Archive for the 'Movie Reviews' Category

À la folie… pas du tout (He Loves Me… He Loves Me Not)

RadicalWacko December 5th, 2003

Rating: startstartstart

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not BoxThis is one of those films that has all the parts for greatness but just can’t put them together. This film stars the radiant pixie Audrey Tautou (Amélie) as Angélique, a struggling but talented art student, who is wrapped up in an “affair” with an older married cardiologist, Loïc (Samuel Le Bihan - Red) when things begin to decend into unspeakable horror. Unfortunately, I can’t go too far into the plot of this film with out giving out a spoiler for those who can really suspend disbelief.

However, I can say that the acting is quite good. Ms. Tautou is a dead ringer for the incredibly innocent Audrey Hepburn and yet pulls off this dark part with very little difficulty, even turning her crooked-tooth smile into an almost sinister appearance. Her male counterpart, Mr. Le Bihan does and equally good job of portraying confusion and fear as his life falls out of control.

No, the problem with this film is that it is a really arty collection of gimmicks used in one form or another in every suspense film ever made. Within 10 minutes of the beginning of the film, you know exactly what is going on and where it will end. Then you must sit through the rest of the film while they explain it to you. Even the “surprise” twist at the end was entirely expected by the clichéd design of the circumstances. A thriller is a fine and good thing. Even to use some of the standard gimmicks is necessary. But you must always add something new to the form to make it work.

In many ways, this is an standard Hollywood thriller with a light French accent. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend it at all if it weren’t for the fine performances of the actors. As such, give this a watch after a good bottle of wine with a mind well cleared of reality.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

RadicalWacko October 28th, 2003

Rating: start

Lara CroftI rented this film (and I used the term loosely) because of some deep seated need for some mindless entertainment. However, the inanity of this monstrosity is too great to satisfy even that small need.

The plot of this movie is really inconsequential, and I mean really inconsequential. Nominally, the story revolves around Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) an Indiana Jones style archeologist and English nobility posing as a photojournalist. Her father (Jon Voight) died and left her a key to a secret triangle that unlocks the power to control time. Stolen by a secret group called the Illuminati, she travels around the world to stop the fiendish plan. Oh yeah, and there is love, reunion and nudity along the way.

I really don’t know how to describe how bad this movie is. The acting is flat, the plot has enormous gaping holes in it and the writing is downright laughable. The entire film revolves around showing Miss Jolie in as revealing outfits as possible and forgets everything else. I think I can put it this way; an episode of Baywatch would be more edifying and certainly more honest about its intent. Hell, even David Hasselhoff’s acting would have improved this movie.

Roger Doger

RadicalWacko March 31st, 2003

Rating: startstartstartstartstart

Rodger Doger BoxThis movie is excellent. This movie is also excruciating. This raw and edgy filmmaking that makes you laugh and wince at the same time. While watching this movie, you have this desire to escape the situation but can’t help but to see what happens next.

This is the story of Roger (Campbell Scott), an advertising writer with an incomparable wit and abundant ego. Roger is that type of guy that we all know (and secretly think we want to be). He can talk his way into (and out of) any situation and into any woman’s bedroom. At least, we men think he can. However, after being dumped by his boss/lover Joyce (Isabella Rossellini) and a visit from his lovelorn nephew Nick (Jesse Eisenberg), Roger’s bachelor lifestyle turns into a nightmare.

This is above all else, a conversation film. With little in the way of external plot devices, this movie relies on the dialog of the script and the performances of its actors to succeed. In this aspect, this movie soars above any movie I’ve seen this year. The script, written by the debut director Dylan Kidd, flows along and breakneck speed delivering line after line of witty, hard-hitting and cynical dialog and the performances of these lines keep you enthralled with the film.

Campbell Scott (Long Time Companion, Singles, Big Night) escapes from his usual charming characters and takes on the role of Roger with relish. This is truly great acting. There is no pretense or use of cheap theatrical tricks in this performance. He can bridge the contradictions of a charming smile and a soul of hate with out missing a beat. This is without a doubt his best performance to date.

Young actor Jesse Eisenberg plays the 16-year-old nephew Nick superbly. The terror in his eyes during his long night of sexual discovery is perfect. His fumbling words and nervous body language is well executed and very believable. There is a scene in a bedroom with a very drunk and available woman where he particularly distinguishes himself. He, like Campbell Scott is able to show the characters inner conflicts, fighting between sexual desire and moral rectitude.

The female side of the cast is equally good. Isabella Rossellini (Immortal Beloved, Big Night) continues to prove her acting might as the tough and sexually free employer. Surprisingly, Elizabeth Berkley (Showgirls) shows that she actually can act leaving me to believe she just has bad judgment in her choice of parts. Finally, Jennifer Beals (Flashdance) is wonderfully desirable and human.

The film making style is definitely hard-core art school. Shot almost entirely on hand held cameras, this film has a definite documentary feel. The lighting is natural and the attention to detail is astounding. Keep a close eye of the short tight shots of hands and feet. They draw you into the characters internal workings. Occasionally, the shots can seem a bit contrived, but none of them takes away from the story.

There is very little to criticize about this film, but this is not a perfect film and for only one reason. The ending to this film seems tacked on to give some unneeded resolution to the long night in which this film primarily takes place. It feels like it was added after some unfavorable initial screenings and if so proves why committee based filmmaking is a horrible idea.

However, despite the film’s sole flaw, this film is driven by the classic Roger. The character of Roger may be one of the hardest to classify. Simply put, this man is an asshole of the first order. I would be hard pressed to find any redeeming qualities about this man at all. However, despite the fact that everything he says and does is despicable, you still like him. The reason you like him is that the only reason he is an asshole is that everything he says is a little too close to the mark. He sees the hypocrisy of the world of love and relishes in it. He says everything that you know to be true but would never admit. He knows not only the rules of the game but also that it is a game and accepts all of the consequences of it. I can say with great confidence, that this is truly one of the best characters in modern film.

This is hard film to watch, but a great work of art.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

RadicalWacko March 29th, 2003

Rating: startstartstart
Harry Potter BoxI have to admit that I haven’t read any of the amazingly popular novel’s from which this movie came. However, after viewing this film, I am certainly tempted to do so. While this film is certainly designed for the preadolescent market, it has those necessary hooks to keep even the most hardened realist of an adult interested.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a young wizard, who after his parents were killed, was left with his mean and un-magical, aunt, uncle and bratty cousin who force him to live under the stairs. However, on his 11th birthday he is accepted into the Hogwart’s School for young witches and wizards and enters a world of magic and mystery. While at school, he and his classmates Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) set out on a quest to find the Sorcerer’s Stone (which will bring immortality to those who possess it) and to prevent an evil wizard from acquiring it.

Outside of the main cast of children (who are excellent); this film is chocked full with an astounding cast of British actors. Robbie Coltrane (Henry V, GoldenEye) is perfect as the lumbering and loveable giant, Rubeus Hagrid. Alan Rickman (Bob Roberts, Dogma) once again proves that he can do sinister better than any living actor. English heavyweights Richard Harris (The Guns of Navarone, Unforgiven) and Maggie Smith (Tea with Mussolini, Gosford Park) give good performances. The short appearances by John Cleese (Life of Brian, A Fish Called Wanda) and John Hurt (I Claudius) round out this superb cast.

The cinematography is fun and inventive with a superb use of computer special effects. The setting is a combination of gothic horror and Dickensian melodrama, which works to good effect. The story combines fairy tales of every shape and kind. From Cinderella to Greek and Roman mythologies, this movie weaves a storyline that is fun to follow. The appearance of Cerberus, the three-headed dog, now renamed as Fluffy is especially amusing.

Now, despite all of these good things, the fact of the matter is that this is a fluff adventure. The characters are fairly cookie-cutter with very little time given to character development. The storyline is convoluted by its attempt to juggle too many plot lines. However, it is fun to watch and I’m glad I checked it out. I may have to borrow a child so I can go watch the next one in the theatres.

The Lady from Shanghai

RadicalWacko March 24th, 2003

Rating: startstartstartstart

The Lady from ShanghaiLike most good Orson Welles’ films, attempting to diagnose the plot of the film can be a daunting task, but I’ll give it my best effort. Orson Welles plays Michael O’Hara, an Irish sailor who meets the lovely and dangerous Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) during a mugging in Central Park. Elsa recruits Michael to serve on her husband’s yacht on a cruise through the South Seas. A sinister and dark murder plot develops and the truth isn’t known until the very end.

Made in 1946 and released in 1948, The Lady and Shanghai was one of the big films made by Welles after returning from relative exile for making Citizen Kane. Dark, brooding and expressing some early Cold War paranoia, this film stands tall as a Film-Noir crime film. The cinematography of this film is filled with Welles’ characteristic quirks of odd angles, quick cuts, long pans and sinister lighting. The use of ambient street music is a precursor to the incredible long opening shot in Touch of Evil, and the mysterious Chinese characters and the sequences in Chinatown can only be considered as the inspiration, in many ways, to Roman Polanski’s Chinatown. Unfortunately, it is Welles’ obsession with technical filmmaking that hurts this film in its entirety. The plot of this story is often lost behind a sometimes incomprehensible clutter of film techniques.

However, despite this criticism, the story combined with wonderful performances by Welles, Hayworth and especially Glenn Anders (Laughter) make this film a joy to watch. Orson Welles pulls off not only the Irish brogue, but the torn identities as the honest but dangerous sailor. Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time, breaks with her usual roles as a sex goddess and takes on a role of real depth and contradictions. Finally, Glenn Anders strange and bizarre portrayal or Elsa’s husbands’ law partner is nothing short of classic!

Despite the films minor flaws, with its evil and malicious characters, leftist political commentary, heavy sexual innuendo, bizarre setting and cinematography, it is a true Noir masterpiece of it’s time.

About a Boy

RadicalWacko March 23rd, 2003

Rating: startstartstartstart

About a BoyI can find no word to describe this film other than charming. Written by the living master of the “men behaving badly, but trying to get better” style, Nick Hornby (High Fidelity); this film introduces us to Will, played by Hugh Grant. A loafer, living off the royalties of a popular Christmas tune written by his father, Will has created the ultimate bachelor life of temporary relationships and comfortable solitude. After an odd revelation, he begins to pursue single mothers for his romantic flings. This brings him into contact with twelve year old Marcus (Nicholas Hoult) and his troubled, suicidal mother Fiona, expertly played by the versatile Toni Collette. Together, Nicholas and Will help each other to become the men they want to be.

This story could have been a predictable retelling of the innumerable romantic comedies that it resembles. However, the courage not to sugar coat the characters makes this film one of the better films of 2002. The directors, Chris and Paul Weitz, better known for their sophomoric hit comedy American Pie, demonstrate that they are a new force is humor films. The style of the film is straight forward and unremarkable, but it is this very clean style that allows a good cast to tell a story of charming humanity.

Hugh Grant, long known for his “English Fop” roles continues to grow as an actor, like he did in Bridget Jones’s Diary, to being able to play roles of depth and subtlety. Newcomer Nicholas Hoult gives a remarkable performance. I often cringe when watching what qualifies a child acting in films following in the wake of the rise of the dreadful Macaulay Culkin. However, Nicholas Hoult is an adult and professional actor in the body of a twelve year old boy. Finally, Toni Collette (Muriel’s Wedding, The Sixth Sense) proves once again, that she can take on characters with such expertness and skill that she is one of the film world’s undiscovered diamonds.

Now, this is not a “deep” film that illustrates some great revelation about the state of mankind. Nor is the script such that you won’t know how this whole story will work out. But between the witty dialog and good performances, it will certainly leave you with a smile.

Alien Resurection

RadicalWacko March 21st, 2003

Rating: startstart

Alien Resurection BoxI picked up this film after learning that it was made by one of my favorite directors, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (City of Lost Children, Amélie). It was my hope that this installment would be better than Alien3 which, at least on that count, it succeeds, even though that’s a low mountain to climb.

In this installment, 200 years have passed since Ripley’s (Sigourney Weaver) death. A splinter military group working secretly without orders clones her (and her alien parasite) from the copious amounts of her blood left over from Alien3. However, after removing her alien, they discover that the cloning process has left Ripley part alien and the alien part Ripley. As usual, the Government, now replacing that evil corporation, screws up and Ripley and some newfound smuggler friends must escape the alien hordes.

The plot for this film is a predictable rehash of the last three films. You have your evil massive organization who keeps forgetting that the aliens are really bad. You have an android subplot (this time played by Winona Ryder) which adds nothing but continuity to the rest of the movies. You even have your ubiquitous “Kill me” scene where Ripley must kill someone with a flamethrower to save them from too much pain.

However, without sounding too critical there are some good points to this film. The cast is perfect for an Alien film pairing up big names (Weaver and Ryder) with an excellent set of character actors like Dominique Pinion (The Return of Martin Guerre and Amélie), Brad Dourif (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Two Towers) and the ever odd Ron Perlman (Enemy at the Gates). This cast gives a valiant effort to bring something out of a script that seems to have been written by some stoned 13 year old boys. Even so, with lines like “Earth, man. What a shithole” and “Yeah, like you never fucked a robot” it’s hard not to wince.

However, the one thing that really saves this movie from the truly awful category is the cinematography and feel of the film. Jeunet, known for his dark films, has really kept the feel of the first two films. The underwater Alien sequence is nothing short of genius. Even the alien/Ripley love child (no, I’m not kidding) follows with the dark and brooding spirit of the original films.

The best I can say about this film is it redeems the series from the catastrophe of Alien3. However, this movie is repetitive, silly and without depth. Let us hope that this is the final film in the series so that no more slander can be thrown at what was once an terrifying experience.

Rodney's Widget for the FAlbum. plugged in.