10 followers

70 daily readers

rank of 911

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Film Reviewer Forums

Filmreviewer.net Forums (6)

Spotlight Posts

Take Over!

[ more ]

Film Reviewer - Classic, Modern, Obscure, Genre... It All Gets Watched

[ February 2009 ] [ April 2009 ]

Film Reviewer - March 2009

Saturday Boners: Deaths of Ian Stone

March 7th 2009 18:21

Deaths of Ian Stone, 2007

There are few things more disappointing than a story that starts off strong with suspense, mystery, and an incredibly interesting premise and then it suddenly turns into a ridiculously genre ending.

Except in this case, the "ending" of the Deaths of Ian Stone took up a whole half of the movie, it seemed.

The first half was actually pretty fascinating. It was like Dark City crossed with Groundhog Day. The main character ended each bit with being killed in a variety of ways, and then he wakes up in a slightly different world each time, without any memory of what had happened before. He can only remember his life back to the previous murder.

And then... he starts resisting. Okay, that makes sense... He's trying to hold off the murder for as long as he can, he's running, he's dodging, sometimes it doesn't work...

And then something goes wrong.

I don't mean that something goes wrong with the murders or the memories. I mean that the story itself takes this ridiculous left turn at Albuquerque and never makes it back to a reasonable place.

It turns out that the whole upshot is that these weird alien things are feeding on the fear and the terror of the moment of death, and he does this weird thing to them that they don't understand, except maybe he's not a human after all and really one of them, or maybe he used to be human and then... or maybe... or maybe... or maybe...

When the monsters showed up, I thought, "Okay, I can roll with this, not a big deal..." But one of the crucial elements of suspense and horror is that you may or may not ever seen the monster. It's the mystery of the thing, the difficulty of understanding the motivation or the method that makes it scary. Full frontal monster-ness just really ruins it, and if you add cheesiness to it... well, then you've just lost the battle.

Maybe if the second half had been done differently, it might've made a difference. The story had such potential, and then it Hollywood-action-film-ed out on us. Blech.

1.5 Stars

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Watchmen

March 6th 2009 18:00

Watchmen, 2009

Fifteen years.

That's how long it's been since I read Watchmen for the first time. That's how long it's been since that alternate dystopian/utopian world crashed into my life and changed it. It was subtle at first, but the kind of dissent and narrowed gaze at establishment, at authority, at the real motivation of anyone who wants to help... it is a tangible change over time.

I went to the midnight showing last night. We were packed in like sardines, but our hardcore of geekness was not to be deterred. "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?"

We do.

As a long-time comic fan, I have learned that there is always the chance of disappointment in adapting a comic to film, and that you can either go wildly away from the source material (Nick Fury with David Hassellhoff, ohgodohgodmyeyesohgod), or you can stick too close to it (Sin City and 300). By "sticking too close" I mean that the makers stayed so close to the source material that making the plot alterations necessary for any comic story to fit into a motion picture format ended up being painfully obvious (like that whole bit with Leonidas' wife and the jerk Senator), or worse yet, there is nothing different from the comic at all (ever tried to sit through Death Note?).

Watchmen hit a beautiful middle ground. It was nearly frame-by-frame true to the book, but not exactly. The plot did not change, but certain subplots did - they had to, because no one has eight hours to watch one movie, not even with intermissions. They moved around what they had to in order to keep the story going, to keep the pacing, to keep the tension - and with a book that everyone has already read, imagine the work that it takes to keep everyone on the edge of their seats.

Now for the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS):

The Good:

The Comedian was brilliant. Jeffrey Dean Morgan looks like a cross between George Clooney and Robert Downey, Jr., but his acting skill bears no resemblance at all to either of these fellows in that his range is wider, deeper and much more compelling. In my opinion, he could well be way beyond both of them put together. I was struck with how memorable he was, how memorable his face was, how I felt like I was truly interacting with this man and his demons.

And then there was Nite Owl, played by Patrick Wilson. He was a scared man, flawed but loving, motivated clearly by his own need and drive to do something good, to do something significant. If you watch the Donner Superman outtakes, you notice that Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent was not "Superman With Glasses". Everything about him - his posture, his body language, his face - changed when he went into hero mode. Patrick Wilson got that and ran with it, I think, because by the end of the movie, you not only believe that he could completely be that guy but that not being that guy was killing him slowly.

And then there was Rorschach. I'm probably going to get rocks thrown at me for this, but Jackie Earle Haley pulled a Heath Ledger on this one. Rorschach is central to the story, and it would have been easier, I think, to film his part as softer, rounder... something more palatable to delicate tastes. Haley gave that the middle finger and not only captured the essence of the crazed justice-fixated lunatic, he took it to a level that, I dare say, the comic format did not allow for - and he did it brilliantly. No... that's not a big enough word. He was the next logical step and perfect counterpart to the Comedian.

In the last incredible performance I'll mention - and I'll keep in brief here - is Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan... yeah, the CG was a little weird at places, but with both the comic book and a plethora of other painted and prosthetic-ed characters of which to follow in the footsteps, the micro-expressions that were totally Doc Matt might not have been done so masterfully by anyone else. Even more than the analogous scene in the comic, I was moved to tears.

The Bad:

Laurie Jupiter was never my favorite from the comic because she just seemed so passionless, but that was really the whole point of her story. She was a woman conflicted, living in a world that she was programmed to want and incapable of doing literally anything else. That was Laurie from the story. The Laurie that Malin Akerman played seemed to have no genuine emotional motivation ever, but she sure did seem to like to ***k. Even her brawling scenes were more about posing and posturing than about accomplishing a task.

Along comes Ozymandias, a hero who has come out to the public with his real identity as Adrian Veidt following legislation that makes costumed hero-ing illegal. He's supposed to be the Smartest Man in the World. In the first half of the movie, I found him irritatingly vacant - even vacuous - and mostly he just struck me as an overwhelming poofda who was uncomfortable with his clothes, with himself, and with his role. Towards the end, this mellowed a little, but he never really made the transition to "Smartest Man" - maybe a little nuttier, but smarter? Not so much. And really... that much of a pencil-neck probably shouldn't be trying to play hero. He looked like he was going to get himself hurt.

The Ugly:

The only really jarring parts of the whole thing were the prosthetics. Nixon didn't look like Nixon, he looked like a guy wearing a Nixon mask. Sally Jupiter didn't look old and drunk, she looked like she was wearing a really weird second skin that just wasn't attached properly. I think the only prosthetic piece they did really well were Moloch's ears - and that was a little detail from the book that I was grateful for.

Also, I have three words for you: Big. Blue. Dong. A lot. And he's definitely not Jewish.

There are several reasons that this got a hard "R" rating. The violence is over-the-top hardcore in places - and that is very much part of the comic. The sex is also... well, a little silly, frankly, but what the h**l, someone's getting laid. The subject matter is also very true to the comic, and that means that the more difficult scenes, the ones that will likely have many people turning away, have been included unabashedly.

It's not a perfect movie, and I think my brain would have exploded if it had been. The detracting points were totally made up for (and then some) by the good points, and even though I couldn't tell you how many times I've read the comic, I felt I was learning something new and different about the story while also validating all the things I felt about it before. Now, just wait until "Tales of the Black Freighter" are released with it, right before it goes to DVD... that's going to be a dark and stormy ride.

4.5 Stars

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

High Fidelity

March 5th 2009 18:27

High Fidelity, 2000

I love it when a title is a play on words. In this 2000 classic about the "real" nature of relationships, High Fidelity refers to staying true in a relationship, being honest with yourself, and also having crisp and awesome sound equipment.

John Cusack plays Rob, a fellow who is not so much unlucky in love as he is a victim of his own neuroses. After several failed attempts at getting things going with other relationships, he settles down with Laura into an ideal situation - and then, after the proscribed amount of time, screws it up. He's not alone in it, of course, because she has her own set of issues, but the play between them back and forth of exactly how the thing goes awry is so very accurate in terms of real relationships that it's both sad and hilarious, but ultimately triumphant with the moment of the true rectal craniectomy comes through.

(That's "getting one's head out of his/her butt", for those not medical-term inclined.)

I have referred a number of friends and associates to watch this movie as a kind of homework assignment for wonky relationships. The illustration of the fact this it's not if you screw up in a relationship but how you cope with the screw ups that determines a relationship's worth is so perfectly executed that I, for one, am hard-pressed to find a movie that says it better. When do you call it quits? When do you hang on? Is it true that a time away from each other can be just as important to the health of the relationship as the time spent together?

The characters are not perfect people. There is absolutely no one in the story who is without fault - not even Liz (played by Joan Cusack, of course), who "doesn't want to take sides" and then promptly does. Everyone has their flaws, and the story is not so much about examining them under a microscope as it is about the characters discovering them and then making the conscious choice whether or not they want to continue being the victim of them.

I'll make this side now: Iben Hjejle as Laura is one of the most beautifully genuine and engaging women I've ever seen. She is not model-perfect, and I adore that. Her honest smile, her laugh, her demeanor is so real that we can truly believe that Rob is in love with her. It's not a Hollywood-prescribed plot device where "gorgeous chick is inexplicably in a relationship with scruffy nerf-herder" - the love on screen is real and tangible, including all of the stupid choices and moments of desperation. Alas, Iben has done very few American films, but I'd love to see more from her.

I dust this one off a few times a year, and I can't imagine a time when I won't.

4 Stars

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Boondock Saints

March 4th 2009 19:05

Boondock Saints, 1999

Can you believe that this movie came out ten years ago? Has it really been that long? It still seems so... relevant.

Or I should at least say that I still know of at least one person per year who gets "Veritas" and "Aequitas" tattooed bilaterally somewhere (although more commonly, they screw it up and spell it without the leading A). Why did these twin concepts of Truth and Justice resonate so darn well with us? What kind of archetype are they hitting on

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

THX 1138

March 3rd 2009 21:27

THX 1138, 1971

Before there was Star Wars, there was THX 1138.

In almost a prequel of George Lucas' actual career, THX 1138 was a remake of his student film. This student film got the attention of Francis Ford Coppola, who chose to be the Executive Producer on the project. With Coppola's backing, Robert Duvall signed on to be the lead, and the rest is a well-ignored corner of cinematic history

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Midnight Meat Train

March 2nd 2009 17:11

Midnight Meat Train, 2008

I knew it was going to be dodgy as soon as the association with Clive Barker was clear (this is based on one of the short stories from the Books of Blood), but even with a name like “meat train”, I somehow expected a totally different sort of... I dunno... classiness?

Yeah, I know... what was I thinking

[ Click here to read more ]

113

Vote

Comments (10)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Sunday Classics: Ladyhawke

March 1st 2009 18:15

Ladyhawke, 1985

Imagine, if you will, a movie that allows a guy to take a girl on a date, and somehow they both get something wonderful out of it: she cries at all the emotional parts, he cheers at all the action-y parts, and everyone's happy. I think that's what they kind of had in mind when they made this movie.

Above and beyond the whole "total hotness" factor of both Michelle Pfeiffer and Rutger Hauer in the same movie, there was something more than the Hollywood-magical about the story. The tangible sense of loss and want, the power of guilt and shame balanced by a realistic sense of survival... the message that the measure of a man is what he has the audacity to do for his cause instead of his station or status

[ Click here to read more ]

118

Vote

Comments (4)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dawn Ellis-Lopez - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

March 2010

4 Posts

February 2010

2 Posts