit" and "cunt" on a far more-than-regular basis. And their endless stream of profanity and brutal violent mistreatment of one another is like a sad testimony to how tragically pathetic they are.
You can almost hear the violins playing on the soundtrack to each of their lives. They are the victims of their life, their family, their environment, each other and themselves.
Oldman films using the now-traditional and all-too-common (but at the time, novel) hand-held camera technique and 16mm film, thus giving "Nil By Mouth" not the look of a polished, slick and lavish film, but raw, unkempt footage of very real life.
The movie looks like a true documentary, the herky-jerky camerawork makes it look as if we're seeing everything from our own P.O.V. As if we're "there, in the heat of the moment."
And we can't help but think about the little five-year old daughter and the unborn second child of Ray and Val, how their parents impact will undoubtedly shape them. It is an endless, vicious cycle of evil that shows no signs of breaking. And it is running rampantly throughout the world.
This is just one of those movies that… after it’s over, you want to do something… something to make things better.
LITTLE TRIVIAL NOTES ON "NIL BY MOUTH":
Unless you're somewhere in the European climate or at least Australian, you'd best hit "closed captioning" or "subtitles" if you want to understand so much as a damn line of dialouge. The thick cockney accents are almost indecipherable. They're so thick, you could choke on them. For me, it was almost like hearing morse code. The characters might as well have been speaking Chinese.
The title comes stems from a medical instruction in the hospital not to give a patient food or drink as they're about to go into surgery. The connection in that this movie makes with that title is poetically heart-breaking...
Just like... the rest of the film.
P.S.
One of the best of 2004. It sparkles and beams.
by dane youssef
“P.S.” is one of those rare movies that tells a story which feels too good to be true--the kind that’s escapist-fantasy and only seems to happen in movies and in our most desperate dreams.
But then again, sometimes we see and here that it does happen in real life. Once in a blue moon. It’s every great success story. Like movie-star Lana Turner getting discovered when working in a pharmacy or Muhammad Ali’s almost inhumanly-impossible success with his career in the ring, who talked like a professional wrestler.
“P.S.” is a movie like that. It tells a story as sweet as a fairy tale, that maybe could happen in life. Where a woman feels like when she loses someone, she loses her chance in life. But then something else comes along that is so incredible, it feels like the divine hand. Is God giving her a do-over? And not being so subtle about it?
Laura Linney continues her streak of must-see movies and Oscar-caliber performances here as Louise, a middle-aged admissions director who’s been through a real losing streak throughout her life.
She’s recently divorced from her husband, a compulsive sex-addict who’s diddled anyone who’s set toe in his class. Her best friend seduced away her boyfriend in high school and is now married in an upper-middle class suburb to a man she threatens to cheat on if he doesn’t fulfill his “husbandly duties.” She’s living the kind of life every woman wants to in her most cynical, vengeful, self-absorbed fantasies.
Laura’s getting older, life’s getting harder (and it hasn’t been very charmed to begin with). She begins to see all her hopes and dreams fading fast. And things get even more interesting when see has a private one-on-one interview with a potential art student.
This guy is just her type. Not only, but… he bares an uncanny resemblance to her late college boyfriend, an art major with a passion that matched hers. This guy doesn’t just look--he sounds, acts, behaves and his art is even similar. Louise is in shock.
What is this? Coincidence? Incidental? Has she been working herself too hard? Stress? Reincarnation? An escapist-fantasy movie-plot? Whatever it is, Louise is rubbing here eyes while warming up to this guy. Getting to know him… finds herself feeling something…. While trying to keep her feelings at bay. She’s a skeptic. She’s got one heck a heck of a track record.
One of the most refreshing things about the actress Laura Linney is that she's not just another manufactured beauty from off the assembly line. She's not just another actress. She's not "one of a million." She's just so real. She's not movie-star-ish.
She doesn’t wear designer clothes wherever she goes, live in a six-story mansion of Muhulland Dr, smoke cigarettes from a long black holder and have a private trophy room for all her honors. When she acts, it doesn't feel like acting. You feel you know her. She's a real person.
The same hold true for Topher Grace, which explains his success as an actor. He seems so adult, so grown-up for his age. Grace is charismatic and seems smart, his gift and his power on-screen doesn't come from a natural Brando-like acting talent, but his face, his body, his voice, his personality. Somehow, everything he says sounds like he means it. He's so square, so on-the-level. All he has to do is speak to convince you that he's legit.
As an actor, Grace has a style all his own which may or may not be intentional. He has an Anti-Brando method. He never changes his appearance or voice at all in his roles, but he has an earnest, open-faced, true-to-life and genuinely human way in every movie he so much as touches. Which explains why Hollywood keeps throwing mountains of scripts his way and why every movie he’s in, he’s given a nomination for something.
This is some of the best acting either Linney or Grace has ever done so far, pure and simple.
Gabriel Bryne, one of the finest actors in the world brings his trade-mark debonair and charisma in the role of Peter Harrington, Louise’s ex-husband who’s nasty habit primarily caused their divorce. There scenes that poke fun and make light of his “f-----g” habit are almost worth the rental price.
Which is why he takes home award after award for nearly every movie he does, because something about his whole appearance and personality makes it come across like he's just himself being himself, not an actor.
While "P.S." may just come across as a woman's picture (and it may well be), this isn't just a moody, sensitive, overly-emotional "chick-flick" to be seen on a "woman's day." This is a movie about some people who are seriously dealing with the trials of life at a turning point of age.
Paul Rudd, who been the key performance in some damn good movies, has basically just a little cameo, but as the estranged brother, he gives us further magnified scope into Louise’s little life. He’s a reformed junkie with a condescending, sadistic streak towards his big sis.
The movie has a deep, human, true-to-life atmosphere all throughout. There’s nary a moment that is written or executed in a way that feels contrived. Nothing in “P.S.” needs willing suspension of disbelief. Everything feels so beautiful and natural as the falling of the rain.
I’ve read an endless number of reviews for this movie which charge Dylan Kidd with making a picture less impressive than his previous effort. Ah, the sophomore jinx. I didn’t see his freshman effort, “Roger Dodger,” so I’m not particularly biased. And anyway, shouldn’t a film be judged solely on it’s own merits? Even Steven Spielberg made “Always,” “Hook” and “1941.”
Listen folks, seriously, so many filmmakers are accused being cursed with the dreaded “sophomore jinx” because when it comes to art, there are people who rate novelty above all else.
Movies like “Birth and “Return To Me” have tackled this subject before, but here it feels so legitimate. Like “Rocky,” this one makes us believe clichés can happen… and make us care.
WILLOW
Comes up short
by dane youssef
This one wasn't much when it first came out. The budget was extravagant and the box-office returns just barely covered the big fat price tag. And as measly as a movie as this was for it’s day on it's own merits, it's dwarfed even further by the immortal "Lord Of The Rings" saga.
"Willow" is the film the impish Warwick Davis is renown for his participation in the never-ending Horror-movie stories, the "Leprechaun" movies.
This was his first lead role and he brings a likeable and earnest charisma to the role instead of just trying to be little and cute like so many child performers and other midget actors.
Thankfully, he proves himself as to be more than just a cheap gimmick like so many other “bit-players.” He allows himself to really give a true performance and the film itself doesn’t go for the cheapest of shots with any of the height of it’s little people.
As a filmmaker, George Lucas is and has always been a homage-payer. He's one of those filmmakers who always tries to re-make those old films he loved during his own adolescence. With space operas: “Star Wars,” With Matinee Adventure flicks: “Indiana Jones,” With futuristic sci-fi adventures, “THX 1138.”
And now with “Willow,” he attempts to do the same for the sword-and-sorcery genre.
Notice I use the word “attempts.”
The whole universe is derived from the whole medieval sword-and-sorcery genre. And it's a full bar and buffet smorgasbord here: We've got "Lord Of The Rings," "The Story of Moses," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves," "Sleeping Beauty" and "Gulliver's Travels" just to name a few.
Val Kilmer is pound-for-pound one of the great heavyweight champion actors from here
The 20th century and the 21st saw few better thespians. He truly delivered an Oscar for his re-birth as Jim Morrison in Oliver Stone's "The Doors."
Here, anyone could have done the same job he does. It's his most unremarkable performance to date. They didn't need the great Kilmer for this one.
Any stock actor with a Screen Actors Guild card or with one year of high school drama class experience could have done as good a job.
Jean Marsh does a good job as Queen Bavmorda, but just about any random British actress on the planet could have done the same and gotten the same results.
Sadly, this one just stands toe-to-toe with the He-Man "Master Of The Universe" movie from 1987.
Even though Ron Howard Opie Cunningham was at the helm for this one, just about any hack with access to a tripod (that tilts low) could have done the same and gotten the same results.
The real problem with "Willow" is that it's totally unremarkable. It's about a likeable little guy with a big heart for his family. He has a magical gift and uses it to make a name for himself. He meets a great warrior with a shady record who may find love along the way.
They do battle with a wicked queen who happens to be a powerful witch with a great army, a two-headed dragon, a menacing lieutenant General who wears a mask scarier than his own face, yada yada yada yada. Do you even care?
There are two little like the 3-inch tall people in "Gulliver's Travels" called Brownies named Rool and Franjean with helium voices and ethnic caricatured French accents that would have been considered embarrassing in the '30's. They irritate and confuse, but never amuse. Unlike R2D2 and C3PO or Marcus Brody, they never provoke as much as a smile.
Lucas planned for this to be something of a series saga of films. But since this one barely made any return whatsoever, Lucas wound up scrapping the film "trilogy" and continuing the story in books. Hey, anyone out there ever actually so much as read a copy of the continuing "Willow" story?
With "Star Wars," "THX 1138" and "American Graffiti," Lucas swung for the fence like a dominant male gorilla. He pulled out all stops and then some. This one is on-par with your average episode of a Saturday Morning TV series, even for the day.
With Lucas' legendary "Indiana Jones" saga, we all remember one key gruesome scene in each movie---like the "false grail" scene in "Last Crusade" or the "Ripped Heart" in "The Temple Of Doom." In "Willow," there's a similar sequence inspired by the "Bay Of Pigs" from the Greek tales of "The Iliad and The Odyssey."
Lucas story pretty much recycles the whole outline plot of the "Star Wars" saga (episodes IV, V, and VI). Unfortunately, Lucas and Howard don’t really feel like they’re trying
to have the last word of the genre as they did in many of their earlier efforts.
You can see anything just as good and inspired/thrilling/etc. every Saturday morning on just about any network.
Unlike “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones” or “Cocoon,” this is not a product of theirs that defines the genre it’s from.
And what is it with the baby Elora Danan? She's so much of the damn plot and yet, all she does really is smile and cry on cue. There are babies in diaper commercials who have characters with more depth.
I like the two-headed dragon. It doesn't look like the traditional fire-breathing dragon. It hardly even looks like a serpent. This one is kind of inspired. As a change of pace, it has more of an ugly look to it with long and furry serpent necks, almost like an ostrich. It's really weird.
Although, it's one of the few inspired touches in this routine medieval epic.
It's a Lucasfilm Ltd. production, so the special effects are (as it goes without saying) in the Oscar nomination territory. Enthralling for the day, some even by today's standards still shine. Lucas has made a bigger name for himself as a innovator of special effects than as a filmmaker.
While it was a defining role for actor Warwick Davis and it employs more midgets and dwarves than any other production (and respectively), for anyone else, "Willow" is never anything special, nor does it attempt to be.
Even for it's day "Willow" was unremarkable. Seriously, how many tales of swords, sorcery, kings, queens, dwarves, dragons and trolls had we seen in movies, TV shows, books, fairy tales and what-have-you before this came along? Yet another case of, "Too little, too late."
Nearly 20 years later, that old axiom proves even more true.
DRAWING FLIES
Doesn't draw much attention... or even interest
by dane youssef
The Canadians approach to filmmaking is either bland, campy or downright blood-and-guts (usually in the “campy” gory vein, of course).
Most Canadians are as good at the art of film as mimes are at capturing the art of sparkling conversation.
Ever hear the expression, "it was halfway decent? Comes up halfway? Meet me halfway?” I had that thought stuck at the top of my head after viewing this one.
That's about the perfect way to describe "Drawing Flies," a Canadian-based indie featuring a sprinkling of an American-based cast and crew.
The first half of the movie starts out as a variation of the whole "Dazed and Confused" or "Slackers" genre, where we see some contemporary socially-relevant slacker types in Canada living on steady welfare. Then we see them go on the big self-discovery trip that’s the big turning point of their lives.
The Canuck Government cuts them off and they take the last bit of money they have in the world, pool it together and instead of paying the necessary monthly rent check, they blow the whole damn thing on a cover-charge at some party and dope.
Now totally and completely bankrupt, they move out of their place (they're living four to a single apartment) and hit the road. They then exile themselves to the deep, deep woods where they plan to make permanent residence. Thus, this is where the real journey-theme of the movie kicks in. This is where the part of their lives that has worthy interest to be a movie kicks in.
Or should anyway.
Jason Lee (as always) proves that any movie with him in it alone is worth seeing (OK, except for the unforgivably bad sedated-comedies “A Guy Thing” and "Stealing Harvard"--well, hey, if Tom Green's in it).
His performance starts out earnest with life-affirming optimistic hope and child-like charm, but then U-turns into angry, road rage and his long-repressed dementia kicks in. It’s the type of character he’s played in damn near everything, but it’s still thrills and shakes.
Mewes' performance here is kind of uneven. I mean, he's not really an actor--he's basically just a friend of filmmaker Kevin Smith who plays himself in movie after movie. Like Julia Roberts, he's not really an actor--he's more of a TV talk-show personality.
Jason Mewes stretches (somewhat) as a welfare-starving slacker who curses and smokes the dope, but not nearly at the level that his legendary Jay character does. He (like most of the cast) seems to have trouble swallowing the overwritten and unrealistic dialogue.
He doesn't talk so much about getting laid and eating out pussy as much, either. Mewes' Az character is more of somewhat-more-down-to-earth regular Stoner than a near-cartoonist comic relief.
Carmen Lee (they were married at the time of this one) does the worst job in this one. Every word, every facial reaction, every moment from her sounds horribly unconvincing. She is here, beyond a doubt, not only the absolute worst performance in the film, but the worst acting I’ve ever seen.
Hopefully, Carmen will stray from acting and find almost any other day job. She would be more adept to make a living donating sperm.
The movie's plot echoes "The Blair Witch Project:” A group of friends go on a long, long trip in the deepest woods on earth and into the great unknown. Then, a hidden agenda is revealed. One that may bring wealth and legendary status. It sounds (of course) to everyone else like s collision of insanity and stupidity. But doesn’t every ground-breaker at first?
Everyone sneers and turns against each other. It’s all sides divided. Bedlam, as always. The Loch Ness Monster. Sasquach. The Boogeyman. They’re all just good old fashioned monster folklore stories, aren’t they? There’s always evidence (of course) that tilts to the contrary.
Like I said from the start of this review (where you came in), “Drawing Flies” is a “halfway decent” film. If you only see half the movie, you’ll walk away having a better cinematic experience than you would if you saw the whole thing. Just see half. It really doesn’t matter which half. Just see half. The movie starts off in one frame of mind, then shifts jarringly in another direction.
And damn it all, the two just don’t mesh. They clash wildly like yogurt and broccoli. Just imagine for a second that resulting, lingering taste.
Doesn't draw much attention... or even much interest.
(WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS A MILD SPOILER--It does not reveal the entire film nor does it give away the ending, but it does reveal a brief surprise… that disappoints):
Indie-idol Kevin Smith (the fat hairy one himself) pops up in a bit part that feels like an extra.
He's at the end, he doesn't have so much as a word of dialogue, and he's dressed just like well… Silent Bob. And I mean SILENT BOB. He wears the same clothes he’s worn in the first three movies.
And it’s not like there much here to distinguish this bit part from his legendary Silent doppelganger. Smith dons the same outfit, same mime facial expressions. He even sports the exact same beard. What, the budget was so low, he couldn’t afford a shave or at least a trim? Or time to get another set of clothes from out of his closet?
Hey, it's a no-budget film, they couldn't afford a wardrobe department as his character is referred to as "John." You kind of wish there was just a little more of a punch line or pay-off, but…
But this time, there is no moment where he breaks the silence. The only difference between “John” and “Silent Bob” is… one is something, one is not...
BOBBY
Yes... A disapointing film, but a moving love letter...
by dane youssef
Emilio Esztevez's "Bobby" celebrates not only one of the greatest political icons to die before his time, before he had the opportunity to live up to even a fraction of his potential, but a seven-year effort to get it on the big screen.
Esztevez is not as renown in the business as his father and brother are. Nor does he have such a sparkling track-record. Let's be honest. Most of the man's movies (paticularly those made after "The Mighty Ducks") borderline on unwatchable. But hey, what about "Rated X"? I heard good things. Somewhere. I don't remember where exactly...
But just because a man has a few "Battlefield Earth" and "Catwoman"-like stinkers on his resume doesn't mean he's totally incapable of putting out anything at all decent. I know we love to skewer a star when they're down.
But let's give a poor guy an even shake...
Because of Estevez's experience in the biz, as well as his family's, "Bobby" is chock-full of big-name walk-ons. Yes, it's good to be able to employ the best and biggest names in the business, but I don't know if it nessicarily works here.
Despite the honors it recieved from the Screen Actors Guild and the Hollywood Film Festival as "Ensemble of the Year" (and yes, it's almost like a random list of the hottest and most esteemed talents working today), I think it's sort of a handicap here.
There are so many familiar faces that pop up like a Jack-In-The-Box and then disapear just as quickly, that it's kind of distracting.
They're all not on camera long enough so that we see the characters, not actors playing a role. We keep getting the feeling that all we're looking at is super-star after super-star just here to do some temp work, have fun, do a favor and pay respect to a great political icon.
There are so many storylines buzzing in and out in such a condensed amount of time that so many of them feel under-developed (and even pointless at times).
There are some really intriguing ones, yes, but there's also too much that just feels like filler. They're not around longe enough to make us really think or care about them.
There is no accomplished actor in the plum role of Robert Kennedy (a wise desicion on Esztevez' part)--Kennedy appears as himself in archive footage; newsreels and voice-overs. There is an enourmously talented and renown cast for "Bobby," but no real head-liner.
This is an ensemble vehicle, in the tradition of the late Robert Altman's films. Like every ensemble vehicle, the star is the subject matter--RFK himself.
The lives he touched, the inpact he made, many of the goings-on during the time... that appears here. But too briefly. Like an extra that just blends into a massive crowd or a beige wall. Where are they? You want them to stand out, you want more.
As for it's much-touted heavy-hitter cast: Joshua Jackson (who worked with Esztevez in "The Mighty Ducks" films) isn't really given much of anything to do as as Kennedy's campaign manager.
Christian Slater is one of the best working actors out there today, but any schmuck standing in line at "Hot Dog On A Stick" could have done as good a job as he's allowed to do there. Hey, maybe some of that trademark reptillian-like demeanor of his might have helped. He's a racist, but he's as interesting as plain white-bread. Heather Graham is equally ineffective (has she ever given a really great perfomance?)
Ashton Kutcher thankfully sheds his tired "Kelso" scthick as a spiritual drug dealer who introduces to LSD. He wears glasses, has long mop-like hair and a scruffy beard. This is good. We're looking at the character, not Kutcher. Lately, Kutcher has been trying to evolve past the dim-witted prett-boy roles in stupid throw-away rom-comedies. He seems to be in very serious danger of becoming just another flavor-of-the-month like so, so many, many other before him (and after him). With roles in movies like "The Butterfly Effect" and now "Bobby," there may be hope for him after all.
William H. Macy and Starone Stone are some of the best out there. Here they play a married couple who have a rather ugly secret, but the whole thing is under-written. Esztevez' should have kept working on this. It's a nice sub-plot, but their story is thinner than two-ply toilet paper. And we want more.
Lawrence Fishburne almost steals the movie as a veteran cook who works at the Ambassador. He has a deep philiosophical mind and some theories on the way the world is... and how to survive in it. How to make it yours. He sounds so insightful, like an older, seasoned veteran not miles away from Kennedy himself. He talks about how anger is toxic and his admiration and love for Dr. King and how it hurt when King was gunned down.
Legendary Oscar-winner Anthony Hopkins appears as the elderly doorman who won't just flat-out retire because the boredom and feeling of uselessness gets to him. His role is pretty unremarkable, although he brings the same grace and dignity he does to pretty much any role he's in. It's nice to see him away from his "Hannibal Lecter" repitore. And "Bobby" is a vast improvement over Ron Howard's putrid steaming green Christmas diarrea log, "The Grinch."
Director Esztevez and Demi Moore appear together as a couple for the first time in Esztevez' nearly unwatchable "Wisdom," which contained none of what was promised. Or anything else worth seeing. They have some worthwhile moments as a showbusiness couple, especially Moore is what's some of the better work she's done in a while. And it's one of the few sub-plots that work.
The only true stand-outs here are Lawrence Fishburne, Sharon Stone, Martin Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. Everyone else seems is just coasting. Because they're all just distinguished veterans, we want them to make an enourmous impact.
The kind where the scene and line becomes a legendary moment and is quoted ad nauseum. But each shot just shows big-name marquee headers doing what just about anyone could have done. Maybe the fact that all these big names are dropped will draw them in.
I do applaud Esztevez for not just hiring some celebrity impressionist to play Bobby--like De Vito did for his "Hoffa." No two-bit actor can ever forge the man. So Kennedy actually appears at himself technically the whole time throughout (except of a few scenes where Bobby's right there with the actors, but we never get a good look, of course. That feels... respectful.
But does it work? The most crippling flaw in "Bobby" is that because of the contemporary faces and their underdevloped characters and underwritten scenes, we're never convinced we're back there during that fatal day. And when RFK walks through the door, onto the stage... we're never really convinced that he's in that room at this moment. RFK and the little people never seem to exist within the same time and reality.
Throughout the whole film, I was aware that they were just using old footage of Bob and the entire cast--er, members of the Ambassador were cheering facing a camera crew.
There are some moments that alone make Bobby worth seeing: A scene where a deception is going on and is revealed--we see the victim's tears and pain, a converstaion that takes place in a kitchen that really stays with you, two suited buttoned-down campaign volunteers who volunteer to embrace something more have than Kennedy, the reporter dying to see the senator in the flesh. All storylines that could have really packed a wallop if they're were written a little more. Was Esztevez on a schedule?
But there are a few too many which are just limp which leave you feeling Esztevez should have pumped them up or simply scrapped them altogether. Maybe leaving them in the bottom drawer and hauling them out the next time he wants to make a movie. As it is, this proudly stands as the best film Esztevez has come out with in over a decade. And it is a sometimes really touching tribute to a man who deseves it. For whatever reason you want to check it out, watch it, afterwards light a candle for Good ol' Bob.
In the end, what truly makes this a movie to see is the passion. The passion that Esztevez has for Bobby and has had ever since dear Emilio actually came in contact with him when he was but five years old.
"Bobby"'s finale (yes, that is the correct phrase) comes to no surprise, but what is so astonishing is how much such an act can still touch us as if we are actually there and then. It helps give the film more of an impact than everything leading up to it did.
What matters really is not when or how Kennedy left, but that he was there. Now that he's gone, it's says sad things about us how much we need him now...
THE DEVIL'S REJECTS
Just Plain Bloody Brilliant
by dane youssef
Rob Zombie is without a doubt one of the most versatile and true to his genre artists out there. "The Devil's Rejects" is the kind of movie uptight censors and worried parents always warned you was gonna get made some day.
A movie where the leads are psychopathic murderers, the violence is excess and the gore is so voluminous, that you have to ask: "Does this movie satirize this kind of sadism... or celebrate it? Is it a fun campy parody... or a sign that we may have gone too far with our ultra-violent-based entertainment?"
This movie actually defines the term "overkill." Three of the more interesting deranged killers from "House Of 1000 Corpses" get their own spin-off in the "Frasier" or "Jeffersons" tradition.
The three, who are a family, actually (a father and his son and daughter) go on a mass killing spree and are racing out of the country to legal freedom on the other side of the border. They seem to echo the Manson Family.
Their sense of humor is the kind of acquired taste like the movie itself has. It stems from the experience you'd get from... watching slasher movies throughout a lot of your life. Like lime green Jell-O, anchovies, fish eggs and black licorice, this is not for all tastes.
The movie is actually a lot smarter and more complex than you might imagine, if you're unfamiliar with what Zombie's movies are about. It's akin to films like "From Dusk 'Til Dawn," "Vulgar," "Desperado" and "Freaked."
If you like these types of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Friday the 13th" re-vamping in the video-geek traditions, here is a movie you may hold up as one for the history books. The dialogue is written a twisted brilliant way and the direction has a real retro-'70's homey-quality to it. In a way that doesn't feel contrived.
Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Sheri Moon are all so perfectly demented in their roles, you have to wonder what they're like in real life. You pray they're nothing like they are here... and hope you never come across anyone remotely like this either.
Sheri Moon, wife of director Zombie, looks more like a typical American model-actress than the degenerate rank-skank she plays here. Moseley is real-life, was actually a columnist and Heig often played scuzzy thugs, but played the judge in Tarantino's "Jackie Brown."
I find it incredibly strange that some people seem to be COMPLAINING that the pursuing cop character (the sheriff, John Quincy Wydell) is as sadistic and mentally unbalanced as the family killers themselves. Why?
Yes, he is. But... why?
Why is that a bad thing? In any way at all?
Look, if there's anything history and government have taught us, it's that it takes one to catch one. Not just in the movies, but in life. And not just in real life, but in movies as well. You see, it's not just an opinion. It's a fact. It's the way of the world.
People... do we all not remember Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive"? His I Will Catch Him By Any Means Nessicary Law Enforcer way was one of the true milestones in the movie, and it got him an Oscar. Would we want any of the other major characters to be far less interesting than the leads?
When you eat a meal of any kind, you don't just want a rich main course and the side dishes to be as tasteless as styraphone. You want a whole meal you can taste.
And the stuff with the sheriff and the rest of the cops IS something to see. Why? Because he isn't any kind of undeveloped character. Zombie made him (and everything else) just as big, broad, colorful and energetic as the '70's genre that this one stems from.
There's some humor with the Kentucky-Fried Sheriff and the rest of his "Good Ol' Boys" in Blue. It goes without saying that in a small town, the cops are all red-necked. The way the stereotype of the small-town cop in a campy-slasher pic is handled with more laughs than usual.
And there's a great moment where they call in a specialist, a film historian (see: uber film geek) to help them with the investigation and the film historian.... well, suffice to say, he insults the name of God in the house of the Lord, to say the absolute least.
We all know Zombie is a neo-talent outside of the music biz. He did the LSD effect in "Beavis & Butthead Do America."
The end may justify the means, in this case. The hick cops and the colorful killers... in the end, it's an ending we all knew we deserved.
Speaking of Zombie, his film debut "House of 1000 Corpses," was a film I found to be embarrassingly bad. I'm a fan of those types of rock-horror camp movies in the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "House Of Wax" vein. SEVERED vein, in this case.
But everything was played out so campy, so cheaply, so maudlin, so without suspense... that Zombie, I felt, made a movie that seems to be an insult, rather than a tribute to those horror-show camp classics.
But he's redeemed himself with this one. He's working without a net and it all could have gone horribly, pathetically wrong. So I give him props. BIG, BIG PROPS.
As I'm writing this now, he's currently re-making "Halloween." Though I wish he wouldn't, really. Why re-paint the Mona Lisa? Give it eyebrows, what? Will that REALLY be an improvement?
Brace yourself. Not for all tastes. Procceed with caution. Use extreme care.
NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED, SQUEAMISH, PRUDISH... OR TOO MORAL.
VULGAR
Something different from View-Askew. Glad I saw it.
by dane youssef
Bryan Johnson shows amazing talent and depth as a first-time greenhorn filmmaker. There's more thanjust one worthwhile film here. There's two.
"Vulgar" plays out like a scrappy, slapped-together little campy comedy and then shifts wildly into much darker territory. And then back again. And back...
Johnson seems to have a natural wild indie touch and while it has touches of some of the darkest nature ever uncovered on the screen, it also has some nice Jersey-blue collar comedy.
Now here's a movie Tarantino would enjoy. It's kinda like a soup. It plays out like a stew of movies, styles and ideas. European avant-garde cinema, indie film and campy, low-budget comedy. It's a shame this movie didn't play in Europe and France. Or college kids. This is the kind of thing they all gobble up.
I'm glad I bought a copy. It gives me hope as an aspiring filmmaker... and joy and thrills as a movie-lover who loves off-kilter stuff.
Brian O' Halloran is touchingly determined and vulnerable as the clown. He scrapes out a meager existence as a "party whore" and lives in his hovel of a home, living on s*** wages, barely making ends meet. His landlord is understanding and sympathetic and lets him "mow the lawn or do some maintenance" and knocks off a few.
Ethan Suplee and Matt Mawer are effective and creepy as his inbred and mentally-retarded sons who seem to have been phoned right out of "Deliverence."
Jerry Lewkowitz is just plain frightening and disturbing as Ed Fanelli. With his portly beer-belly, bug-eyes, raspy voice and bad wig that looks like a little boy's hair. I heard that the inspiration for this character was Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet." He's one of the scariest villains (or any kind of characters) to pop up on any kind of cinema in history.
The rape sequence with Will is just horrifying. It outdoes the whole scene in "Blue Velvet" and literally makes you BELIEVE and FEEL what this poor guy who just wants to entertain little kids is feeling.
The morning after where he has his emotional breakdown is just as strong. Will confides in Syd about the whole evening and Syd begs him to go to the cops, but Will swears him to secrecy. These scenes all shows strength, talent and feeling with both O' Halloran's acting and Johnson's directing.
Johnson himself, like Tarantino and producer Kevin Smith, once jockeyed in a video store. He gives the movie the flavor of a lot of low-budget films and masters past. He gives some "Kevin Smith" flavor in the dialouge and the juice of other great filmmakers', but he also gives it his own signature style. You'd have to see it to know what I mean.
Johnson has never been within 200 miles of a film school, so he seems to have gotten all of whatever film education and knowledge from Smith and Mosier.
You can tell Johnson is emulating Smith as a filmmaker, like the film's dialouge has an overwritten, over-articulate Kevin Smith-ness to it. Not to mention Smith's one-shot camera set-up. Still, there are moments that generate pain beyond words and conversation that Smith has never shown us.
And anyway, this is NOT a Kevin Smith film. I love the man, but this is another cup of tea altogether. Many will see because of the "Kevin Smith" name on the marquee. Which means they;ll be in for some serious shock and disappointment.
Johnson's only real mistake, in my opinion (and this is one that hurts the movie more than anything else) is his decision to act in it as the clown's only friend. You see why Smith only gave him bit-parts as Steve-Dave. He's no actor. He tends to mumble a lot of the time.
Look, read the other "user reviews" on IMDb about Johnson's "Vulgar." Listen to them describe it. YOU know if it's the movie for you. It all depends on your taste. Go to the site's OFFICIAL WEB PAGE and read the interview with Johnson. After hearing him, does it sound like your type of movie?
All in all, this is a hell of a debut. I liked Johnson's different stories and juggling them all at once. Comedy, drama, horror, working-class stories...
And at the center of it all, View Askew's poster boy--Flappy the Clown.
Have you ever wondered the real story about that clown? Here it is...
Now dear readers, I am not recommending this movie as "fun for the whole family." I do not recommend this as a movie to see with your drinking acquaintances. No, this a movie for a specific audience with a very acquired palate--darker, daring, low-budget, creepy, campy, gross and funny all at once.
Don't see this because Kevin Smith produced it. See it because this is your taste. Read the reviews. Does this sound like your brand of poison? You know who you are.
SPECIAL NOTE: Jerry Lewkowitz deserves particularly special acclaim. Speaking as someone who has seen far more than his share of movies, Lewkowitz is the most frightening villain I've ever seen.
And as Ed Fanelli, he should be placed next to Michael Rooker in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and Charlize Theron in "Monster." His role as the horrifying Ed Fanelli will stay with you to the grave...