Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Bloggish review blog

  • Mavens Review: The Guitar

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Fight Club  (1999)

    Wit  (2001)

    Last Holiday  (2005)

    The Guitar  (2008)

    It's hard to think of the accurate words to describe "The Guitar." "Ridiculous," "overdramatic" and "Oxygen channel after dark" are all words and phrases that spring to mind. But mostly, it's just bad.

    Basically, the plot is this: Saffron Burrows is sick. She has cancer. Dr. Janeane Garofalo gives her one or two months to live. In addition to this, she gets laid off from her job and ends a relationship with a man she's apparently dating (I gathered...I wasn't entirely sure what was going on) to add up to pretty much the worst day ever. Saffron Burrows almost kills herself, but notices an ad for short-term loft apartment rentals and goes for it, completely abandoning her apartment and all the stuff in it (Saffron isn't much of one for moving her stuff with her, it turns out).

    What follows is a kind of bisexual, white New York City "Last Holiday." Saffron starts spending money left and right, buying all kinds of swanky clothes and furniture for her apartment. She also buys a guitar, and a bunch of amps she doesn't really need (it looks like she's getting ready to host a rock concert in her loft) because of some childhood dream of owning a guitar that never got fulfilled. Oh! and before I forget, there's that bisexual thing: Saffron has sex with the guy who keeps delivering all her packages (Isaach De Bankole) and the gal who keeps delivering all her pizzas (Paz de la Huerta). All this without ever leaving the apartment!

    Things keep getting more and more implausible, to the point of utter laughability. All the characters, including the female lead, are totally two-dimensional, barely explained, and chock-full of stereotype fulfillment. Here's an example: the pizza delivery girl is both a) Italian and b) getting married to an abusive boyfriend with mob connections. Other characters, such as Saffron's boyfriend who breaks up with her in the first ten minutes of the movie, should seem more important than they appear (and they appear very little, mostly as incidental plot devices). Finally the whole plot structure collapses and the movie just goes flat, at which point it has the good sense to end.

    The thing that gets me the most about this movie isn't the terribly goofy plot, nor the more-intimate-than-necessary sex scenes. It's the message that materialism will heal you, and that an object can give you meaning and something to live for. "The Guitar" is more or less a female-empowered antithesis to "Fight Club." Where Edward Norton found emptiness and confusion in endless catalog shopping, Saffron Burrows seems to have found happiness. "The Guitar" tells us that shopping cures all ills, even, it turns out (spoiler alert) cancer.

    Reccommended movies:

    Fight Club: searching for meaning and masculinity in a comercially dominated culture.

    Last Holiday: At least it's supposed to be funny.

    Wit: A movie about cancer that's far more interesting and believable.

     


  • More shameless self promotion/"Inkheart" movie review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Inkheart  (2009)

    Just uploaded a new vlog post! Anyone who's interested, feel free to check it out and comment (we're such comment whores). This week is a review of "Inkheart."

     


  • Review: Three Monkeys

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    I find movies about secrets to be terribly interesting. Affairs, murders, accidents, humiliations and the lengths people will go to hide them generally make for pretty compelling stuff.

    "Three Monkeys," the Turkish entry for the best foreign language film Oscar, is one such movie, and (I think) probably a pretty strong contender. I'm assuming the title has to do with the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil," since the family at the center of this movie has plenty of issues that they deal with by not talking about them.

    Things start off when a Servet, a campaigning politician, is involved in a hit-and-run accident. Not wanting to tarnish his reputation right before the election, Servet has his driver, Eyüp, take the fall for him in exchange for a sum of money to be given to his family. In the meantime, Eyüp's wife, Hacer, has an affair with Servet, only to have it abruptly cut off when her ne'er-do-well son discovers them. Oh, and the family is also haunted by the ghost of their dead son...there's a lot of tension going on.

    Probably the best thing "Three Monkeys" has going for it is its subtlety. The film's style is very subdued, and we only see characters behaving in extreme ways when the situation absolutely calls for it. The performances are all very natural, never over-the-top. We can identify with all of the characters (except, perhaps, Servet, who's pretty much a scuzzbag). The movie is also very solid visually. It looks like it was shot on DV, which gives it a gritty, but also intimate feeling. The camera is unsparing in its portrayal of the characters. We see every flaw, every stray hair, wrinkle and stress line, all of which goes into making a better, more detailed vision of who these people are, and the effects their years of supressed emotions have had on them.

    I am very, very glad I got to see "Three Monkeys." It's a well-worked, intense movie that nobody has talked about, but that everyone should be. This movie has all of the intrigue of a Hichcock film (atmospherically speaking, it feels like "Strangers on a Train," but more subdued) but most of the action happens behind closed doors. It's a really intriguing approach to a premise that could easily have been made into a preachy, hysterical melodrama.

    Related movies to watch:

    "Rachel Getting Married": Some of the drama, but with the added plus of joy and redemption.

    "Strangers on a Train": Intrigue with more thrills

    "Crimes and Misdemeanors": Affairs and examinations of the people that have them.


  • Why horror remakes will always suck

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Friday the 13th  (2009)

    The Hitcher  (1986)

    The Thing  (1982)

    The Unborn  (1991)

    Saw  (2004)

    Prom Night  (2008)

    Mirrors  (2008)

    The Unborn  (2009)

    So, I just downloaded Taken By Trees' cover of the Guns 'n' Roses song "Sweet Child Of Mine," after hearing it on the trailer for the upcoming remake of the classic horror film "Last House on the Left," which looks utterly odious (I saw it during the trailers preceding the equally odious "The Unborn." Don't ask me why I decided it'd be a good idea to watch this movie...I think it was probably Gary Oldman that did it) Anyway, my ire at the fact that this movie, among others, was being re-made gave me pause. Why is it that movies with a strong following in one generation get remade a couple of generations later into movies that are completely awful? Why is it that the remake of "The Hitcher" not only was a pile of flaming dog poo, but was destined to fail from the very moment the idea of the remake came into being? Why does this seem to be the case with nearly every horror remake since...well...pretty much forever?

    After giving it some thought, my thinking is this: the problem with remakes is twofold. The more recent problem that's emerged is the hollywood pop horror machine running out of ideas and, as a result, remaking movies that weren't really worthy of the treatment (BBC film critic and horror film guru Mark Kermode claims this was the case with "Prom Night" and "Mirrors").

    The other, more angering problem is this: Most of the audience these remakes are aimed at (such as the loud and undiscerning teens who shared the theater with me during tonight's screening of "The Unborn") have grown up with no clue who Wes Craven is, or that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" originally came out in the 70s, not in 2003. This is a generation of people who don't know about The Thing or, it seems, the original versions of The Hills Have Eyes and Friday the 13th. The major studios think they can pull the wool over an audience's eyes by showing them warmed-over versions of culturally important movies with all the significance removed.

    The fact that these movies are nothing more than vain, empty husks of their original selves stems, I believe from one simple factor: what makes these movies great is the context and the cultural climate in which they were created. Wes Craven's work in the 70s is considered classic not only because it legitimately scared the pants off you, but because it was shocking in a way that few movies were at that time. Last House on the Left (which, supposedly, is itself a take on Bergman's Virgin Spring) was the product of people who had grown up watching the Vietnam war on TV. What audiences were seeing was a wakeup call to a culture that had become desensitzed to violence. Friday the 13th was, in its way, a satiric morality play (Jason's mom, after all, is taking out her revenge because her son drowned while being neglected by horny camp counselors).

    None of these remakes work now (nor, I posit, will they ever) because the true meaning of these movies, the spirit in which they were created, has been lost. In an age where movies like the Saw franchise are practically considered the norm, a modern version of Last House on the Left packs no punch. It only has something to say to modern audiences if you consider the original film in its cultural context. The same goes for Friday the 13th. A movie like this has no noticeable place in a culture that's become desensitzed to both violence and sex. It'll only be a cheap thrill unless you consider why the original came to exist in the first place. Not to mention that the script wasn't that great in the first place. The only thing this movie has going for it is its concept, and if that loses its significance, you can kiss the whole thing goodbye.

    All this is to say, I wish Hollywood would quit churning out fifty or so of these cheap-ass thrill-a-minute meaningless remakes year after year after year. The people who produce these wastes of perfectly good celluloid aren't considering what it is about these movies that ever appealed to anyone at any point in time. They are considering only the legions of teenagers who are unaware that, many years ago, the forgettable horror flick that has them cowering in their seats was once an important, groundbreaking piece of work. These movies are not a form of preservation, but rather one more patina of tarnish.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<January 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement