So yeah, last post, I was talking about Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump. Button is not a carbon copy of Forrest Gump, but very similar in plot structure and story. The better question is - is Benjamin Button any good?
I liked it. I mean, pretty much... (and there are gonna be some spoilers in this review, so if you haven't seen it... well, there were a ton of spoilers in my previous post because it was practically the whole plot)
Technically, it's brilliant. I watched some of the extras on how they used a combination of a midget, an actual old man, etc. and CGIed Brad Pitt's aged head onto those characters. The CGI in this one looks pretty much flawless... For a while, I thought they hadn't cast Pitt for the first couple characters (Ben in his 80s and 70s) and just used makeup on some existing old men to do the parts. Its different from Gollum or the Transformers in that it doesnt' look like a visual effect for the most part.
Actingwise, its Brad Pitt's show to steal and he does a good job and that's about it. I guess beyond the whole aging in reverse, Benjamin Button isn't the most interesting of characters. Pitt's at his best to me when he's playing loonier, more colorful characters like the boxer from Snatch, Jesse James in Ass. of Jesse James, or my personal favorite, the mental patient from 12 Monkeys. Aside from the visual trickery and I have to give credit for playing Button the whole movie at all the different ages, this is more Brad Pitt from Legends of the Fall with a southern accent (that was well done, but still sort of distracting).
Cate Blanchett doesn't fare quite as well, I just got irritated with her character and actually thought her best character moment is when she meets Benjamin and hides under the bed talking to him late at night. Much was said about Taraji Henson's role as Benjamin's mom. I thought this role straddled parody sometimes as a stereotypical sassy ole' black lady (and it gets worse the older her character gets) but she did play the compassionate mom well. Speaking of parody, Jared Harris as the tugboat captain... yikes! For me, this was the low point acting wise. Between a goofy accent, bad dialogue, and generally really hammy acting... Obviously yes, there's the directing and writing but for a really serious, darker movie tonally, he really stood out to me.
My two favorite supporting characters were Tilda Swinton and Jason Fleyming. Swinton as Benjamin's first real love, albeit as a late night affair in a hotel room, has a great chemistry with the experienced/inexperienced Pitt. Fleyming who most people don't know by name and generally is cast as a thug (like in Deep Impact) or psychopath (Jekyll/Hyde in the underwhelming LXG), is Ben's father, and he goes from being pretty evil character (almost throws Ben off a bridge as a baby) to quite a tragic one. I've never seen Fleyming with a part like this and really pulls it off well.
So the movie is long (2 hours 40 minutes), fairly depressing at times, yet I'd still recommend it. Anyone who knows my tastes knows I really enjoy David Fincher's work (Se7en and Fight Club are some of my all time favorites, I also like the Game, Zodiac, and even the maligned Alien3)
This is Fincher's take on a fairy tale/fable, in actuality, a pretty standard story that's painted in murky yellows and rusty oranges and while emotional, never felt like it was overly sappy.
Except for the wraparound story which I haven't really gotten to. The movie technically takes place in New Orleans, 2005, hurricane season. This has nothing at all to do with Benjamin's story, but tried to amp up the tension with a series of boring cutaways to Julia Ormond as Daisy's daugher and Cate Blanchett in old age makeup. Unlike the old Benjamin, this is obviously makeup and it really breaks up and distracts from the story every time this scene gets cut back to (it happens a lot). There's no real need for it, especially because Benjamin tells the story in 1st person the whole time, not Ormond's character (I know she's reading his diary, but still...).
So a recommend for technical wizardry, a non R rated Fincher film, affecting Tilda Swinton and non-evil Jason Fleyming
Stay away from the unnecessary length, the bland Cate Blanchett, and the goofy, redundant wraparound story
I'd give it 7/10... good, but not great
And that's all I have to say about that
Patrick
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Really similar movies
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so says an old adage. You could also put it that there are just so many ideas out there. Whatever the case, movies pushed out by the Hollywood factory often are quite similar. I'm not talking about direct sequels/series or remakes or movies made by the same director, but completely separate films. A lot was said about the dueling volcano movies of Dante's Peak and Volcano or the dueling CGI kids movies about ants, A Bug's Life and Antz. Less was said about the "What is reality" concepts behind the Matrix and Existenz or the dueling brother cop movies We Own the Night and Pride and Glory. Anyhow, I saw a movie last week that, as I watched it, reminded me of a blockbuster from the 1990s. Here's a plot synopsis for you...
A caucasian boy is born in the south with birth defects that impair not only his ability to walk but his quality of life in general. With the support of his mother, he learns to walk and dramatically sheds his walking aids. He meets the love of his life at a very young age who then leaves him all alone. As the boy becomes an adolescent, he decides to join the military, going from a Meanwhile, the man reaches adulthood, and puts in a wartime stint in the U.S. military. During this stint, the man proves at first an indifferent asset, but during his one firefight, he turns out to be very valuable, saving the day singlehandedly, while also witnessing the death of one of his best friends. The man also spends much time on a small ocean vessel, serving alongside a rowdy, grizzled, hard-drinking man of the sea. This salty sailor serves as one of our man’s two best male friends; the other is a black man who first teaches our man the lessons of friendship before departing forever.
A caucasian boy is born in the south with birth defects that impair not only his ability to walk but his quality of life in general. With the support of his mother, he learns to walk and dramatically sheds his walking aids. He meets the love of his life at a very young age who then leaves him all alone. As the boy becomes an adolescent, he decides to join the military, going from a Meanwhile, the man reaches adulthood, and puts in a wartime stint in the U.S. military. During this stint, the man proves at first an indifferent asset, but during his one firefight, he turns out to be very valuable, saving the day singlehandedly, while also witnessing the death of one of his best friends. The man also spends much time on a small ocean vessel, serving alongside a rowdy, grizzled, hard-drinking man of the sea. This salty sailor serves as one of our man’s two best male friends; the other is a black man who first teaches our man the lessons of friendship before departing forever.
Our man wanders all around the world, his life brushing up against key historical moments of the 20th century. At some point he returns to his childhood home, and his mother dies. The man comes into considerable wealth through blind luck. Around this time, his lifelong love returns from her adventures, ready to commit to him. During their brief time together, they conceive a child. The couple part ways, due to the woman’s perceived inability to take care of the man. He does not raise the child through its early years but later makes an appearance in its life. The woman eventually dies in bed from illness. The man’s later years are hardly touched on, even though the movie has lavished much attention on his early and middle years.
The entire story dwells repeatedly on the theme of life’s uncertainty and, in contrast, on the notion of fate or coincidence. The film’s symbol for these themes is a small object seen hovering improbably in the air. A narrative frame scene punctuates the story, as does the main character’s drawling first person narration.
So I'll ask you, what movie is this??
Answers next time
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
X-men Origins Wolverine
Running time, 1 hour, 45 minutes
Okay, I'm not sure what I can add to what's already been said about Wolverine. He's been named the greatest Marvel Comics character of all time, he's been in countless comics, video games, and the star of the first 3 X-Men movies. So all I can offer is my opinion... I should preface this that as a big fan of comics, I could go through a nitpick all the things that were changed. In fact, I did this for about 15 minutes with a really die hard Wolverine fan at work the other day. This would be pointless, as this is a movie, and bottom line, I think it does a pretty damn good job of condensing 30 some odd years of Wolverine history into a fairly coherent movie. I'm also going to try and avoid any major plot points that haven't been shown in the previews, so if you haven't seen the previews, then don't read what follows
A lot of the internet reviews compare this film to X-Men 3, the Last Stand, which I don't think is really fair. In both movies, there are a lot of mutants and a lot of characters all together, but this in and itself isn't a terrible thing. I mean, the Lord of the Rings movies had literally dozens of characters, and they were pretty awesome. The problem with X-Men 3 was it had too many plots: you had the Mutant Cure (1), the Phoenix story (2), and Magneto and his Acolytes attacking mankind (3), not to mention introducing important characters like Beast and Angel.
X-men Origins Wolverine is actually a fairly linear story about James/Logan/Wolverine. I think the strongest part is the two opening sequences. First, you get Logan as a kid, followed by him and his brother Victor fighting in a lot of the major wars. Then, he gets recruited by the government and joins "Team X" or the "Weapon X" team, a bunch of mutant mercenaries who do covert ops type missions. There's also a fairly well done love story, and when the movie shifts into the present (there actually aren't too many flashbacks, most of the movie is in chronological order), you get some fun cameos from the first 3 X-Men movies.
I have to take a plot recap break and talk about the casting. In general, the Marvel movies have done an absolutely superb job with casting. After DC ruined Batman by casting the biggest Hollywood stars they could, (Jim Carrey, George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, The Governator) Marvel has consistently strayed from big names for more acting talent. Obviously, Hugh Jackman is once again fantastic as Wolverine and he has a little more range to cover in this movie. He's in absolutely fantastic physical shape and I found it cool that he focused on being amazingly toned and muscular without being overly bulky, which fit the character. Acting wise, I especially liked the touching scene about half way through when he befriends an older couple on a farm.
The best new character for me was Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth (You may remember Schreiber from the Scream movies as Cotton Weary or the psychotic kidnapper from Ransom). I know most people remember Sabretooth as the hairy 7 foot tall goon from the first X-Men movie which was closer to how he was depicted in the X-Men comics. In the Wolverine comics, he was a lot more of a three dimensional, yet still menacing human character. There's a good combination of aggression, physical menace (he's seems a lot taller and bigger than Jackman even though he's 6'3"... a whole inch taller), and a sense of fun that he has with the character.
I also have to mention Danny Huston as a scheming Stryker (although I preferred Brian Cox's take on the character from X-Men 2, apparently he was busy with a Day of the Triffids remake or something), Will. I. Am. (I feel dumb typing that) as the suave teleporter John Wraith, and Lynn Collins as the sensual SilverFox who all do a fine job. A little gem for me personally was Dominic Monaghan (better known as Merry from Lord of the Rings or the rock star in Lost) who really portrays the sad reality of living with mutant powers (one of the better elements from the first 2 X-Movies). Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was also spot on, with his usual charismatic sarcasm being a perfect fit for the merc with a mouth. One final supporting cast star goes to Kevin Durand as the Blob, yes it's a pretty comedic, one note performance, but with how serious most of the rest of the movie was, it was a nice change of pace.
Finally, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit... To preface this section, I'm a huge fan of Gambit, I loved him in the 90s animated series, I thought then if they did a movie that Jean Claude Van Damme should play him (Before you laugh, Van Damme could do the stunts, had the accent... okay, I was 13, it was a dumb idea, laugh) (I also wanted Dolph Lungdren as Colossus, so he could bust out "I will break him") The producers of X-Men tried to get Gambit in both part 2 (in the X-mansion invasion scene) and part 3 (in the military transport that housed Juggernaut and Multiple Man), but decided he was too important for a glorified cameo. Well, that's pretty much what the character ended up with. Kitsch looks the part, but his accent isn't Cajun at all (it sounds more Texasish then anything else) and isn't much of an actor either. Also, since when did Gambit's mutant ability turn into jumping long distances? If they do a spinoff movie and this was just an introduction to the character, I'd be okay with that, but if this is it, its pretty sad and pathetic (and really distracting to the important WOLVERINE story).
It actually reminds me a lot of Venom in Spiderman 3, where it seems like some producer was like "If you make another X-Men movie, you HAVE to use Gambit" and the director was like "But it's a Wolverine movie" and then the producer says "Pick one of Gambit! Giant Metal Spiders! Wolverine fights polar bears" and the director is like, "fine, Gambit, let's see, replace Maverick or Forge, add in Gambit, DONE!"
Overall though, really nice, well done action movie. Gavin Hood, who directed, is more known for drama, and he really takes all the time he can for character scenes/development. Aside from my Gambit gripes, most of the acting is really well done for a superhero movie. There is some subpar CGI at times with his claws (how is it they look worse and the final sequence/fight seemed really unnecessary and a little silly (especially if you recall the Darth Maul fight from Phantom Menace).
You probably know if you want to see it or not already, but overall, it gets from me...
8/10... and that's all I have to say about that
Okay, I'm not sure what I can add to what's already been said about Wolverine. He's been named the greatest Marvel Comics character of all time, he's been in countless comics, video games, and the star of the first 3 X-Men movies. So all I can offer is my opinion... I should preface this that as a big fan of comics, I could go through a nitpick all the things that were changed. In fact, I did this for about 15 minutes with a really die hard Wolverine fan at work the other day. This would be pointless, as this is a movie, and bottom line, I think it does a pretty damn good job of condensing 30 some odd years of Wolverine history into a fairly coherent movie. I'm also going to try and avoid any major plot points that haven't been shown in the previews, so if you haven't seen the previews, then don't read what follows
A lot of the internet reviews compare this film to X-Men 3, the Last Stand, which I don't think is really fair. In both movies, there are a lot of mutants and a lot of characters all together, but this in and itself isn't a terrible thing. I mean, the Lord of the Rings movies had literally dozens of characters, and they were pretty awesome. The problem with X-Men 3 was it had too many plots: you had the Mutant Cure (1), the Phoenix story (2), and Magneto and his Acolytes attacking mankind (3), not to mention introducing important characters like Beast and Angel.
X-men Origins Wolverine is actually a fairly linear story about James/Logan/Wolverine. I think the strongest part is the two opening sequences. First, you get Logan as a kid, followed by him and his brother Victor fighting in a lot of the major wars. Then, he gets recruited by the government and joins "Team X" or the "Weapon X" team, a bunch of mutant mercenaries who do covert ops type missions. There's also a fairly well done love story, and when the movie shifts into the present (there actually aren't too many flashbacks, most of the movie is in chronological order), you get some fun cameos from the first 3 X-Men movies.
I have to take a plot recap break and talk about the casting. In general, the Marvel movies have done an absolutely superb job with casting. After DC ruined Batman by casting the biggest Hollywood stars they could, (Jim Carrey, George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, The Governator) Marvel has consistently strayed from big names for more acting talent. Obviously, Hugh Jackman is once again fantastic as Wolverine and he has a little more range to cover in this movie. He's in absolutely fantastic physical shape and I found it cool that he focused on being amazingly toned and muscular without being overly bulky, which fit the character. Acting wise, I especially liked the touching scene about half way through when he befriends an older couple on a farm.
The best new character for me was Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth (You may remember Schreiber from the Scream movies as Cotton Weary or the psychotic kidnapper from Ransom). I know most people remember Sabretooth as the hairy 7 foot tall goon from the first X-Men movie which was closer to how he was depicted in the X-Men comics. In the Wolverine comics, he was a lot more of a three dimensional, yet still menacing human character. There's a good combination of aggression, physical menace (he's seems a lot taller and bigger than Jackman even though he's 6'3"... a whole inch taller), and a sense of fun that he has with the character.
I also have to mention Danny Huston as a scheming Stryker (although I preferred Brian Cox's take on the character from X-Men 2, apparently he was busy with a Day of the Triffids remake or something), Will. I. Am. (I feel dumb typing that) as the suave teleporter John Wraith, and Lynn Collins as the sensual SilverFox who all do a fine job. A little gem for me personally was Dominic Monaghan (better known as Merry from Lord of the Rings or the rock star in Lost) who really portrays the sad reality of living with mutant powers (one of the better elements from the first 2 X-Movies). Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was also spot on, with his usual charismatic sarcasm being a perfect fit for the merc with a mouth. One final supporting cast star goes to Kevin Durand as the Blob, yes it's a pretty comedic, one note performance, but with how serious most of the rest of the movie was, it was a nice change of pace.
Finally, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit... To preface this section, I'm a huge fan of Gambit, I loved him in the 90s animated series, I thought then if they did a movie that Jean Claude Van Damme should play him (Before you laugh, Van Damme could do the stunts, had the accent... okay, I was 13, it was a dumb idea, laugh) (I also wanted Dolph Lungdren as Colossus, so he could bust out "I will break him") The producers of X-Men tried to get Gambit in both part 2 (in the X-mansion invasion scene) and part 3 (in the military transport that housed Juggernaut and Multiple Man), but decided he was too important for a glorified cameo. Well, that's pretty much what the character ended up with. Kitsch looks the part, but his accent isn't Cajun at all (it sounds more Texasish then anything else) and isn't much of an actor either. Also, since when did Gambit's mutant ability turn into jumping long distances? If they do a spinoff movie and this was just an introduction to the character, I'd be okay with that, but if this is it, its pretty sad and pathetic (and really distracting to the important WOLVERINE story).
It actually reminds me a lot of Venom in Spiderman 3, where it seems like some producer was like "If you make another X-Men movie, you HAVE to use Gambit" and the director was like "But it's a Wolverine movie" and then the producer says "Pick one of Gambit! Giant Metal Spiders! Wolverine fights polar bears" and the director is like, "fine, Gambit, let's see, replace Maverick or Forge, add in Gambit, DONE!"
Overall though, really nice, well done action movie. Gavin Hood, who directed, is more known for drama, and he really takes all the time he can for character scenes/development. Aside from my Gambit gripes, most of the acting is really well done for a superhero movie. There is some subpar CGI at times with his claws (how is it they look worse and the final sequence/fight seemed really unnecessary and a little silly (especially if you recall the Darth Maul fight from Phantom Menace).
You probably know if you want to see it or not already, but overall, it gets from me...
8/10... and that's all I have to say about that
Friday, May 1, 2009
Bonus Review!
Okay,
So I said "one per week" but there's not much going down this afternoon, so I'm going to go for a second review... I'm going to discuss another small, lower budget type movie....
Splinter, Horror, 1 hour, 23 minute run time
To begin this one, I really enjoy a good monster movie. I've told different people this over the years, a lot of times I get - monster movies are stupid, cheesy, not scary, etc. It also doesn't help that there are two big dumb horror trends in hollywood right now (well, three if you count the Saw sequels). #1, pointless remakes of 70s and early 80s horror movies and #2, pointless PG-13 remakes of original Asian ghost movies.
The other downfall of monster movies is the overuse of CGI for horror movies. To me, most CGI just looks fake and isn't scary (Relic and Deep Blue Sea come to mind), despite the fact that you should be able to do more with computers than you can do with puppets or stuntmen in suits (Alien or The Thing remake). Finally, utilizing the imagination of the audience... In general with horror movies, less is more. People can think of things a lot scarier than most directors can put on the screen.
So I should talk about the movie I'm supposed to be reviewing... Okay, Splinter... Basic setup... Two young couples get stuck at a gas station with a monster after them and try to escape. Not the most original of plots. I forgot to mention that the couples are a wimpy biologist and his girlfriend and a convict and his crazy girlfriend who carjacked the first two. Not really any notable faces among the four leads, (I recognized Paulo Costanzo, who plays the flustered nerd, as the stoner from the Tom Green/Breckin Meyer opus Road Trip) but all four can act. I have to give special props to Shea Wigham who plays the nasty, tough convict. It's a part that a lot of actors would play one note evvill, but Wigham puts together a really nice, multi-dimensional character and ultimately steals the movie for me (I had only seen him in a minor ole in the quirky Wristcutters).
As for the monster, it's fairly original, gory, and pretty nasty, and that's all the specifics you get, much more would completely ruin the movie. Due to budget constraints, you don't see a whole lot of critter, a happy problem. What you do see is an awesome composite of puppeteering and stuntwork (see, that rant I started with ties back in here). There's a fun little DVD extra that shows the combination of male gymnast and mime that bring the beast to life. Toby Wilkins, in his feature film directorial debut, keeps the pace tight and fully uses the claustrophobic harsh lighting inside the gas station.
The last thing about the movie is the writing. To me, it avoids both the bad exposition (there's no scientific specialist who gives a five minute talk about the specifics of the monster) and the bad jokes (no obnoxious comic relief character either) that can submarine a good horror flick. There are also some nice homages to Alien and Evil Dead 2, and the humor does cut the tension when it needs to. The characters aren't complete idiots and seem to make more realistic decisions than in most horror movies.
After I rave about it for 4 paragraphs, is it perfect? No... The acting out of the actress who plays Wigham's girlfriend goes from ehh to bad to terrible, there's some stupid character decisions solely to move the plot along, and a few good sized logic holes that make some of the movie a little silly(for example, what kind of gas station carries fireworks??).
It's a recommend for some excellent suspense, nice gore, intense Shea Wigham, and good directing. It's a no go if you don't like monster movies/horror at all (go watch Bride Wars then, wait... don't waste an hour and half of your time... bake some cake or read a book if you aren't confident with your baking abilities).
For me, it's a 8 out of 10. And that's all I have to say about that.
So I said "one per week" but there's not much going down this afternoon, so I'm going to go for a second review... I'm going to discuss another small, lower budget type movie....
Splinter, Horror, 1 hour, 23 minute run time
To begin this one, I really enjoy a good monster movie. I've told different people this over the years, a lot of times I get - monster movies are stupid, cheesy, not scary, etc. It also doesn't help that there are two big dumb horror trends in hollywood right now (well, three if you count the Saw sequels). #1, pointless remakes of 70s and early 80s horror movies and #2, pointless PG-13 remakes of original Asian ghost movies.
The other downfall of monster movies is the overuse of CGI for horror movies. To me, most CGI just looks fake and isn't scary (Relic and Deep Blue Sea come to mind), despite the fact that you should be able to do more with computers than you can do with puppets or stuntmen in suits (Alien or The Thing remake). Finally, utilizing the imagination of the audience... In general with horror movies, less is more. People can think of things a lot scarier than most directors can put on the screen.
So I should talk about the movie I'm supposed to be reviewing... Okay, Splinter... Basic setup... Two young couples get stuck at a gas station with a monster after them and try to escape. Not the most original of plots. I forgot to mention that the couples are a wimpy biologist and his girlfriend and a convict and his crazy girlfriend who carjacked the first two. Not really any notable faces among the four leads, (I recognized Paulo Costanzo, who plays the flustered nerd, as the stoner from the Tom Green/Breckin Meyer opus Road Trip) but all four can act. I have to give special props to Shea Wigham who plays the nasty, tough convict. It's a part that a lot of actors would play one note evvill, but Wigham puts together a really nice, multi-dimensional character and ultimately steals the movie for me (I had only seen him in a minor ole in the quirky Wristcutters).
As for the monster, it's fairly original, gory, and pretty nasty, and that's all the specifics you get, much more would completely ruin the movie. Due to budget constraints, you don't see a whole lot of critter, a happy problem. What you do see is an awesome composite of puppeteering and stuntwork (see, that rant I started with ties back in here). There's a fun little DVD extra that shows the combination of male gymnast and mime that bring the beast to life. Toby Wilkins, in his feature film directorial debut, keeps the pace tight and fully uses the claustrophobic harsh lighting inside the gas station.
The last thing about the movie is the writing. To me, it avoids both the bad exposition (there's no scientific specialist who gives a five minute talk about the specifics of the monster) and the bad jokes (no obnoxious comic relief character either) that can submarine a good horror flick. There are also some nice homages to Alien and Evil Dead 2, and the humor does cut the tension when it needs to. The characters aren't complete idiots and seem to make more realistic decisions than in most horror movies.
After I rave about it for 4 paragraphs, is it perfect? No... The acting out of the actress who plays Wigham's girlfriend goes from ehh to bad to terrible, there's some stupid character decisions solely to move the plot along, and a few good sized logic holes that make some of the movie a little silly(for example, what kind of gas station carries fireworks??).
It's a recommend for some excellent suspense, nice gore, intense Shea Wigham, and good directing. It's a no go if you don't like monster movies/horror at all (go watch Bride Wars then, wait... don't waste an hour and half of your time... bake some cake or read a book if you aren't confident with your baking abilities).
For me, it's a 8 out of 10. And that's all I have to say about that.
1st Post
Okay,
Since I work at a video store and all, I thought I'd create this and share my thoughts about one movie I see per week because I work odd hours (usually 5ish until 11:30ish) and I have nothing better to do during the day. I'll try to avoid overly egregious spoilers (or if I do, I'll warn everyone beforehand) and not mention any plot points that aren't on the back of the box. I also don't count the end credits in a movie run time (and no, the current lame trend of adding a 30 second scene after the credits in a bunch of movies doesn't make me change my mind about this)
If you don't know what a spoiler is, its when you read a movie review and they tell you major plot points like for example that Jessica Alba was really dead at the end of Fantastic Four 2... Wait, she wasn't dead?? Was she a zombie in that one?? No?? Well with her acting 'skills' and blatant cue card reading, I couldn't really tell (burnnn)... On to this week's movie
While She Was Out - 1 hour, 21 minute run time - Suspense/Drama
This isn't a movie that got a theatrical release that I'm aware of, it's not high budget, but it was executive produced by Guillermo Del Toro (director of Pan's Labryinth and one of my personal favorites in the directorial chair) and it stars Academy Award Winner Kim Basinger.
Your basic set up: Basinger is Della, a typical middle american suburban mom, has the S.U.V., two kids, and a real abusive asshole husband (Craig Sheffer who plays it straight eeeviiilll). After a fairly brief but well done character establishing opening, the movie sends Della to the mall to do some Christmas shopping. There's some good moments as Della deals with the irritations of the holiday season, some juxtaposition with some happy families and her crappy husband... The movie really starts when Della leaves a passive-aggressive note on a car taking up 2 spaces in a very crowded mall parking lot. Unfortunately, for her, the owners of the car are 4 young gang banger punk types who wait for her and don't have her best intentions at heart. A mall cop shows up (neither Seth Rogen nor Kevin James), things take a nasty turn, and Della ends up with only a toolbox being chased by a car full of angry punks...
So did anyone see Jodie Foster's "The Brave One" ? Ordinary people who get pushed a little too far... I got a really similar vibe out of this flick, down to an Oscar Winner Basinger's sometimes panicked, sometimes horrified, yet always determined and ultimately empowering lead performance. There's a first time director at hand (Susan Montford, who also co-wrote) who uses some strong cinematography and interesting settings (an unfinished housing development) keep the tension going. I also have to give a shout out to Lukas Haas (famous role - the kid from Mars Attacks - best role - the drug dealer from Brick) who channels some Dennis Hopper crazy at the leader of the punks.
On the bad side, the punks to me provide some hammy acting (Haas in particular veers between real menace and blatant evvill mugging throughout) and also seem a little too UN (there's one white guy, one asian guy, one black guy, and one latino guy). Despite Basinger's best efforts, I didn't completely buy into some of her character's arc and she can't overcome some of the clunkier writing. Also, despite the movie's short run time, the pacing is off, the chases get a little redundant, and there are some really silly plot holes (I kept expecting Haas to yell "Let's Split Up, Gang" Scooby-style at times).
So anyhow, overall, its a recommend if you want a lot of tense closeups of Basinger, some good feminista suspense, and some well done, documentary style camerawork. Its a no go if you can't get past some corny acting, a few pacing issues, and some writing flaws.
For me, it's a 6 out of 10. And that's all I have to say about that.
Patrick
Since I work at a video store and all, I thought I'd create this and share my thoughts about one movie I see per week because I work odd hours (usually 5ish until 11:30ish) and I have nothing better to do during the day. I'll try to avoid overly egregious spoilers (or if I do, I'll warn everyone beforehand) and not mention any plot points that aren't on the back of the box. I also don't count the end credits in a movie run time (and no, the current lame trend of adding a 30 second scene after the credits in a bunch of movies doesn't make me change my mind about this)
If you don't know what a spoiler is, its when you read a movie review and they tell you major plot points like for example that Jessica Alba was really dead at the end of Fantastic Four 2... Wait, she wasn't dead?? Was she a zombie in that one?? No?? Well with her acting 'skills' and blatant cue card reading, I couldn't really tell (burnnn)... On to this week's movie
While She Was Out - 1 hour, 21 minute run time - Suspense/Drama
This isn't a movie that got a theatrical release that I'm aware of, it's not high budget, but it was executive produced by Guillermo Del Toro (director of Pan's Labryinth and one of my personal favorites in the directorial chair) and it stars Academy Award Winner Kim Basinger.
Your basic set up: Basinger is Della, a typical middle american suburban mom, has the S.U.V., two kids, and a real abusive asshole husband (Craig Sheffer who plays it straight eeeviiilll). After a fairly brief but well done character establishing opening, the movie sends Della to the mall to do some Christmas shopping. There's some good moments as Della deals with the irritations of the holiday season, some juxtaposition with some happy families and her crappy husband... The movie really starts when Della leaves a passive-aggressive note on a car taking up 2 spaces in a very crowded mall parking lot. Unfortunately, for her, the owners of the car are 4 young gang banger punk types who wait for her and don't have her best intentions at heart. A mall cop shows up (neither Seth Rogen nor Kevin James), things take a nasty turn, and Della ends up with only a toolbox being chased by a car full of angry punks...
So did anyone see Jodie Foster's "The Brave One" ? Ordinary people who get pushed a little too far... I got a really similar vibe out of this flick, down to an Oscar Winner Basinger's sometimes panicked, sometimes horrified, yet always determined and ultimately empowering lead performance. There's a first time director at hand (Susan Montford, who also co-wrote) who uses some strong cinematography and interesting settings (an unfinished housing development) keep the tension going. I also have to give a shout out to Lukas Haas (famous role - the kid from Mars Attacks - best role - the drug dealer from Brick) who channels some Dennis Hopper crazy at the leader of the punks.
On the bad side, the punks to me provide some hammy acting (Haas in particular veers between real menace and blatant evvill mugging throughout) and also seem a little too UN (there's one white guy, one asian guy, one black guy, and one latino guy). Despite Basinger's best efforts, I didn't completely buy into some of her character's arc and she can't overcome some of the clunkier writing. Also, despite the movie's short run time, the pacing is off, the chases get a little redundant, and there are some really silly plot holes (I kept expecting Haas to yell "Let's Split Up, Gang" Scooby-style at times).
So anyhow, overall, its a recommend if you want a lot of tense closeups of Basinger, some good feminista suspense, and some well done, documentary style camerawork. Its a no go if you can't get past some corny acting, a few pacing issues, and some writing flaws.
For me, it's a 6 out of 10. And that's all I have to say about that.
Patrick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)