LIBERTY:
Review of Heathers:
I can see why this movie is a cult classic, but I did find it kind of disturbing. I guess that that’s why it’s a cult classic—because it subverts the norms of teen movies and messes with your expectations. Christian Slater was actually really good in this movie, which made me briefly wonder why he isn’t in more things today. I thought about it and my (admittedly silly) hypothesis is that he is cutely creepy here—he’s still young—but grown up, he just looks creepy, which undermines his roles if the whole time you’re just thinking “He looks creepy! Creepy!” It works well in this movie, though. Winona Ryder was fine. The girl who played Martha was good and I’m sad that she only seems to have had two other roles. That’s a shame.
I liked the fact that each of the girls had a color, although I wish that it was better explained. Along with the “lunchtime question,” it’s not really explained for something that I thought was so important to the plot. Is the question for the school newspaper, as seems to be implied later on? Is it just to mess with people?
There is a moment where Winona Ryder’s character makes eye contact with the sister of the boy she killed, and she seems to briefly realize the pain that she’s causing people. This poignant moment is ignored and never mentioned again, which seems sort of a shame for a moment that I thought really grounded the movie. I suppose that you could argue that this moment makes her decide to stop killing people, who knows.
I didn’t love this movie whole-heartedly because it rubbed me the wrong way with all of the murders/attempted suicides and the way that neither of them are caught, but that is really just my tendency to like murderers brought to justice, even in a satire. I have a weirdly old-fashioned sense of morals a lot of the time, so that may be why I didn’t fall in love with the film; this is the sort of film that I would love and tell everyone to watch, but something about it made me uncomfortable. Overall, it was fine.
JORDAN:
Review of Heathers:
I think this movie was excellent in some ways and definitely screwball in others. First of all, why does every single character say such strange lines? "Fuck me gently with a chainsaw?" Really? But, after a while, I got used to the entire idea that this world was not so literal and some things would go unnoticed/unexplained. I felt like the movie had a really great storyline that came together in some shocking ways; I wanted to trust the cute Christian Slater as J.D., for example, but he turned out to be a nutcase. I liked the use of color throughout the movie from its beginning with croquet balls and further use of scenic design. I must admit, I love Winona Ryder and her roles - the smart girl who wants to be popular in this movie, the goth girl that befriends a pair of ghosts in Beetlejuice - and in Heathers I felt like her character really expressed the conflict of emotions needed in this satire. Overall, I believe that the main "theme" was the conflict between inner desires and polite society; while we all want the nerds to inherit the earth (or at least have everyone respect each other), polite society sets up all sorts of constraints against that. Thus, this satirical film appealed to my broader intellectual side as well.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Movie Reviews (Now With Lists!)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Here are the reviews for this week! Three in-theaters movies for me and a joint review of The Saint from Liberty and I. She has opted for a creative list review style, which is actually quite fetching because it brings new life to the older titles that we are watching. As always, if you don't like spoilers, you may not want to read on.
LIBERTY:
The Saint: Ways in Which This Movie is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS (A List Review):
1) He wears disguises, but is always recognizably Val Kilmer. Even when he is in his most effective disguise, the nerd one, he is still clearly Val Kilmer. However, his Russian maid outfit is just awesome. His accents are also pretty terrible. They slide all over the place and are ridiculous, especially his British one. And his Southern one. And his weird Swiss one…
2) The bad guy’s son carries a cane for no reason. He doesn’t even use it as a weapon, so why does he have it? Is that what the sons of Russian mobsters do to be cool? He is pretty clearly trying so hard to be cool, with his ponytail and his smarmy attitude.
3) Apparently Russian mobsters gather in fancy clubs and listen to traditional folk music while watching RAT RACES??? Seriously? I’d banned that from my mind, so it was a surprise when I re-watched it. They don’t have anything better to do with their time and money? I would think that they would play poker or something gangster-y, but no. Apparently I am not cut out to be a gangster, because I do not see the appeal of RAT RACES. (Well, I can see it a little…maybe.)
4) Sex scene: there is a weird song playing in the background that sounds like a Alanis Morrisete song, but extremely grating…then they play soft “ooh, this is a sex scene” music over it, which just makes an odd contrast that made it even more awkward.
5) Russia as our usual American enemy. Surely we could find another enemy? Although there are actually some good Russians in this, so that’s a decent change…
6) Whore with a heart of gold trope rears its head again.
7) One black character in the entire movie, but at least he doesn’t die!
8) Attacking someone with a chandelier: always a valid life choice.
9) And yet…I really do love this movie. It is terrible and ridiculous, but it is endearing. I mock it because I love it, even though I don’t know why. The weird mix of 90s action movie silliness combined with Val Kilmer being handsome and dressed in silly disguises makes something in my brain very happy. I hadn’t watched this movie in a long time, and its flaws are more apparent to me now, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.
JORDAN:
Review of Despicable Me:
First of all, congratulations Illuminations Studios on your first film! Second, it was really good! While both my boyfriend and I agree that the ending was a little rushed, Despicable Me took me on another sophisticated romp in the land of animated films. It was reminiscent of the quirkiness of Up (which is my all-time favorite animated movie) and the kiddy jokes that attract kids in the first place. I also think that Steve Carrell really did not sound like himself, but was consistent enough to create a believable Gru character with his accent. I really loved this movie because it was an alternative tale about the competition between supervillains rather than heroes and also showed some complex relationships. Gru, a single man, adopts three orphan girls, which was interesting, and the bank teller (from the Bank of Evil: formerly Lehman Brothers, haha) has a derelict son that he tries to bring up as a strong supervillain. Overall, the little girls were also extremely interesting and had distinct personalities to satisfy my desire for movies not to stereotype women. I suggest, however, not to see this movie in 3D because I was already reeling from the graphics in a 2D theater.
Review of The Sorcerer's Apprentice:
This movie was strangely entertaining, but only because of the special effects and fighting scenes. There were a lot of pretty scenes and interesting characters, but I felt that the acting was phoned in and often terrible. I cringed at the "dramatic teacher voice" that Nicholas Cage put on whenever he wanted to say something. Although I am happy that he is paying his bills, this movie was not made better by his presence. And the student to Nicholas Cage's teacher was very annoying at moments; I wanted to get to know his girlfriend more, but she was made into an accent character. Basically all the sorcerers were made into accent characters as well - when I wanted to get to know someone, they were killed within 3 minutes. So, though the movie had an interesting premise and there were a lot of cool cinematic tricks tossed in, I felt like The Sorcerer's Apprentice was really just an excuse to throw together all of Hollywood's special effects and not pay any attention to the storyline or character acting.
Review of Inception:
This was such a complex movie. If you are in the mood for a sit-back movie where you don't have to think, this is not the one for you. But I found it amazing because it kept me involved the whole way through. There were layers of dreams and interesting plot twists and the director allowed you to choose your ending, almost as if you were in a really well-written book. Leonardo DiCaprio has been doing some stellar work with psychological dramas these days and I think that it suits him well; others said that he was phoning in this performance because it was typical of him to be the dramatic man in a tortured lifestyle, but this performance blew me away. I think that the support cast was also great - Ellen Page really came into her own in this movie, separating herself from lighter dramas such as Juno and Whip It. And Michael Caine was just a nice touch (I say this because I love him, even when he doesn't do too much). Anyway, the movie overall was full of great and believable special effects coupled with great action and an awesome concept. I felt that the complexity was great and that the movie was well-timed, so you had enough time to think through all the previous scenes as you were watching. However, I think I will watch this movie again just to see what my new interpretations are. If you like to re-watch movies, this is also one of those that you can see again and again with a new feeling.
Review of The Saint:
Wow, this movie was confusing at first! I didn't understand the relationship between Val Kilmer's orphanage past and his present con-man actions until mid-way through the movie. I think that there is a nice tie-in with the name thing, but those scenes seem to be questionable at best. Also, this movie had the MOST AWKWARD RELATIONSHIP EVER. When he was attracting the woman to con her, I felt like the movie was diving slowly into a soft-core porn. And, in the end, it seemed again like the smart woman was tempted by sex into going for the bad boy, as often Hollywood movies go. There were just some bizarre choices that were made in this movie - he falls in the river and gets hypothermia, the Russians are watching rat races, and everyone is freaking out about Americans. Weird... times... In the end, I didn't feel a particular draw to this movie or a particular dislike. It was just a movie, plain and simple, and so I think if you wanted to watch it when you are very bored, then it might be entertaining with its absurdity.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
LIBERTY:
The Saint: Ways in Which This Movie is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS (A List Review):
1) He wears disguises, but is always recognizably Val Kilmer. Even when he is in his most effective disguise, the nerd one, he is still clearly Val Kilmer. However, his Russian maid outfit is just awesome. His accents are also pretty terrible. They slide all over the place and are ridiculous, especially his British one. And his Southern one. And his weird Swiss one…
2) The bad guy’s son carries a cane for no reason. He doesn’t even use it as a weapon, so why does he have it? Is that what the sons of Russian mobsters do to be cool? He is pretty clearly trying so hard to be cool, with his ponytail and his smarmy attitude.
3) Apparently Russian mobsters gather in fancy clubs and listen to traditional folk music while watching RAT RACES??? Seriously? I’d banned that from my mind, so it was a surprise when I re-watched it. They don’t have anything better to do with their time and money? I would think that they would play poker or something gangster-y, but no. Apparently I am not cut out to be a gangster, because I do not see the appeal of RAT RACES. (Well, I can see it a little…maybe.)
4) Sex scene: there is a weird song playing in the background that sounds like a Alanis Morrisete song, but extremely grating…then they play soft “ooh, this is a sex scene” music over it, which just makes an odd contrast that made it even more awkward.
5) Russia as our usual American enemy. Surely we could find another enemy? Although there are actually some good Russians in this, so that’s a decent change…
6) Whore with a heart of gold trope rears its head again.
7) One black character in the entire movie, but at least he doesn’t die!
8) Attacking someone with a chandelier: always a valid life choice.
9) And yet…I really do love this movie. It is terrible and ridiculous, but it is endearing. I mock it because I love it, even though I don’t know why. The weird mix of 90s action movie silliness combined with Val Kilmer being handsome and dressed in silly disguises makes something in my brain very happy. I hadn’t watched this movie in a long time, and its flaws are more apparent to me now, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.
JORDAN:
Review of Despicable Me:
First of all, congratulations Illuminations Studios on your first film! Second, it was really good! While both my boyfriend and I agree that the ending was a little rushed, Despicable Me took me on another sophisticated romp in the land of animated films. It was reminiscent of the quirkiness of Up (which is my all-time favorite animated movie) and the kiddy jokes that attract kids in the first place. I also think that Steve Carrell really did not sound like himself, but was consistent enough to create a believable Gru character with his accent. I really loved this movie because it was an alternative tale about the competition between supervillains rather than heroes and also showed some complex relationships. Gru, a single man, adopts three orphan girls, which was interesting, and the bank teller (from the Bank of Evil: formerly Lehman Brothers, haha) has a derelict son that he tries to bring up as a strong supervillain. Overall, the little girls were also extremely interesting and had distinct personalities to satisfy my desire for movies not to stereotype women. I suggest, however, not to see this movie in 3D because I was already reeling from the graphics in a 2D theater.
Review of The Sorcerer's Apprentice:
This movie was strangely entertaining, but only because of the special effects and fighting scenes. There were a lot of pretty scenes and interesting characters, but I felt that the acting was phoned in and often terrible. I cringed at the "dramatic teacher voice" that Nicholas Cage put on whenever he wanted to say something. Although I am happy that he is paying his bills, this movie was not made better by his presence. And the student to Nicholas Cage's teacher was very annoying at moments; I wanted to get to know his girlfriend more, but she was made into an accent character. Basically all the sorcerers were made into accent characters as well - when I wanted to get to know someone, they were killed within 3 minutes. So, though the movie had an interesting premise and there were a lot of cool cinematic tricks tossed in, I felt like The Sorcerer's Apprentice was really just an excuse to throw together all of Hollywood's special effects and not pay any attention to the storyline or character acting.
Review of Inception:
This was such a complex movie. If you are in the mood for a sit-back movie where you don't have to think, this is not the one for you. But I found it amazing because it kept me involved the whole way through. There were layers of dreams and interesting plot twists and the director allowed you to choose your ending, almost as if you were in a really well-written book. Leonardo DiCaprio has been doing some stellar work with psychological dramas these days and I think that it suits him well; others said that he was phoning in this performance because it was typical of him to be the dramatic man in a tortured lifestyle, but this performance blew me away. I think that the support cast was also great - Ellen Page really came into her own in this movie, separating herself from lighter dramas such as Juno and Whip It. And Michael Caine was just a nice touch (I say this because I love him, even when he doesn't do too much). Anyway, the movie overall was full of great and believable special effects coupled with great action and an awesome concept. I felt that the complexity was great and that the movie was well-timed, so you had enough time to think through all the previous scenes as you were watching. However, I think I will watch this movie again just to see what my new interpretations are. If you like to re-watch movies, this is also one of those that you can see again and again with a new feeling.
Review of The Saint:
Wow, this movie was confusing at first! I didn't understand the relationship between Val Kilmer's orphanage past and his present con-man actions until mid-way through the movie. I think that there is a nice tie-in with the name thing, but those scenes seem to be questionable at best. Also, this movie had the MOST AWKWARD RELATIONSHIP EVER. When he was attracting the woman to con her, I felt like the movie was diving slowly into a soft-core porn. And, in the end, it seemed again like the smart woman was tempted by sex into going for the bad boy, as often Hollywood movies go. There were just some bizarre choices that were made in this movie - he falls in the river and gets hypothermia, the Russians are watching rat races, and everyone is freaking out about Americans. Weird... times... In the end, I didn't feel a particular draw to this movie or a particular dislike. It was just a movie, plain and simple, and so I think if you wanted to watch it when you are very bored, then it might be entertaining with its absurdity.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
Blue Lagoon & Shutter Island Reviews
Monday, July 5, 2010
JORDAN:
Review of The Blue Lagoon:
Throwing it back to 1980, we watched The Blue Lagoon. I remember that the first time I encountered this film was on I Love the 80s, a VH1 special that led me to believe it was all about two teens having sex on an island. But this movie was so much more than that - although Brooke Shields definitely played a smokin' hot leading lady (and made me wonder whether how she still knew how to shave her legs having grown up on an island...), I really enjoyed the characters because it was both funny and thought-provoking to watch their progression from children to youth to parents. It left my imagination reeling about what it would be like with limited or no socialization from other people and society. Some parts of this film made me laugh at their absurdity; a lot of the scenes seemed to be B-roll from island shots, such as all the images of sea life. And, while watching the natives perform their sacrifice was life-altering for Richard (played by Christopher Atkins), it did not seem to be a necessary scene. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie as a creative spark and as a form of simple entertainment.
Review of Shutter Island:
This movie was a great psychological performance. I really enjoyed the twist at the end and I was thrilled that it recalled movies such as The Sixth Sense and The Matrix in its cleverness. I really didn't care for the soundtrack as much, but the storyline was engrossing and I found myself following the movie all the way to the end, always hoping that there would be yet another twist to satisfy my curious brain. I won't let too much of the movie go, but I think that it was a tight storyline and made sense in most of the applicable points. It does creep me out though, so this movie might be a good one to watch with other people - and to spend the night huddled close to them if you're a 'fraidy cat like me.
LIBERTY:
Review of The Blue Lagoon:
This wasn't my sort of movie. I can see why people like it, but there was something weird about the whole thing, especially all of the naked children (that could just be my natural prudence speaking, but there were way too many underwater shots of naked swimming). I think that I tend to like movies that move at a slightly faster pace, and there were long scenes where nothing really happens and there is no dialogue. I ended fast forwarding through most of the second half of the movie and watching the parts with dialogue. I also wished that Richard and Em would have just talked more to each other. It would have solved a lot of their problems. The scene where Em gets her first period was just confusing--first she calls to him for help and then she tells him to go away? Although I guess I can understand her stress over the whole issue--if I were in a similar situation, I would have freaked out as well. But it's odd to introduce that topic and then not talk about it for the rest of the movie. I thought that the movie would have ended perfectly when they were covered in mud and then walked back into the jungle. They clearly wanted to stay on the island--why suddenly have them found? I suppose that at least their son won't have to die alone. I just don't think that they're going to have a good life back in the real world--it will be like the reception that Tarzan had. I may be over thinking the whole thing, though. In any event, not my movie--too slow and an unsatisfying ending.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
Review of The Blue Lagoon:
Throwing it back to 1980, we watched The Blue Lagoon. I remember that the first time I encountered this film was on I Love the 80s, a VH1 special that led me to believe it was all about two teens having sex on an island. But this movie was so much more than that - although Brooke Shields definitely played a smokin' hot leading lady (and made me wonder whether how she still knew how to shave her legs having grown up on an island...), I really enjoyed the characters because it was both funny and thought-provoking to watch their progression from children to youth to parents. It left my imagination reeling about what it would be like with limited or no socialization from other people and society. Some parts of this film made me laugh at their absurdity; a lot of the scenes seemed to be B-roll from island shots, such as all the images of sea life. And, while watching the natives perform their sacrifice was life-altering for Richard (played by Christopher Atkins), it did not seem to be a necessary scene. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie as a creative spark and as a form of simple entertainment.
Review of Shutter Island:
This movie was a great psychological performance. I really enjoyed the twist at the end and I was thrilled that it recalled movies such as The Sixth Sense and The Matrix in its cleverness. I really didn't care for the soundtrack as much, but the storyline was engrossing and I found myself following the movie all the way to the end, always hoping that there would be yet another twist to satisfy my curious brain. I won't let too much of the movie go, but I think that it was a tight storyline and made sense in most of the applicable points. It does creep me out though, so this movie might be a good one to watch with other people - and to spend the night huddled close to them if you're a 'fraidy cat like me.
LIBERTY:
Review of The Blue Lagoon:
This wasn't my sort of movie. I can see why people like it, but there was something weird about the whole thing, especially all of the naked children (that could just be my natural prudence speaking, but there were way too many underwater shots of naked swimming). I think that I tend to like movies that move at a slightly faster pace, and there were long scenes where nothing really happens and there is no dialogue. I ended fast forwarding through most of the second half of the movie and watching the parts with dialogue. I also wished that Richard and Em would have just talked more to each other. It would have solved a lot of their problems. The scene where Em gets her first period was just confusing--first she calls to him for help and then she tells him to go away? Although I guess I can understand her stress over the whole issue--if I were in a similar situation, I would have freaked out as well. But it's odd to introduce that topic and then not talk about it for the rest of the movie. I thought that the movie would have ended perfectly when they were covered in mud and then walked back into the jungle. They clearly wanted to stay on the island--why suddenly have them found? I suppose that at least their son won't have to die alone. I just don't think that they're going to have a good life back in the real world--it will be like the reception that Tarzan had. I may be over thinking the whole thing, though. In any event, not my movie--too slow and an unsatisfying ending.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
A Bunch of Reviews
Monday, June 7, 2010
This week has been a great source of media watching (at least for me, Jordan) and not much of it to my liking. I have also included a mini-series review in this one, so enjoy! Oh and, as always, spoilers are included below.
LIBERTY:
Review of Bronson:
I had the opposite problem with Bronson’s trailer than I had with Robin Hood’s. It was very well cut and made me want to see the movie, which turned out to be far less coherent and enjoyable. I actually didn’t finish watching it—I fast-forwarded through about the last 25 minutes. The cinematography was nice and Tom Hardy was excellent as Charles Bronson. His performance was riveting and there was one scene, where his face shifts from being drugged and vacant to suddenly present, that riveted me. He embodied his character and held each scene. The major issue that I had with this movie was that it didn’t have a good narrative; the story wasn’t clearly explained and jumped around with little explanation to the point that I wasn’t sure what was going on. I knew Bronson’s story from real life, so I was able to follow, but the movie was disjointed. The tone of the film was very dark and relentless in violence. Some people might enjoy this movie, I suppose—the first 20 minutes are okay—but it was not for me. It disturbed me and the story was not compelling enough for me to stick around through over an hour of endless violence and jail scenes.
JORDAN:
Review of Splice:
This movie was utterly disturbing. When I heard the early reviews, I did not believe them, thinking perhaps that it was a traditional horror movie and that it had rubbed some people the wrong way. My perception of this movie was that it was akin to Alien, where the actors and actresses would be running around trying to avoid death by monster (albeit, I presumed Splice had some extra "blame the meddling scientists" rhetoric thrown in). However, when we started watching, the storyline turned out to be quite different. For the first half of the movie, I was enthralled by the theme of reluctant parenthood; though the female scientist does not want children with her male partner, she goes to all lengths to create a human/animal spliced creation and keep it safe once it is born. Yet, around the time that the male scientist attempts to drown their creation (and discovers it has underwater breathing capabilities), this movie took a turn for the worst. Although there may be a subculture that fantasizes about having sex with monsters, I was profoundly disturbed by the scene where the male scientist cheats on his wife with their creation - I felt it was unnecessary and gross, mainly because it was near incest in my mind since he had created and nurtured this thing. As well, when the female scientist gets raped by the same monster, I was horrified! Talk about complex plot devices and extravagant insanity... I felt, in the end, that this movie had potential to be great and that the special effects were astounding, yet the final material freaked me out and soiled my positive outlook on sex for a while.
Review of Bronson:
Honestly, I wondered why this movie needed to be made. I liked the way they put together the scenes and explored the internal desire of this man to be famous through a metaphorical clown act in his head, but most of the movie I spent questioning what was going on. There appeared to be no plot other than to showcase his bloody fights and that resulted in boredom and repetitiveness after a while. I felt that the main actor was very talented, however, because he portrayed the madness that accompanies Charlie Bronson quite well. I just did not feel that this movie provided anything but a crack in the door of violent crime pictures. Many films have gone far and above this movie in portraying the hard life of criminals while preserving some cinematic cohesion.
Review of Women in Trouble:
Another movie that had little plot and echoed the stylistic choices of movies like Paris, Je T'aime and Crash but without the same skill. This movie took you through the lives of 10 women who were all tangentially connected though they led radically different lives. In the end, only three women graced the screen (the accidentally pregnant porn star, the mother of a 13 year old who had left her in the care of her sister, and the 13 year old daughter who believed herself a witch), and I honestly feel that these were the only women I wanted to learn about anyway. Less is more is the mantra I would apply to this film. The woman who was being cheated on and the other porn stars who were mixed up in a crazy love triangle just did not have the skill of those three actresses and were not interesting to watch after a while. Interestingly enough, another movie has been made about the pregnant porn star (a sequel to this movie) called Elektra Luxx. I am really interested to see if this movie benefits from the focus on one character and her juicy storyline or if it falls into the same pits as Women in Trouble.
Review of Black. White.:
This mini-series was perhaps the best thing that I watched this weekend. It was made four years ago and details the lives of two families as they participate in an experiment where they trade races (via extensive makeup). A black family and white family come to live together in California and go through experiencing the race of the other family to see if and where racism exists in our society. I found that they focused a lot on the white experience of being black for a few days more so than the black experience of being white, while the black family was shown in their relations to each other and towards race as a whole. This served to show that this black family, at least the parents, had an awareness of race that the white family just did not have and needed to discover. I also found it interesting that some were profoundly changed by the experience of living in the other person's skin while others found their beliefs to be staunchly correct. It is very hard to go into all the details about this intricate experiment, but I think that it was an enjoyable and thought-provoking mini-series that is a great discussion starter - even if it just gets you wondering about what it would be like to don that much makeup every day.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
LIBERTY:
Review of Bronson:
I had the opposite problem with Bronson’s trailer than I had with Robin Hood’s. It was very well cut and made me want to see the movie, which turned out to be far less coherent and enjoyable. I actually didn’t finish watching it—I fast-forwarded through about the last 25 minutes. The cinematography was nice and Tom Hardy was excellent as Charles Bronson. His performance was riveting and there was one scene, where his face shifts from being drugged and vacant to suddenly present, that riveted me. He embodied his character and held each scene. The major issue that I had with this movie was that it didn’t have a good narrative; the story wasn’t clearly explained and jumped around with little explanation to the point that I wasn’t sure what was going on. I knew Bronson’s story from real life, so I was able to follow, but the movie was disjointed. The tone of the film was very dark and relentless in violence. Some people might enjoy this movie, I suppose—the first 20 minutes are okay—but it was not for me. It disturbed me and the story was not compelling enough for me to stick around through over an hour of endless violence and jail scenes.
JORDAN:
Review of Splice:
This movie was utterly disturbing. When I heard the early reviews, I did not believe them, thinking perhaps that it was a traditional horror movie and that it had rubbed some people the wrong way. My perception of this movie was that it was akin to Alien, where the actors and actresses would be running around trying to avoid death by monster (albeit, I presumed Splice had some extra "blame the meddling scientists" rhetoric thrown in). However, when we started watching, the storyline turned out to be quite different. For the first half of the movie, I was enthralled by the theme of reluctant parenthood; though the female scientist does not want children with her male partner, she goes to all lengths to create a human/animal spliced creation and keep it safe once it is born. Yet, around the time that the male scientist attempts to drown their creation (and discovers it has underwater breathing capabilities), this movie took a turn for the worst. Although there may be a subculture that fantasizes about having sex with monsters, I was profoundly disturbed by the scene where the male scientist cheats on his wife with their creation - I felt it was unnecessary and gross, mainly because it was near incest in my mind since he had created and nurtured this thing. As well, when the female scientist gets raped by the same monster, I was horrified! Talk about complex plot devices and extravagant insanity... I felt, in the end, that this movie had potential to be great and that the special effects were astounding, yet the final material freaked me out and soiled my positive outlook on sex for a while.
Review of Bronson:
Honestly, I wondered why this movie needed to be made. I liked the way they put together the scenes and explored the internal desire of this man to be famous through a metaphorical clown act in his head, but most of the movie I spent questioning what was going on. There appeared to be no plot other than to showcase his bloody fights and that resulted in boredom and repetitiveness after a while. I felt that the main actor was very talented, however, because he portrayed the madness that accompanies Charlie Bronson quite well. I just did not feel that this movie provided anything but a crack in the door of violent crime pictures. Many films have gone far and above this movie in portraying the hard life of criminals while preserving some cinematic cohesion.
Review of Women in Trouble:
Another movie that had little plot and echoed the stylistic choices of movies like Paris, Je T'aime and Crash but without the same skill. This movie took you through the lives of 10 women who were all tangentially connected though they led radically different lives. In the end, only three women graced the screen (the accidentally pregnant porn star, the mother of a 13 year old who had left her in the care of her sister, and the 13 year old daughter who believed herself a witch), and I honestly feel that these were the only women I wanted to learn about anyway. Less is more is the mantra I would apply to this film. The woman who was being cheated on and the other porn stars who were mixed up in a crazy love triangle just did not have the skill of those three actresses and were not interesting to watch after a while. Interestingly enough, another movie has been made about the pregnant porn star (a sequel to this movie) called Elektra Luxx. I am really interested to see if this movie benefits from the focus on one character and her juicy storyline or if it falls into the same pits as Women in Trouble.
Review of Black. White.:
This mini-series was perhaps the best thing that I watched this weekend. It was made four years ago and details the lives of two families as they participate in an experiment where they trade races (via extensive makeup). A black family and white family come to live together in California and go through experiencing the race of the other family to see if and where racism exists in our society. I found that they focused a lot on the white experience of being black for a few days more so than the black experience of being white, while the black family was shown in their relations to each other and towards race as a whole. This served to show that this black family, at least the parents, had an awareness of race that the white family just did not have and needed to discover. I also found it interesting that some were profoundly changed by the experience of living in the other person's skin while others found their beliefs to be staunchly correct. It is very hard to go into all the details about this intricate experiment, but I think that it was an enjoyable and thought-provoking mini-series that is a great discussion starter - even if it just gets you wondering about what it would be like to don that much makeup every day.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
Movie Reviews Roundup
Sunday, May 30, 2010
This roundup of reviews is mostly current movies with one throwback to the 90s. Oh, and they include spoilers, so don't read if you don't want to know!
LIBERTY:
Review of Just Wright:
I went and saw this movie with my mother and thought that it was a sweet romantic comedy and a good light movie to go and enjoy. It wasn’t perfect, but in the face of the terrible romantic comedies that have been coming out lately, this one stood out as decent and likeable. Queen Latifah is a good actor and does a nice job of portraying a strong woman who can stand on her own two feet. Common also did a good job and my mother didn’t know that he was a rapper until I told her. He might not have been totally believable as a basketball star, but the whole movie required you to put your more skeptical mind on hold, as most movies do. It was nice to see someone whose body type and skin color does not fit into Hollywood’s stereotype get the guy in the end, especially over a thinner girl. It made me very happy and I left the theater feeling as thought I had not wasted my time. It’s a romantic comedy, so it’s not the most serious of movies, but for what it was it was perfectly fine. I recommend it.
Review of Robin Hood:
I will admit that I didn’t even intend to see this movie and went into it with extremely low expectations. I was going to see Iron Man 2, but it took me a while to walk to 42nd street from 52nd or so. I could have made Iron Man 2, but barely, so on a whim I decided to go see Robin Hood. I had seen both of the trailers and they were so badly cut (at least to my eyes) that I could not tell what was going on or why I should go see it. I decided not to go see the movie on the basis of my dislike of the trailers. I will admit that I was very wrong—I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and want to go see it again. The action was very well done, the characters were engaging and compelling, and although not very historically accurate, the sets and cinematography were beautiful. All of the scenery was gorgeous and there were some shots that I wanted to pause and stare at for a bit. I don’t like Russell Crowe very much, but found him to be a decent Robin (although he spent a lot of the time unsmiling and frowning in situations that didn’t call for those facial expressions. Maybe he was trying to be serious). Cate Blanchett was very good as Marion—I liked that they made her more courageous and willing to put herself in danger for others. She wasn’t a maid in danger; she was a grown woman who could take care of herself. Mark Strong was amazing as usual as the villain, Godfrey. He has played three villains within the last year or so and will continue to do so, I hope. He plays a very fine villain and always gives a strong, menacing performance. There’s something in me that always roots for villains, but I find myself allying against his a bit. I still like him, but Godfrey was so evil that I turned against him and rooted for Marion instead. I think that that is a testament to his performance. Max Von Sydow was affecting as Sir Walter Loxely—a bit cryptic in his comments to Robin when he should have just come out and told him what he knew—but overall a nice fatherly figure. William Hurt (as William Marshall) kept looking like he was smirking during serous scenes. I decided that he was amused by everything. The characters that I wanted to see more of were Robin’s friends: Little John, Will Scarlett, Alan A’Dayle, and Friar Tuck. All of them were extremely likeable and I sort of want to see them in a buddy movie, roaming around England and helping people out. I would love to see a sequel to this movie and I highly recommend it.
JORDAN:
Review of Iron Man & Iron Man 2:
Prior to last weekend, I had seen none of the greatness that is Iron Man. I was skeptical of all the hype because every time someone tells me a movie is awesome, it disappoints me in some way (Napoleon Dynamite, anyone?). But I have to admit, the first Iron Man enthralled me. Maybe it was just the great special effects or the fact that the movie satisfied my inner nerd, but the storyline was strong and the acting was great. I think that Tony Stark is a quintessential bad boy – so much so that I sometimes didn’t believe him as the hero later on and continued to mutter to myself questions like “why did that journalist sleep with him?” Overall, however, the movie was really well done and I found myself wanting more adventure at the end.
Iron Man 2, in comparison, finds all its strength in the villains. The storyline is understandable, but it has definitely been done before. Whenever Ivan was on screen, he stole the show – it was a fantastic performance! In general, I feel like the flashiness of the fight scenes in the second movie were much less gripping as the first movie’s complex storyline; it felt more like a traditional action movie in terms of the unnecessary violence and big budget ideas. Yet the movie was still entertaining, even if it dropped a star or so in my rating scale from the first movie.
Review of Prince of Persia:
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is an adaptation of the popular video game of the same name. The movie, however, does not stick to the game storyline very well and uses a much more contrived plot in order to fulfill its goals. Although I have not played the game myself, I know from anecdotal evidence that the movie uses a lot of the elements from the game (such as accurate background story, costumes, and scenery), but takes the storyline on a crazy journey. I think that the movie is entertaining – as many adaptations are – not for the plot but for the big budget adventure that happens in the 2 hour time frame. There were some scenes that were blatantly over the top in this movie and I felt my attention flagging when the predictable love scenes appeared, so I would not recommend this movie if you want something completely entertaining. But if you’re looking for a summer movie with all the bells and whistles from large glowing hourglass rocks and assassins powered by black magic, then go for it.
And, as for the Iraq war metaphors that some have mentioned are contained in this movie? I really don’t see it as anything more than a trashy action flick, sorry guys.
Review of Super Mario Bros:
Another video game adaptation, this film from 1993 is one of the weirdest I have seen. In an attempt to explain the back story of the two plumbers, this movie takes you on a romp through another dimension where the evolved species was dinosaurs rather than mammals. The villains of this dimension are King Koopa (Bowser) but as a human-looking man who has taken over the mainly barren expanse of their world. The Goombas are truly freaky since they are de-evolved dinosaurs with human bodies, and all of the elements of the Mario games are subtle and make you say “Oh!” when you realize what they are. The Mario brothers are plumbers in modern day Brooklyn and follow Princess Daisy back over to the other dimension as she realizes that she is not of that dimension (via a kidnapping by the Koopas, as usual) Overall, I enjoyed this movie in a perverse way; it took the elements of Mario and made them into a cohesive storyline. The graphics left much to be desired and it didn’t stick to the original game at all. I think, quite honestly, it would be a terrible movie even if you hadn’t heard of Mario at all beforehand. But there was a sense of ironic humor that really made me smile and I could always laugh at the absurdity presented throughout. Bonus points for having Dennis Hopper (recently deceased) and John Leguizamo – star quality in a strange B movie!
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
LIBERTY:
Review of Just Wright:
I went and saw this movie with my mother and thought that it was a sweet romantic comedy and a good light movie to go and enjoy. It wasn’t perfect, but in the face of the terrible romantic comedies that have been coming out lately, this one stood out as decent and likeable. Queen Latifah is a good actor and does a nice job of portraying a strong woman who can stand on her own two feet. Common also did a good job and my mother didn’t know that he was a rapper until I told her. He might not have been totally believable as a basketball star, but the whole movie required you to put your more skeptical mind on hold, as most movies do. It was nice to see someone whose body type and skin color does not fit into Hollywood’s stereotype get the guy in the end, especially over a thinner girl. It made me very happy and I left the theater feeling as thought I had not wasted my time. It’s a romantic comedy, so it’s not the most serious of movies, but for what it was it was perfectly fine. I recommend it.
Review of Robin Hood:
I will admit that I didn’t even intend to see this movie and went into it with extremely low expectations. I was going to see Iron Man 2, but it took me a while to walk to 42nd street from 52nd or so. I could have made Iron Man 2, but barely, so on a whim I decided to go see Robin Hood. I had seen both of the trailers and they were so badly cut (at least to my eyes) that I could not tell what was going on or why I should go see it. I decided not to go see the movie on the basis of my dislike of the trailers. I will admit that I was very wrong—I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and want to go see it again. The action was very well done, the characters were engaging and compelling, and although not very historically accurate, the sets and cinematography were beautiful. All of the scenery was gorgeous and there were some shots that I wanted to pause and stare at for a bit. I don’t like Russell Crowe very much, but found him to be a decent Robin (although he spent a lot of the time unsmiling and frowning in situations that didn’t call for those facial expressions. Maybe he was trying to be serious). Cate Blanchett was very good as Marion—I liked that they made her more courageous and willing to put herself in danger for others. She wasn’t a maid in danger; she was a grown woman who could take care of herself. Mark Strong was amazing as usual as the villain, Godfrey. He has played three villains within the last year or so and will continue to do so, I hope. He plays a very fine villain and always gives a strong, menacing performance. There’s something in me that always roots for villains, but I find myself allying against his a bit. I still like him, but Godfrey was so evil that I turned against him and rooted for Marion instead. I think that that is a testament to his performance. Max Von Sydow was affecting as Sir Walter Loxely—a bit cryptic in his comments to Robin when he should have just come out and told him what he knew—but overall a nice fatherly figure. William Hurt (as William Marshall) kept looking like he was smirking during serous scenes. I decided that he was amused by everything. The characters that I wanted to see more of were Robin’s friends: Little John, Will Scarlett, Alan A’Dayle, and Friar Tuck. All of them were extremely likeable and I sort of want to see them in a buddy movie, roaming around England and helping people out. I would love to see a sequel to this movie and I highly recommend it.
JORDAN:
Review of Iron Man & Iron Man 2:
Prior to last weekend, I had seen none of the greatness that is Iron Man. I was skeptical of all the hype because every time someone tells me a movie is awesome, it disappoints me in some way (Napoleon Dynamite, anyone?). But I have to admit, the first Iron Man enthralled me. Maybe it was just the great special effects or the fact that the movie satisfied my inner nerd, but the storyline was strong and the acting was great. I think that Tony Stark is a quintessential bad boy – so much so that I sometimes didn’t believe him as the hero later on and continued to mutter to myself questions like “why did that journalist sleep with him?” Overall, however, the movie was really well done and I found myself wanting more adventure at the end.
Iron Man 2, in comparison, finds all its strength in the villains. The storyline is understandable, but it has definitely been done before. Whenever Ivan was on screen, he stole the show – it was a fantastic performance! In general, I feel like the flashiness of the fight scenes in the second movie were much less gripping as the first movie’s complex storyline; it felt more like a traditional action movie in terms of the unnecessary violence and big budget ideas. Yet the movie was still entertaining, even if it dropped a star or so in my rating scale from the first movie.
Review of Prince of Persia:
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is an adaptation of the popular video game of the same name. The movie, however, does not stick to the game storyline very well and uses a much more contrived plot in order to fulfill its goals. Although I have not played the game myself, I know from anecdotal evidence that the movie uses a lot of the elements from the game (such as accurate background story, costumes, and scenery), but takes the storyline on a crazy journey. I think that the movie is entertaining – as many adaptations are – not for the plot but for the big budget adventure that happens in the 2 hour time frame. There were some scenes that were blatantly over the top in this movie and I felt my attention flagging when the predictable love scenes appeared, so I would not recommend this movie if you want something completely entertaining. But if you’re looking for a summer movie with all the bells and whistles from large glowing hourglass rocks and assassins powered by black magic, then go for it.
And, as for the Iraq war metaphors that some have mentioned are contained in this movie? I really don’t see it as anything more than a trashy action flick, sorry guys.
Review of Super Mario Bros:
Another video game adaptation, this film from 1993 is one of the weirdest I have seen. In an attempt to explain the back story of the two plumbers, this movie takes you on a romp through another dimension where the evolved species was dinosaurs rather than mammals. The villains of this dimension are King Koopa (Bowser) but as a human-looking man who has taken over the mainly barren expanse of their world. The Goombas are truly freaky since they are de-evolved dinosaurs with human bodies, and all of the elements of the Mario games are subtle and make you say “Oh!” when you realize what they are. The Mario brothers are plumbers in modern day Brooklyn and follow Princess Daisy back over to the other dimension as she realizes that she is not of that dimension (via a kidnapping by the Koopas, as usual) Overall, I enjoyed this movie in a perverse way; it took the elements of Mario and made them into a cohesive storyline. The graphics left much to be desired and it didn’t stick to the original game at all. I think, quite honestly, it would be a terrible movie even if you hadn’t heard of Mario at all beforehand. But there was a sense of ironic humor that really made me smile and I could always laugh at the absurdity presented throughout. Bonus points for having Dennis Hopper (recently deceased) and John Leguizamo – star quality in a strange B movie!
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
Movie Reviews: Nightmare on Elm Street Comparison and Being John Malkovich
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Introducing... MOVIE CLUB 2010!
My friend Liberty and I, since we are going to be on opposite coasts this summer, have decided to watch movies together and write reviews in order to keep in touch. Here are our first reviews - we are comparing the two versions of Nightmare on Elm Street and Being John Malkovich!
LIBERTY:
Nightmare on Elm Street:
In this review, I will compare the remake, which came out this year, to the original version by Wes Craven. We watched the remake first, so I might be biased in that direction, especially since I love Jackie Earle Haley and wanted to see the remake solely for him. I did like the remake, although I felt that it was in the same vein as new horror films: a lot of things happened in dark places and the overall feel of the movie was very grey. I did think that it had a more coherent plot and a better overall explanation of what was going on. I got more of a feel for the characters and I knew why the events were happening. In the original, the characters weren't introduced as well and there was never a definitive explanation for why Freddy was after the teenagers. He was described as a "child murderer," but no one ever said that he was trying to kill Nancy as revenge for his death or anything. I inferred that from my knowledge of the series, but it was very unclear. I did think that Nancy in the original had a much stronger voice and presence than she did in the remake. In the original, she was very forceful and had a strong voice. I liked her more in the original, because she knew what to do and she did it with very little support, as everyone in her life kept failing her. In the remake, Nancy keeps to herself and feels muted and subdued throughout. Although she has better ideas than her friends, she keeps them to herself and follows along. I feel that there's a cultural shift in there, maybe a backlash against feminism, but I don't know enough to really posit a thesis. What was really interesting to me was what was left unsaid in both films. In the original, they never say that Nancy's father and mother are divorced, although it seemed to me that they are--Nancy's mother is always drinking and her father is never seen in the house. She and her mother drive a separate car from him, and he is referred to as her mother as "your father." In the remake, they never say clearly that the children were molested, although the remake revolves around that information. Their parents say that "He hurt you" and never refer to what happened to them in any other terms that might help them process what happened to them. What our culture is willing to talk about is shown in these omissions. Even in the remake, I don't think that it's clearly stated where Nancy's father, whom we never see on screen, is. Are they divorced? Her mother is an air hostess and leaves her alone in the house when she has to go on a flight, so unless her father also has a job that requires travel, I would assume so. To me, it seemed that Wes Craven's scenes of horror were better shot and scared me more than the scenes in the remake. However, I laughed throughout the remake except during those scenes, so I would say that the remake, during which I hid behind my hands in fear, was a scarier, more coherent movie overall. I enjoyed both of them, though, and they both have their merits.
Being John Malkovich:
I enjoyed this movie; it has the kind of quirky humor that I like a lot. It also (obviously) has John Malkovich, whom I love. I was suprised to see Cameron Diaz, but I thought that she gave a very good, nuanced performance, and she was my favorite to watch on the screen. I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it, so I will try not to go into to much detail, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would (although I still liked it). I don't know if I would watch it again or tell anyone that they had to watch it. The moral issues raised by taking control of someone and making them do things that they do not want to do, and the blase way in which it was presented bothered me. I understand that it is a comedy, but it bothered me that they didn't seem to really consider or be disturbed by what they were doing or the consequences of their actions. I started out sympathizing with John Cusak's character, but I rapidly (within 20 minutes or so) lost my sympathy. The only likeable character was John Malkovich. The rest of them seemed vapid and morally bankrupt--interested only in themselves and what would make them happy at that moment. As a result, I have mixed feelings about the movie. John Malkovich is awesome, though, and this discomfort over the lack of morals displayed in the movie may be only my own bias or me taking the movie too seriously.
JORDAN:
Nightmare on Elm Street:
In watching both the remake and the old version of this movie, I must say that the campy bits of the original were much better for a silly slumber party horror flick than a seriously scary movie. The effects in both movies were astounding, however, and I felt myself really drawn into the horror scenes in both versions - the bed scene, for instance, was much more effective in the original film, while in the remake it seemed less chilling. Yet those parts do not a cohesive horror film make. I see the appeal of the Freddy of old because he is definitely a terrifying man and his use of the bodybagged first victim is effective, but in the second version it seems that he has a more well-developed character and back story. I enjoy the addition of confusing elements that coalesce into making the movie more of a thriller genre flick rather than a simple slasher film.
Switching gears, however, I feel like the female roles in the original movie were much more pronounced and carried much more gravity than in the remake. What's wrong with a strong female protagonist? Why did she have to be coaxed into drawing the killer out of her dreams in the second version whereas in the first she had the gumption that no one else did to confront him head on? Maybe the movie is not meant to act as a woman's empowerment ploy, but there are definitely overtones of the strong, smart woman in the first film that are genuinely lacking in the second.
Overall, I really enjoyed the remake for its heart-stopping scenes and its ability to make Freddy into a deeply complicated character. Though Robert Englund still remains the original Freddy, his predecessor Jackie Earle Haley makes his own man out of the character and definitely nails the creep factor. The first film is better used as a throwback at a party where no one wants to have bad dreams later that night.
Being John Malkovich:
This movie is a thought-provoking romp through the mind of some very specific characters. I felt that it was very effective in exploring the psyches of Lotti, Craig, and Maxine in a way that showed they were deeply flawed people that needed to find themselves through another consciousness (namely, John Malkovich). I grew to hate Craig as the movie progressed and found deep sympathy for Lotti, especially when she and Maxine began to express their love for one another. Maxine I liked from the beginning, as she was a strong female character that I really admire.
Overall, this movie is not for the faint of heart. As opposed to some of the more popular and straightforward storylines, in this movie the viewer is dropped into the middle of a strange world with low-ceilings and torrid love affairs using another person's body - the audience has to suspend their disbelief from the very beginning. Yet the movie lays out a plausible and realistic account of these characters as it studies their internal dilemmas through the strangeness of the situation they find themselves in.
I really enjoyed this movie, although at some moments I was fed up with the whining of Craig in his desperation for Maxine; it goes to show that the characters are really well-executed when I can go through a range of emotions towards them throughout the course of two hours.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
My friend Liberty and I, since we are going to be on opposite coasts this summer, have decided to watch movies together and write reviews in order to keep in touch. Here are our first reviews - we are comparing the two versions of Nightmare on Elm Street and Being John Malkovich!
LIBERTY:
Nightmare on Elm Street:
In this review, I will compare the remake, which came out this year, to the original version by Wes Craven. We watched the remake first, so I might be biased in that direction, especially since I love Jackie Earle Haley and wanted to see the remake solely for him. I did like the remake, although I felt that it was in the same vein as new horror films: a lot of things happened in dark places and the overall feel of the movie was very grey. I did think that it had a more coherent plot and a better overall explanation of what was going on. I got more of a feel for the characters and I knew why the events were happening. In the original, the characters weren't introduced as well and there was never a definitive explanation for why Freddy was after the teenagers. He was described as a "child murderer," but no one ever said that he was trying to kill Nancy as revenge for his death or anything. I inferred that from my knowledge of the series, but it was very unclear. I did think that Nancy in the original had a much stronger voice and presence than she did in the remake. In the original, she was very forceful and had a strong voice. I liked her more in the original, because she knew what to do and she did it with very little support, as everyone in her life kept failing her. In the remake, Nancy keeps to herself and feels muted and subdued throughout. Although she has better ideas than her friends, she keeps them to herself and follows along. I feel that there's a cultural shift in there, maybe a backlash against feminism, but I don't know enough to really posit a thesis. What was really interesting to me was what was left unsaid in both films. In the original, they never say that Nancy's father and mother are divorced, although it seemed to me that they are--Nancy's mother is always drinking and her father is never seen in the house. She and her mother drive a separate car from him, and he is referred to as her mother as "your father." In the remake, they never say clearly that the children were molested, although the remake revolves around that information. Their parents say that "He hurt you" and never refer to what happened to them in any other terms that might help them process what happened to them. What our culture is willing to talk about is shown in these omissions. Even in the remake, I don't think that it's clearly stated where Nancy's father, whom we never see on screen, is. Are they divorced? Her mother is an air hostess and leaves her alone in the house when she has to go on a flight, so unless her father also has a job that requires travel, I would assume so. To me, it seemed that Wes Craven's scenes of horror were better shot and scared me more than the scenes in the remake. However, I laughed throughout the remake except during those scenes, so I would say that the remake, during which I hid behind my hands in fear, was a scarier, more coherent movie overall. I enjoyed both of them, though, and they both have their merits.
Being John Malkovich:
I enjoyed this movie; it has the kind of quirky humor that I like a lot. It also (obviously) has John Malkovich, whom I love. I was suprised to see Cameron Diaz, but I thought that she gave a very good, nuanced performance, and she was my favorite to watch on the screen. I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it, so I will try not to go into to much detail, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would (although I still liked it). I don't know if I would watch it again or tell anyone that they had to watch it. The moral issues raised by taking control of someone and making them do things that they do not want to do, and the blase way in which it was presented bothered me. I understand that it is a comedy, but it bothered me that they didn't seem to really consider or be disturbed by what they were doing or the consequences of their actions. I started out sympathizing with John Cusak's character, but I rapidly (within 20 minutes or so) lost my sympathy. The only likeable character was John Malkovich. The rest of them seemed vapid and morally bankrupt--interested only in themselves and what would make them happy at that moment. As a result, I have mixed feelings about the movie. John Malkovich is awesome, though, and this discomfort over the lack of morals displayed in the movie may be only my own bias or me taking the movie too seriously.
JORDAN:
Nightmare on Elm Street:
In watching both the remake and the old version of this movie, I must say that the campy bits of the original were much better for a silly slumber party horror flick than a seriously scary movie. The effects in both movies were astounding, however, and I felt myself really drawn into the horror scenes in both versions - the bed scene, for instance, was much more effective in the original film, while in the remake it seemed less chilling. Yet those parts do not a cohesive horror film make. I see the appeal of the Freddy of old because he is definitely a terrifying man and his use of the bodybagged first victim is effective, but in the second version it seems that he has a more well-developed character and back story. I enjoy the addition of confusing elements that coalesce into making the movie more of a thriller genre flick rather than a simple slasher film.
Switching gears, however, I feel like the female roles in the original movie were much more pronounced and carried much more gravity than in the remake. What's wrong with a strong female protagonist? Why did she have to be coaxed into drawing the killer out of her dreams in the second version whereas in the first she had the gumption that no one else did to confront him head on? Maybe the movie is not meant to act as a woman's empowerment ploy, but there are definitely overtones of the strong, smart woman in the first film that are genuinely lacking in the second.
Overall, I really enjoyed the remake for its heart-stopping scenes and its ability to make Freddy into a deeply complicated character. Though Robert Englund still remains the original Freddy, his predecessor Jackie Earle Haley makes his own man out of the character and definitely nails the creep factor. The first film is better used as a throwback at a party where no one wants to have bad dreams later that night.
Being John Malkovich:
This movie is a thought-provoking romp through the mind of some very specific characters. I felt that it was very effective in exploring the psyches of Lotti, Craig, and Maxine in a way that showed they were deeply flawed people that needed to find themselves through another consciousness (namely, John Malkovich). I grew to hate Craig as the movie progressed and found deep sympathy for Lotti, especially when she and Maxine began to express their love for one another. Maxine I liked from the beginning, as she was a strong female character that I really admire.
Overall, this movie is not for the faint of heart. As opposed to some of the more popular and straightforward storylines, in this movie the viewer is dropped into the middle of a strange world with low-ceilings and torrid love affairs using another person's body - the audience has to suspend their disbelief from the very beginning. Yet the movie lays out a plausible and realistic account of these characters as it studies their internal dilemmas through the strangeness of the situation they find themselves in.
I really enjoyed this movie, although at some moments I was fed up with the whining of Craig in his desperation for Maxine; it goes to show that the characters are really well-executed when I can go through a range of emotions towards them throughout the course of two hours.
Make sure to take a look at the other movie reviews Liberty and I wrote and our other collaborative work: comic alterna-history zine The Bearniverse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)