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

JJ79 Blog

  • Movie Review: DISTRICT 9

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

    District 9  (2009)

    The term science fiction has been perverted over the years to mean any number of things. Outer space melodrama. Exploration on an alien planet. Weird looking creatures with orange tentacles. Spaceships. But what most entries into the genre are missing is quite simple: the comment on the current times. Planet of the Apes had it. So did the recent Children of Men. Most of the Star Trek flicks contained commentary on the real world. And so does District 9. That much should be apparent from the trailer.

    A huge spaceship hovers in the sky over Johannesburg, South Africa. While humans cut a hole in the side to gain access, a much smaller vessel detaches and disappears. Inside, starving and nearly dead aliens are found. They are given a home in a slum called District 9. After 20 years, the people of South Africa grow weary and restless over these visitors. MNU-Multi National United-is only supposed to move them to a tent city…yet something goes horribly wrong to the pencil-pusher in charge of the operation, Wikus Van De Merwe.

    D9 is unabashedly a message movie wrapped in pyrotechnics and Dr. Zoidberg-esque make-ups. In fact, the script by director Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell outlines the anti-alien (otherwise known by the derogatory “prawn”) sentiment within the first ten minutes. The first quarter of the movie is told documentary style, with the actors looking straight into the camera and a handful of experts bringing the audience up to speed on world events. Think of the film as a 60 Minutes piece gone horribly wrong. It is an intriguing choice, one that is jettisoned as the relocation occurs in favor of, primarily, a third person point of view.

    (Security camera footage is mixed in with the documentary style video. The second half of the film utilizes traditional third person viewpoints interspersed with select shots from Van De Merwe's point of view. This approach keeps the film visually interesting and the filmmakers on their toes.)

    Why does a documentary work for this particular story? Well, for starters, it allows various characters to utter a great deal of exposition without it feeling like exposition. It’s quite a brilliant strategy, actually, to style the beginning of the film after The Office since it allows the audience to see the contrast in personalities between when a person knows they’re “on” and when they’re “off.” In Van De Merwe’s case, he seems sympathetic to the aliens initially and transformers into a scared and violent man when thrust into the middle of the ghetto.

    There are strong parallels to American treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II as well as the concentration camps in Nazi Germany during the same time. In fact, hearing the way humans speak of the "relocation" should send shivers down the spine of anyone in the audience. Not specifically because of our shared history but because it appears as though humanity has not learned a thing from those episodes. Indeed, until the climax in the district itself, there's never a sense any human has any concept of the right or wrong thing to do, that they're capable of change. At least not in a sustaining, meaningful way. It doesn't even appear that humanity tried to talk with the aliens despite apparently understanding the language. Van De Merwe, the ostensible protagonist, doesn't bother to change himself until his well-being is put on the line. And even then it's only superficial change, nothing long lasting. That's not a positive social message, is it?

    District 9 isn't a terribly positive movie, to be honest. But then it isn't supposed to be. This isn't the type of sci fi movie where the good guys turn out okay in the end and evil corporate goons get what's coming to them. This may be the only genre where an ending like the one Blomkamp and Tatchell cook up can be acceptable, even welcome. There's a certain poetry to the final scenes. They work, leaving a shred of hope for the alien/human relationship at some point in the future. (Or an all out holy war...)

    Don't fret: District 9 has the other hallmarks of quality science fiction, too. The final half hour-if not more-is one extended action sequence expertly conceived and directed so the audience never question who is doing what to whom. All the pieces are moved into place and introductions made during the rest of the film to make sure it all makes sense. And then there's the design of the aliens themselves. In a word, brilliant. In creating the bi-pedal, slim waist, athletic, scaly spider race, the crew takes great pains to make sure they walk and act in a realistic manner. Every action feels organic and entirely plausible. Not a single shot looks computer generated, though I'm told the "prawn" are completely CGI. They're a marvel, to be blunt. And to imagine the relatively small budget for film ($30 million). Big budget creatures rarely look this realistic. Each of the three "main" alien personalities is given distinguishing characters all their own, including a wide array of facial expressions. Notice slumped shoulders or expanding pincers designed to convey emotion.

    The fact the entire movie takes place in South Africa isn't a coincidence, either. Think about it: humans have created a second class of citizen, holed them up in a ghetto and afford them no rights or simple respect. Doesn't that sound a bit like apartheid? See, even in something as mundane as the setting, quality screenwriters can add another layer to the story. And what they conveniently leave out of the story-why the aliens are here, for example-adds to the mystery. And that's okay. Every "i" doesn't need to be dotted and every "t" crossed. Something has to be left to the imagination, to fuel fan fiction for years to come. Besides, there is a certain charm to leaving the details purposely sketchy. That's what they make sequels for.


  • Movie Review: BIG FAN

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

    Big Fan  (2009)

    Big Fan(2009)

    There is an old saying parents use on their children when they're horsing around with one another: it's all fun until someone gets hurt. That's exactly the mentality of Big Fan, Robert D. Siegel's directing debut (he wrote The Wrestler). The New York Giants #1 fan, Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt), lives with his mother, is a regular on local sports talk radio shows and cherishes everything about the G-Men, especially quarterback Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm). That hero worship is called into question when Paul is beaten at a nightclub by Bishop.

    Getting back to the parental warning, that's exactly what happens to Paul. Through the entirety of the film, he is a stunted adolescent incapable or unwilling to think of anything besides the Giants, ie. fun. Every waking thought is given over to how to stick up for his team; he even writes out his nightly talk radio rant while working as a parking garage attendant. Oswalt, as the undisputed center of the film, is masterful in his performance not because he goes above and beyond to create a character we've never seen but rather because he realistically inhabits a man we all know. It doesn't have to be a sports fan-it can be fanatical about anything. Defensive, passionate, over-board and fully aware of what he is with an unwillingness to publicly acknowledge it, the Paul character is rarely imbued with a false acting note. (The script gets the finale wrong, but we'll get to that in a minute.)

    Siegel creates a story based wholly in reality, especially for audiences familiar with the New York area. He gets the look of the area right with crammed together houses and spot on supporting characters: they’re the loud, brash and ethnic people you’d expect to see on the east coast. They’re left off screen except when the story demands they be seen to either build Paul’s character or provide a way for the story to move forward. In other words, the script is very lean, without any extraneous scenes or miscellaneous subplots getting in the way of the main story.

    Because Siegel spends so much of the 85 minute running time building the character and the world he inhabits, the entire second act-the immediate aftermath of the attack-can become a bit tedious. Why, exactly? Despite all the arguments made to pursue Bishop legally, there simply isn't any way Paul can wrap his mind around it. That’s clear to the audience from the get go, long before the black eye or multiple day hospital stay, where Paul’s loyalties lie. Siegel populates this part of the movie with seemingly endless scenes of family members scolding him like a small child to Paul moping around, theoretically thinking about his best course of action. Oswalt and the rest of the cast hold the movie together here, keeping the film interesting even when the content begins to stagnate.

    In a way, we know how Big Fan has to end. A lawsuit would feel dishonest to the type of person Paul is. And he certainly won't confront Bishop. After all, Bishop isn't Paul's nemesis here. That would be Philadelphia Phil (Michael Rapaport), an Eagles fan who torments Giants faithful on the radio every night. For a majority of the story, these two have a strictly verbal relationship, similar to the pairing of Kirk and Khan in the second Star Trek feature. What happens when, in real life, we know people only through an internet handle or screen name? There is a tendency to forget they are a real person with feelings, family and a life outside of a particular forum. That ends up being the message of the film, even above a warning against rabid fanaticism: be conscious that who you're dealing with is a person and not just a nebulous "thing."

    (Note this theme running through the film: the hero worship on the part of the fans, Bishop discounting Paul immediately, the slightly creepy stalking of a public personality, a family member taking the lawsuit into their own hands, the way Paul talks about his entire family. No one really remembers there are people behind the faces or voices until its too late.)

    I mentioned the finale. For my money, it doesn't feel like a natural outgrowth of the character, even after the twist is revealed. Does it make sense? Yeah, but that doesn't excuse it. The actual last scene is much more compelling between Paul and his friend Sal, sad and poignant in its own way. Another adage is true here: the more things change, the more they stay the same.


  • Movie Review: FUNNY PEOPLE

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

    Funny People  (2009)

    Judd Apatow's third directorial effort, Funny People, is being marketed as a comedy. And, to be fair, the flick revolves around a handful of comedians and has genuinely funny moments. But it's not a comedy in the conventional sense of the term. Apatow, who also penned the script, uses misdirection to tell a more dramatic story modeled more on All About Eve than Billy Madison.

    George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a successful comedian who's received bad news: he has advanced leukemia. One night at a comedy club, he comes across Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), an aspiring comedian. Simmons hires the young gun to wright jokes and be an assistant, though their relationship quickly begins to look like friends. Whatever the relationship, it's tested when George reconnects with a former fiancee (Leslie Mann) and Ira speaks his mind.

    There is so much story crammed into this admittedly long film-it has a 146 minutes running time-it wouldn't be disingenuous to say the end result is ambitious, possibly overambitious. There's a veritable flood of major and minor characters and a host of plot lines which never quite gel to form a cohesive whole. When Joseph L. Mankiewicz wrote the 1950's Eve, he didn't have to worry about making the audience laugh or living up to some preconceived notion of what the movie was going to be. Rather, all he had to deal with was adapting Mary Orr's original story for the screen and juggling the ego's of both Bette Davis and Anne Baxter. Apatow's version doesn't work precisely because he found himself having to juggle disparate elements which shouldn't be thrown together.

    Take, for instance, a subplot concerning Ira, his roommates (Jonah Hill and Jason Swartzman) and a girl named Daisy (Abrey Plaza). The relationship between the four recurs trough the entire picture yet amounts to nothing in the long run. It's as if Apatow simply threw the characters in to give his usual stable of talent something to do. What, exactly, does Ira living on their couch have to do with anything? Where does Daisy truly enter the picture? The sad truth is neither is connected to the main plot. If Ira had articulated to George how knowing Daisy and Mark (Schwartzman) spent a night together made him feel, perhaps the younger man's actions in the third act could have made sense. But he doesn't and, more importantly, it doesn't.

    Where the story should have focused its energy is delving deeply into the George/Ira relationship and, more specifically, why it is George decides to hire him. We're told it's because of the jokes, but that' terribly simplistic. There has to be something else. Is it because George is supposedly dying and he's lonely? Does he want to leave a legacy aside from juvenile comedy films? Or is it possible, no matter how remotely so, he wants to actually help Ira, that he's being selfless in his final hours? We're never told, leaving the audience to wonder about that lingering question at the end. Had this been a normal, everyday comedy, no one would give it a second thought. But due to Apatow's unconventional way of creating this comedy, he draws attention to these types of loose threads.

    Funny People is wholly concerned with showing off to the audience. I can imagine Apatow writing certain scenes and congratulating himself for being so reverential toward the stand-up community, telling himself everyone between New York and Los Angeles will enjoy the references. I'll tell you quite simply Middle America won't get it. I'm told stand-up comics routinely get together to celebrate or just to eat. Fantastic, if Apatow is trying to recreate that milieu. But does it matter to people not in the loop? Doubtful; the sequence becomes something created for the "in crowd" instead of the masses. And to those of us who actually do care, it's overkill. (For the record, I noticed Ray Romano, Eminem, Norm McDonald, Carol Leifer, Andy Dick, Sarah Silverman and Paul Reiser. The cast list says a great many more were sprinkled in the finished product.)

    There's nothing wrong with the cast; not a single one of them can compete with Davis or Crawford, though they're a solid group capable of playing comedy or drama depending on the script. Sandler and Rogen are known quantities, so we know what we're going to get with them in this genre. I was more struck by Leslie Mann and Eric Bana, who plays her husband Clark in the film. They're storyline is relatively small, though she is a magnetic presence whenever she takes the screen. And Bana does the most with the limited screen time he gets, effectively making the audience question whether he really is the douchebag Laura (Mann) has made him out to be. As with all things involved with the film, the third act, which squarely focuses on these two characters, runs overlong and wears out its welcome with far too long remaining.

    Since he is the lead, I feel compelled to say something...substantial about Sandler, though what that something is I don't know. He's wholly convincing as a successful loner, someone who makes the people around him laugh but has precious little to laugh about when he's alone. Simmons isn't the most engaging or likeable character, especially when he verbally berates Ira late in the film. Maybe he's channeling Margo Channing after mentoring Ira's Eve Harrington, kicking the protege to the curb when he becomes a career threat.

    A word of warning: Funny People is rated R for a very good reason. Each of the stand-up routines prominently deals with sex and profanity. No more than five minutes goes between references to balls or ****. In other words, it's a typical Apatow and Sandler film, not intended for the squemish or easily offended.


  • Movie Review: STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK

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

    Among the original six Star Trek films, there is a myth that the even-numbered films are the best while the odd-numbered pictures...lack something. This assessment may not be 100% accurate, based on how the film series ends with Nemesis, but with 1983's Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the theory is alive and well.

    Immediately after Admiral Kirk's (William Shatner) defeat of Khan and the death of Spock in the previous film, the Enterprise is set to be decommissioned while Doctor McCoy (DeForest Kelley) seemingly begins to loose his mind. It is revealed Spock transferred his living spirit into the doctor and now both parts of the Vulcan need to be reunited. A couple problems stand in the way: a Klingon captain hellbent on discovering the secret of Genesis, Spock's body lying the newly created planet and a starship Enterprise in desperate need of repair.

    The Search for Spock isn't a bad movie. True, there are elements-most notably in the production design-that don't work and a few ill-considered script moments better left on the cutting room floor. But by and large, the middle installment in the II-III-IV trilogy is more maligned than it should be. Writer/producer Harve Bennett had the unenviable task of not only following up the successful Wrath of Khan, but also providing the majority of the actual story content for the three films. Think about it: in a standard movie, the second act is where the hero encounters all manner of roadblocks in order to complete the mission in the first act (in this case, ST II). That's all this movie is: one roadblock after another. While there is a definite beginning, middle and end to the story in the film, it's hard to jump right into the action with a brief recap of Spock's death at the outset. The emotional punch is gone, in other words.

    Again, that's not necessarily something to hold against this picture. There are other aspects of the production wholly unique to The Search for Spock which don't work. Despite a real world reason for using sound stages to stand in for the Genesis planet exteriors, any scene on the planet surface can't help but feel claustrophobic and, well, fake. Chekov (Walter Koenig) parades around in a hideous pink-ish jumpsuit while his compatriots are clad in their usual uniforms. The Excelsior, a new starship design to the Trek universe, is beautiful on the outside yet turns out to be strangely antiseptic on the inside. (The captain, Stiles, carries around a stick for some unknown reason.) It's as if Bennett had a plethora of ideas on making this universe more realistic and couldn't incorporate them very well.

    The first two films in the series were nearly devoid of humor. Trek III sees the franchise utilize comedy moments seemingly as a test run for the next feature, The Voyage Home. Mind you, this isn't out and out comedy: it is completely organic to the story and characters themselves. When McCoy responds to Kirk using Spock's voice, he has a quip for the admiral keeping in character and minding their relationship.

    Leonard Nimoy has a steady hand in directing the film, never drawing attention to a camera move or creating obnoxious camera angles. The audience sees exactly what we're supposed to see and nothing extraneous. He is hamstrung somewhat by the production budget and the indoor-for-outdoor filming. Had the production been able to go on location to Hawaii to film the Genesis planet, Nimoy could have created more dynamic shots instead of trying to cover up the sound stage itself. Still, he is able to generally make the supposed exteriors look relatively close to their real life counterparts, especially the Vulcan finale. There's a majesty to the Fal-Tor-Pan ceremony with a handful of extras and almost no dialogue; it's all Nimoy and composer James Horner's score who bring the sequence to life.

    Critics like to disparage the performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander Kruge. Some say he is comical, over-the-top and not a true Klingon. One has to remember, though, he is essentially the first modern day Klingon seen in Trek. Mark Lenard played the Klingon commander in the first motion picture, though he only had a five minute part. It fell to Lloyd to make the new costume and make-up his own, not to mention creating mannerisms and a general feel to the race. Plus, he was chosen for the part because of his theatricality. The only real critique of the character is that Kruge is one note with no background or personality. Being a single film villain as opposed to recurring character, that's not surprising. But it does make him superficial.


  • Movie Review: ALMOST HEAVEN

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

    Almost Heaven  (2009)

    Thanks to years upon years of movies masquerading as romantic comedies, Almost Heaven is able to slip into that genre with only the barest hints of romance or comedy. Mark Brady (Donal Logue) is an award-winning television director who has succumbed to alcohol in the wake of his divorce from TV personality Taya Honeywell (Joely Collins). Desperate for someone to take over a cable fishing show in Scotland, executives bring Brady in to salvage the program. But in Scotland he not only contends with his drinking demons, ex-wife and cantankerous locals, but also female gillie Nicki (Kristy Mitchell), whom he falls for.

    First off, writer/director Shel Piercy wants the audience to believe Mark is a hardcore drunk, someone who parties and has indiscriminate sex to the detriment of everything around him. Well, the cardinal rule of filmmaking is to show and not tell. At no point in the film does Piercy get around to showing Mark doing what he apparently does best. Therefore, through the entire running time, when Logue takes a swig out of a flask or talks about being a drunk, it's impossible to picture him actually being drunk. Why does this matter? Because the entirety of the film depends on this characterization.

    Okay, so no one wanted to make Almost Heaven into an after school special on the ills of drinking. Rather, the idea is to warm the heart with a tale of redemption and love. Only this particular story plays so hard to get that it forgets to organically build the relationship between Nicki and Mark. There is one sequence which works like gangbusters to provide a sense of growth and a budding romance; it turns out to be sweet, charming, lovely and exceptionally well paced and written precisely because we want to care about their pairing. Everything else-the show, the fishing, the network, the drinking-it's all superfluous to Nicki and Mark. Yet the movie doesn't spend nearly enough time showcasing the two of them doing romantic-type things.

    Why? I'm not sure, exactly. I suspect Piercy had too much he wanted to do with the story and tried to cram it all in for better or worse. Take, for example, the character of Taya. Spunky, outgoing and aggressive, it's easy to see why she and Mark didn't get along. Their antagonistic relationship provides a few chuckles, but there's never an underlying reason or rationale to anything she does. In her introduction, she's lying in wait on Mark's hotel bed in lingerie. Why? Don't know and don't care. She's after Mark to sell the house they shared together. Why? Again, don't know and don't care. All the movie needs from Taya is to be loud and obnoxious. To her credit, Collins plays the part wonderfully, thawing around the edges throughout the film.

    And then there are the locals, all designed to be the comic relief. Teapot Ted (Christopher Fairbank) is the most overboard of these characters with his misogynistic attitude toward Nicki-gillie's are fishing guides and have historically been males. He's also a drunk, though holds his liquor much worse than Mark. Tom Conti plays Bert Gordon, the hotel bartender and wise mentor everyone seems to rely on. Think Sam Malone, just older, with fewer quips and an accent. He's the only one of the Scottish characters who actually works since he's the only one given anything meaningful to do.

    Even the entire television crew are little more than cardboard cutouts designed to lend ambiance and credibility to the setting as opposed to being actual characters. Though not part of the crew, Bert's daugher Anabella (Eilidh MacDonald) completely disappears in the third act for no apparent reason other than to remove the object of Nicki's jealousy. After being a sex kitten early on, she's simply forgotten about.

    If the lead of the film hadn't been a male, Almost Heaven could easily pass for a Lifetime production. All the usual cliches of "Television for Women" flicks are here in abundance. There's the story of redemption. And a heart warming child who really digs the lead character. Not one, but two artificial road blocks much too easily overcome. A teary, weepy reunion underscored by a Phil Collins song. Mark and Taya's painful past which only comes out in the last 20 minutes. The mentor figure the lead opens up to despite their casual acquaintance relationship. If you want to see a Lifetime movie, go watch Lifetime. And if you want to make one, do so unabashedly. Don't subject the cast, crew and audience to tripe like this.

    According to Piercy, location shooting took place in both Canada and the United Kingdom. The location shooting in the UK is simply beautiful to look at even if the story lets it down. With lush forests and rolling rivers, the scenery turns out to be the high point of the production. The actors do as much as they can with the story even if the script itself is too crammed with potential storylines to satisfy any of them satisfactorily. (I will give Piercy credit for using the sport of fishing. It's original and unique, just about the only part of the film that can be labeled that way.)


  • Movie Review: THE COVE

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

    The Cove  (2009)

    No matter how many times Richard O'Barry or any of the participants in The Cove talk about mass dolphin slaughter, watching the sea turn red from above and below the surface is a gut-wrenching experience. On the southern coast of Japan, a town has a well-guarded secret: they trap dolphins and quite simply kill them. Why? Flipper trainer O' Barry and his companions allege a government conspiracy telling the fishermen dolphins are pests. They tell the International Whaling Commission dolphins (and whales) are too plentiful, eating the fish which would be used for people. And then there's the most startling claim of all: that dolphin meat is being used in place of other kinds of seafood. Aside from duplicitous marketing, the problem here is the mercury content in dolphin meat.

    The bulk of The Cove's 92 minute running time is devoted to bringing the team together and putting their plan into action. After all, dolphins generally elicit a warm, fuzzy feeling from the community at large and, if it was widely known what goes on in Taiji, the people there would have a problem. Therefore, there are elaborate security measures in place to make sure no one gets to see what happens. And, to be perfectly fair, the resulting footage does paint O'Barry and the activists in a good light, the residents of Taiji and the Japanese as a whole in a bad one and the dolphins as being caught in the middle. That's to be expected, of course. This isn't a History Channel documentary designed to show both sides of an issue and explore it. The Cove is a condemnation of the Japanese, from the government who has a hand in a dolphin meat conspiracy to their buying of votes within the International Whaling Commission to the people outside of Taiji who apparently don't know this activity is going on.

    The technical definition of documentary states "presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter." Certainly The Cove does not make up the information it passes onto the audience. Various scientific experts attest to the mercury content in various seafood; councilmen go on the record about a plan to use dolphin meat-extremely high in mercury-in school lunches; even one official seems to be stunned when confronted with the dolphin killing footage. But the film can't hope to be objective since it calls people to action time and again to stop the massacre. It is an effective public service announcement about the problem and an argument using a two pronged attack: dolphins are highly intelligent and the mercury levels produce very nasty effects.

    Late in the film, as the crew listens to underwater recordings, the assertion is made that the adults and babies are communicating with one another, both scared about being separated. How do we know that? Are they overlaying human feelings and emotions on the seemingly sad sounds coming from this situation? Or is there a basis in fact? Mercury poisoning can't be argued with, from a scientific point of view, nor can the way it is presented here. (One minor quibble would be the "man on the street" interviews regarding the dolphin killing. If the point is to show Japanese citizens don't know it's going on, who cares? Shouldn't the real point be to get them to take a stand? And, yes, the film does address that.)

    The film makes no mention of the similarity between dolphin meat and food which comes from horses, chickens, cows or pigs. Some people have questioned this without acknowledging the risk associated with dolphin meat. There are simply not the same types of medical concerns with other food sources. Moreover, those animals are not slaughtered en masse for no apparent reason. If the true rationale is overpopulation, then the fishing needs to be strictly enforced by an international agency, not haphazardly by a single government.

    To be frank, I wrestled with the idea of whether breaking into the cove was morally questionable or not. It is never mentioned if the area is a top secret or classified government installation. My gut feeling is that it's not, considering anyone passing on the local highway can see the cove itself. And where does covertly laying hidden cameras along the shore fall on the morality scale? Do the ends justify the means in this case? As in, can the ultimate goal of shining a light on a terrible crime against dolphins make up for slinking around in the darkness? The answers to all those questions depends on who you are, I think. The story itself doesn't require anyone to be an activist or even want to be one. All it does require is compassion, in the long run. Emotion, heart and soul. And I'm certainly not saying the people of Taiji don't have any of those things. This is their livelihood, a profession they are told is noble by the government. In a society where people don't stand up for themselves, can we reasonably expect them to stand up for animals?

    Of course, all of this leads to the dolphin killing footage. It's brutal, intense, explicit, sickening. Free diver Mandy-Rae Cruikshank witnesses a baby dolphin hopping over one set of water fences and then another, all the while profusely bleeding. The camera captures a red trail in the water every time the baby comes up for air and then goes back down. At one point, the dolphin goes down and never comes back up. She breaks down simply watching this one animal perish. But when the crew watches the footage of mass slaughter at the end, none of them have words. And, indeed, the audience has no words either. Nothing can prepare a person to see images such as these, knowing full well they are real and not film trickery. To watch the sea turn red-an underwater camera captures this ghastly transformation-can't help but turn the stomach. It may be one of the most memorable scenes in a movie this year and perhaps any other.

    Whatever the faults of the movie itself, this footage is not one of them. It needed to be violent, in your face and downright awful to get the audience's attention. The filmmakers need to show man in all their infinite brutality not only to stop the slaughter, but to document it for future generations.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<August 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2627282930311
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345


Categories
 


Advertisement