Thursday, July 27, 2006

The Descent

Title: The Descent (2005)
Dir: Neil Marshall
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



This review by me has been reposted from BlownPotential. Please check out their reviews.

The United Kingdom has really dug itself a niche in the horror genre lately, thanks to movies like 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead. In 2002, first-time writer/director Neil Marshall created the British cult hit, Dog Soldiers, which is often cited as the best werewolf film in decades. Now, Marshall returns with his much-anticipated sophomore effort, The Descent.

Already a critical success overseas, this horror flick is finally hitting the States courtesy of the gore gurus at Lions Gate Films. The movie follows six women who become trapped underground when a caving expedition goes horribly wrong. Despite a cast of relative unknowns and the misfortune of being lumped together with Hollywood trash like The Cave, The Descent might prove to be the breath of fresh air that horror buffs have been waiting for.

If nothing else, the ladies of The Descent will impress you with their caving skills. This recreational sport involves climbing rocks, drudging through deep water, squeezing into tight spaces, and descending massive vertical drops. For cavers, the thrill is in the physical challenge and the exploration of new geological formations. But it comes with the very real dangers of falling, hypothermia, dehydration, flash flooding, and in the case of the film’s protagonists, cave-ins.

Cavers must carefully plot out their route or risk becoming lost in more complex caves. Once inside a cave, escape may require moving through tiny tunnels or ascending a rock wall with the help of a rope and some clamps. Whether simply exploring or running for their lives, the characters in this movie perform daring acts of caving that will leave you breathless long before the actual horror kicks in.

Needless to say, when the flashlights go out, a cave becomes pitch black. These dark, claustrophobic conditions make it an ideal location for a horror film. Marshall uses the underground scenery effectively to keep the audience on edge. The Descent is a more mature effort than his first film, particularly in its character development. The six leads are more than token horror victims - they are realistic, sympathetic women. Furthermore, the film toys with the idea that the greatest danger to the women may come from within themselves.

Strong character development and a solid script place this film on a higher level than most modern scary movies. The critical comparisons to Alien are warranted, and The Descent proves that the classic man-versus-monster survivalist scenario can still be fresh. Furthermore, it proves that mainstream horror need not be brainless and plagued with CGI. Some might say the film is “good for a horror movie,” as the term horror has become somewhat derogatory. This is an unfair assessment because the genre is still deserving of respect, as The Descent - both a good horror and a good film – reminds us.

Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic

Title: Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic (2005)
Dir: Liam Lynch
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



Jesus Is Magic is a collection of sketches and stand-up (with a live audience) written and performed by the ever-offensive comedienne, Sarah Silverman. When asked to describe her own show, Silverman says, "It's about AIDS. And the Holocaust." Nuff said.

Needless to say, this movie is all about Sarah. All it really does is showcase her stand-up (like Spike Lee's The Original Kings of Comedy), so I don't really think she needed a whole film. This could have been an equally-good special on HBO, but still, kudos to Silverman for getting the backing and a platform where she can say whatever she wants.

Silverman's stand-up has its misses, but overall is pretty damn funny (no surprise there). She's a gal after my own heart, unafraid to say the most offensive thing imaginable for a laugh. I didn't find Sarah's musical sketches as funny as the stand-up portion, with the exception of her visit to the old folk's home. And beyond the skits and stand-up, there is nothing. Herein lies the movie's problem - it gets a little old.

As I said before, it's not really a movie, so don't expect one. There is no real plot, no developed characters - just a string of jokes. Jesus Is Magic doesn't really stand on its own as a film, although it would've been an ideal comedy special.

Good Night and Good Luck

Title: Good Night and Good Luck (2005)
Dir: George Clooney
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



Man, I love it when a movie actually lives up to the hype! Despite a few weaknesses, Good Night and Good Luck is one great film thanks to a well-written script, great direction, a poignant issue, and a stellar cast.

The film tells the story of Edward R. Murrow, the CBS broadcaster who dared to challenge Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Communist "witch-hunts" of the 1950s. With his producer Fred Friendly (portrayed by George Clooney) and a small crew of CBS staff, Murrow exposed the Junior Senator from Wisconsin as the fear monger he really was.

Stories like this give me goosebumps. Hell, I have chills right now! I LOVE these David-vs-Goliath stories from our nation's history. And I LOVE films about them (other examples include Norma Rae and Erin Brockovich). I just really admire people who stood up when no one else would.

I also happen to love that era of our history - the Red Scare, the space race, the atomic bomb, etc. So I went into this movie with a pre-existing interest, but you really needn't know anything about the era or McCarthy to understand and enjoy the movie. Clooney (who also co-wrote) keeps the historical aspects straight-forward without insulting history buffs. He also went to great lengths to keep it accurate, including having Murrow's and Friendly's relatives on-set.

In the role of Murrow, David Strathairn is incredible. The man never cracks a smile, but you'll love him anyway. Watching it, I just want the shake Murrow's hand and tell him he's a hero. The rest of the cast is great, too, especially Ray Wise (of Twin Peaks fame) who gives a stirring portrayal of real-life news anchor, Don Hollenbeck.

My only complaint is a side-story involving Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey, Jr. as a couple who must hide their marriage from everyone. They are not oppressed by the Communist paranoia, but rather CBS employee rules. So what's the big deal? The story is pretty irrelevant to the plot and I could've done without it. It doesn't distract or detract from the movie, but it wouldn't have been missed, either.

I higly recommend seeing this one. Anyone with an interest in 50s culture and/or politics will especially love it. Clooney has done a fantastic job making it, and I think perhaps the man has found his true calling. After seeing this, you might even forgive him for Batman & Robin.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Miami Vice

Title: Miami Vice (2006)
Dir: Michael Mann
Rating: ** and 1/2 out of 5 stars



For The Diamondback...

After failures like Bewitched and The Dukes of Hazzard, the last thing Hollywood needs is another retro-TV remake. But when word spread that Michael Mann (Collateral) would be directing a “Miami Vice” movie, there was hope. For one thing, Mann himself served as executive producer on the 1980s series and is credited with giving the show its memorable style. Since then, Mann has also proved himself a skilled director of both drama (The Insider) and action (Heat). Given these prospects, it is all the more disappointing that Miami Vice is cheesy and boring.

In the film adaptation, we find detectives Sonny Crockett (Colin Farrell, S.W.A.T.) and Rico Tubbs (Jamie Foxx, Jarhead) going undercover as drug smugglers in order to take on a Miami trafficking network. With false identities and a lot of confidence, the duo transports narcotics for mysterious drug lord Arcángel de Jesús Montoya. As they are drawn deeper into this dangerous world, Sonny falls for Montoya’s partner-in-crime, Isabella (Gong Li, Memoirs of a Geisha). Needless to say, the situation only becomes more perilous as tensions rise, trust is broken, and new enemies are made.

If you think that plot sounds like a Bad Boys film, you are right. The Miami-based drug cartel narrative has been beat to death since the days of Brian De Palma’s Scarface. Unfortunately, Vice brings nothing new to the genre.

The dialogue ranges between pointless and outright silly. Perhaps it is loyal to the cheese of the original series, but those old writers had an excuse – it was the 80s, after all. Back then, Don Johnson wore white blazers and no socks with his loafers, so bad dialogue was a moot point. But for a 2006 Michael Mann film, there is no excuse.

Farrell and Foxx, both competent actors, completely lack chemistry in this film. Furthermore, their individual performances come across badly, even though movies like Tigerland and Ray have respectively proven their talents in the past. Should we blame Farrell’s ridiculous haircut in this movie? Perhaps. The rest of the characters also seem drab, with the exception of drug dealer Jose Yero, played by John Ortiz. He’s a slimy villain with more sense of humor than the rest of the film combined.

So what about Mann’s directing? He turns away from the flashy pastel colors of the 80s and adopts a dark, gritty style here. This decision was a wise one, since nothing kills a movie faster than trying to bring back a long-dead trend. What gave Miami Vice such great potential was this more realistic modernization of Crockett and Tubbs. It would have worked great, too, if only the movie provided some solid action.

The pacing is very slow and the action scenes are few and far-between. As soon as something exciting happens, the director likes to cut away. It provides an interesting sense of realism, but makes for one boring film. However, when the action finally kicks in, there is some excitement to be had. Mann’s gunfight scenes are intense and unexpectedly violent. Like watching the opening beach scene in Saving Private Ryan, the shootouts in Vice involve deafeningly loud gunfire, sprays of blood, and a gritty look thanks to a handheld camera.

Unfortunately, these few moments of excitement are not enough to save the film from its tedious length and a script that could have been pulled right from a 80s made-for-TV movie. Mann’s directing is sub-par, but honestly the movie would have been much worse without him. Farrell and Foxx were inspired casting choices but just can’t achieve that classic buddy-cop chemistry.

Just about everybody involved in Miami Vice has done great work in the past, so the drabness of this film is both puzzling and disappointing. Perhaps the take-home lesson from all this is: If something was popular in the days of leg warmers and rubix cubes, maybe it shouldn’t be resurrected.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Intruder

Title: Intruder (1989)
Dir: Scott Spiegel
Rating: **1/2 out of 5 stars



I think I like this movie the more I watch it. This review is based on my second full viewing of it.

Firstly, if you decide to see Intruder, make sure it's the unrated cut. The gory death scenes (courtesy of KNB FX) are the best parts of the movie.

The plot is typical horror fare: the young night crew of a supermarket are terrorized by a serial killer who may or may not be the crazy ex-boyfriend of one of the clerks. One by one, they are picked off in very gory - and fairly creative - ways.

Intruder is directed by Scott Spiegel, who you may know as one of the "Michigan Mafia" (the filmmaking friends that include Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell, Josh Becker, etc.). Sam Raimi has a fairly good role as the supermarket's butcher, while his little brother Ted also pops up as "Produce Joe." Viewers who don't blink may also catch Campbell's cameo as a cop and Spiegel's cameo as, well, a victim. The best leading role goes to the oldest player, Danny Hicks (the hillbilly from Evil Dead II). He may be the best actor in the movie (but that doesn't say much).

My biggest complaint with the film is its pacing, or lack thereof. Especially toward the end, the movie just drags ON and ON. It's not even 90 minutes long, though. I'm not sure how Spiegel could've improved on that except have more or longer death scenes. But that might've been just as bad.

Ah well, Intruder is good for what it is - a slasher flick. The gory scenes are pretty well done (as long as you see the UNRATED version) and Spiegel shows some creative flare. I don't find the weird POV shots interesting so much as derivative of Raimi's work, but Scott has some original moments (eg, Intruder used the head-hand-puppet idea long before Dead & Breakfast!).

I'm not typically a fan of slasher movies, but Intruder has a slight edge over most other crap, plus I love those Michigan boys. It's likely to please any fan of those guys or slashers in general.

Day Watch

Title: Day Watch -aka- Dnevnoy dozor (2006)
Dir: Timur Bekmambetov
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



I'll probably end up reviewing this a second time when it is released on region 1 DVD. The version I saw had some iffy subtitles and unfortunately I don't speak Russian.

For those living under a rock, Day Watch is the follow-up to Night Watch (my review). Both films - part of a trilogy - are about the modern struggle between Light and Dark (like Good vs. Evil, but not necessarily). These movies are known for their epic, fantastical story and wild visuals. But don't forget - DAY WATCH IS A SEQUEL! SEE NIGHT WATCH FIRST!

In this second installment, the Dark side has acquired a powerful new "Other" who could destroy the Light Others, and even the world. But the Light Others have their own messiah-of-sorts. There is also a mysterious piece of chalk that can supposedly save them all.

I know that's a shitty plot description, but it's hard to say anymore without revealing Night Watch spoilers. Day is more confusing and less cohesive than its predecessor. Nor are the visuals quite as cool, but it does have some neat moments. Also, the "villains" are a lot more interesting than the good guys in this film (unlike Night).

Day also comes with a love story that should've been left out. And there are all kinds of random moments that needed to be cut. My biggest issue with the film is that it's all over the place and gets pretty confusing pretty fast. But maybe something was lost in translation for me.

In conclusion, Day Watch is definitely worth seeing for fans of the first film. But if you didn't like Night Watch, you'll like Day Watch even less.

Night Watch

Title: Night Watch -aka- Nochnoy Dozor (2004)
Dir: Timur Bekmambetov
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



Let's get one thing straight: this isn't a horror movie. It's an epic fantasy. If you're expecting vampires ripping out throats and crossbow-slinging slayers, Night Watch won't help you. But if you like dazzling visuals and a classic good-vs-evil story, well you are in for a treat.

Months ago, I was screwed out of my chance to see this movie in a theater, and that pisses me off all the more now because I really enjoyed this one. And seeing it with subtitles would have been nice (the DVD didn't give me that option). Though I gotta admit, the dubbing was actually pretty good on this one. But I digress.

Night Watch is about an age-old battle between "light" and "dark". The idea is, there has always existed non-humans called "Others", which are divided into light and dark factions. Both sides have powers, whether they be shapeshifting, mind control, whatever. The dark side also includes some vampires. In ancient times, the two sides had a fierce battle which resulted in a truce: each would not interfere with each other, or humans. Furthermore, the light others formed a "night watch" to enforce the truce, while the dark others formed a "day watch."

This film, the first of a trilogy, focuses on the Night Watch and their recruitment of a seer named Anton. I don't want to reveal any more about the plot, but in a nutshell, it involves some inevitable truce-breaking and an impending apocolypse.

The story is pretty damn cool - the makings of a real epic. I can see why the Russians flipped for this film. But what really sets it apart is the visuals. Bekmambetov does some wild, original stuff to create this fantasy world. I don't think I could describe them in words even if I wanted to, but trust me, it's good shit.

As for the cast, I liked everyone. The actor playing Anton - whose long, unpronouncable name I'd rather not look up right now - is awesome and reminds me a bit of Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck). The leader of the Dark Others is pretty kickass, too.

Night Watch may take an extra viewing to absorb everything. As soon as I finished the movie, I had the urge to pop it back in again, both to explain some things, and because it was just so neat. I don't feel it was perfect, but I really can't recall any flaws right now. I guess some people would dismiss it as big budget Hollywood-esque trash disguised as foreign cinema, but I don't feel that way at all. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, it's riddled with FX. Yes, it's occasionlly confusing. But it's also pretty damn cool.

Stay tuned for my review of the sequel, Day Watch!

Delicatessen

Title: Delicatessen (1991)
Dir: Marc Caro, Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Rating: *** and 1/2 out of 5 stars



I saw this weeks ago, so please excuse the short lenght of my review.

This is definitely satisfying for any fan of Jeunet's. It's more in the vein of City of Lost Children rather than, say, Amelie (although there is a key love story). I didn't enjoy this as much as those, but it's very quirky, beautifully shot, and everything else you'd expect of the director.

In brief, Delicatessen takes place in a futuristic France where the people are very poor and starving. In the apartment complex at the center of this story, a butcher is carving people up in order to feed the tenants. He hires a young maintenance man, intended to be the next meal, who befriends some tenants, namely the butcher's young daughter.

I'll leave it at that. The film mostly relies on its eccentric characters (the tenants) and neat cinematography (as always). I don't think it's as imaginative as some of Jeunet's other work. Still, it's a dark yet amusing little movie and I'd recommend it to anyone with a taste for quirky foreign cinema.

Electric Dragon 80000V

Title: Electric Dragon 80000V (2001)
Dir: Sogo Ishii
Rating: *** and 1/2 out of 5 stars



I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tadanobu Asano is a BAD ASS MOTHERFUCKER. He's Johnny Depp's Japanese doppleganger. He still hasn't topped his role in Ichi the Killer, but he just oozes cool in everything he's in. This film is no exception.

In Electric Dragon, Asano plays Dragon Eye Morrison, professional reptile detective. He can conduct electricity after a childhood accident with an electric tower and years of electroshock therapy. There is a rage (or "dragon" if you will) pent up inside him, which can only be controlled by grinding away on his electric guitar (causing some serious power outages in the city). Meanwhile, across town, there is another electric badass called Thunderbolt Buddha (Masatoshi Nagase). As there can only be one electricity king in town, the Buddha coaxes our hero into a battle.


-vs-


The entire film is in black-and-white, and only lasts 55 minutes. And there is very little dialogue. The visuals are wild and there is a WWF-like narrator screaming things like, "HE TALKS TO REPTILES! HE IS THE MAN!" It is crazy, and occasionally hilarious.

Electric Dragon is basically a hyperactive comic book-on-film. Ishii takes the classic hero-and-villain story and spikes it with a few hundred micrograms of LSD. The result is one crazy Japanese cyberpunk movie that you should rent sometime.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Title: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Dir: Gore Verbinski
Rating: ***1/2 out of 5 stars



To review this movie concisely: it is flawed, not as good as Curse of the Black Pearl, but still highly enjoyable for fans of the series.

Jack Sparrow has some irritating, off-character moments in this one, but he also has enough funny ones to counterbalance. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) is as useless and annoying in this as he was in the first film. Maybe even more so. I think I liked Elizabeth Swan (Kiera Knightly) about the same, but I like where the writers are taking her character.

Luckily, Dead Man's Chest gives a lot more screentime to previously supporting characters, including the two bumbling pirates Pintel and Ragetti, the Pearl's crew of scallywags, and the former Commodore Norrington (who is much cooler in this).

The new characters are great. I thought the voodoo priestess Tia Dalma (Naomi Harris) would annoy me, but I liked her. Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), the new British asshole on the block, is delightfully nasty. Stellan Skarsgård is great as Bootstrap Bill. And best of all - Davy Jones, played by the ever-fantastic Bill Nighy, who almost steals the movie from Depp. Nighy's eccentric nuances show right through that CGI octopus-face and the results are wonderful. Major props to the FX crew who perfectly captured Nighy's quirks and incorporated them into the tentacled face. Just brilliant.

So what's the problem? Well for one thing, the story is excessively complex. After two viewings, yeah, I get it, but it could've been cut down. It seems like Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio tried to squeeze too much into this film, and frankly, I don't know how they are going to wrap it all up in At World's End (the next and final film). Secondly, the dialouge is sometimes weak, especially at the start. Many of the jokes fell flat or soared over viewers' heads. Third, Jack's quirks seem way too forced at times, and one or two made no sense at all. But as I said, he has some great, quotable moments that I loved, especially when I watched the film a second time. Finally, not all the action scenes are as exciting as they should be. The big wheel scene kinda bored me. I didn't mind the 2.5 hour length as much as most people, but it probably could've shed a little length.

In short, Dead Man's Chest is weaker than its predecessor, but its flaws are mostly forgivable. Even if you don't like this film, you'll probably still be left wanting more. It provides a plethora of cockteases for the viewer, especially the very end. I personally am very excited to see the next installment.

Monster House

Title: Monster House (2006)
Dir: Gil Kenan
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



The following review, written by me, was reprinted from BlownPotential. You should check out their site for up-to-date movie reviews (including mine, occasionally).

These days, making an animated film without Pixar or cute talking animals is a risky endeavor. But when your movie is backed by two of the biggest filmmakers in the universe, you must be doing something right. Monster House, produced by Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis, is an animated fantasy about three children who discover a man-eating monster house in their suburban neighborhood on Halloween. It stars a talented voice cast including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jason Lee, Kathleen Turner, and Steve Buscemi. First time director Gil Kenan combines an eerie Tim Burton-like style and occasionally risqué humor to tell a classic monster story.

The most striking aspect of Monster House is the animation. Using the “performance capture” technique previously featured in Zemeckis’ The Polar Express, live actors were filmed wearing special suits with reference dots glued at each of the actors’ joints and facial expression points. Computers then capture all important points of movement in 3D space and the animators use this data to re-create the movement, proportions and even subtle nuances of the actors. The development of this groundbreaking technology marked a merger of digital animation and traditional live action, allowing an actor’s subtlest facial expressions to be translated into the computer-generated world with the utmost fidelity. This type of animation is ideal when you want to retain strong characterization in a sky’s-the-limit fantasy world.

The performance capture technology has greatly improved since its inception, but in Monster House, it is used modestly. Whereas Express was hyper realistic at the expense of sincerity, House allows its characters to retain their cartoonish nuances. After all, what’s the point of animation if it looks like live-action? Every visual aspect of this film – from leaves, to people, to the monster house itself – breathes charm and personality. Kenan achieves a powerful level of realism without losing the imaginative look upon which animated cinema is based.

Fresh out of film school, Kenan shows great potential as a director. In addition to his solid grasp on animation, this young filmmaker delivers some fantastic shots and turns House into a tense but enjoyable fantasy. Parents: be warned, some scenes may be too scary for the little ones, so heed the PG rating. If there were such a thing as a children’s horror movie, this is it. But adults won’t feel left out – there are some mature jokes that will fly over your kid’s head but have you chuckling.

The movie feels like a classic bogeyman story, as if written by Roald Dahl and adapted by Tim Burton. Monster House goes beyond the standard animated fare, delivering stunning animation and tons of bizarre fun for all ages. While an October release date would have been more appropriate, a little Halloween in July never hurt.

Darkman

Title: Darkman (1990)
Dir: Sam Raimi
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



I had seen most of this as a kid, but I consider this my first real, whole viewing. Hence this review.

I believe this is Raimi's weirdest film, even over Crimewave. The visuals are so wild that they are occasionally off-putting. Nevertheless, Darkman showed Sam growing as a director. You can really see him testing the waters with this film. Some moments go too far, but other moments are shining brilliance. This was the first piece of evidence that Raimi could direct a unique comic-book movie, and yet Darkman is nothing like Spider-Man. The former is dark. Real dark.

Just as Dr. Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough, he is targeted by a gang of criminals in search of a valuable document. They burn down his laboratory and leave him for dead. Once he recovers, he seeks out his fiancee (Frances McDormand) and plots revenge against the men who scarred him physically and emotionally.

Darkman is sorta like Alan Moore's V, except much darker. Not once does he help a citizen in distress. Not once does he target criminals to make society safer. No, it's all about personal revenge here. He's not even a hero, really, just an angry, bitter scientist. In fact, he's the kind of guy Spider-Man usually fights. So in essence this film centers on the villain. I like that! It does make it hard to sympathize with him, but I'm not sure if I was ever suppose to.

Neeson rocks (as always). It's near impossible to stifle a laugh when he uses his "Darkman voice", but I laughed the same way when Christian Bale grunted "Swear to meeee!" in Batman Begins. McDormand is also good, and Larry Drake makes one slimy, memorable villain. And for Raimi afficionados, there are endless cameos including Ted Raimi, Dan Hicks, Ivan Raimi, John Landis, Bruce Campbell, and the Coen Brothers.

So how 'bout them visuals? There's a wacky carnival scene that creeps the hell out of me. Tilting cameras, bouncing clown-puppet-things, laughing people yelling "Freak!" It's pretty cool. And
when Peyton loses his temper, the background begins to crack and spew fire and do other crazy things I can't even describe with words. The only downside is the technical limitations on Raimi's creativity. The FX were just too bold for 1990. Or at least too bold for Darkman's budget. Consequently, they look cheesy and animated. But I think any keen film lover will appreciate what Sam was going for. And if you look at this from a comic book perspective, the cartoonish visuals may be exactly what the film needed!

It can't break my Raimi Top-3, but Darkman is an interesting little picture worth seeing. I think this is a classic case of a director building to something better (although his prior films were anything but shabby). The tragic anti-hero story had a lot of potential, even if it is somewhat lost in the Hollywood action and wild visuals. If you can look passed the 1980's FX, the movie has some really unique, spectacular moments that shouldn't be missed.