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

usesoap Blog

  • Review: President Barack Obama: The Man and His Journey

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

    President Barack Obama: The Man and His Journey

     

     

     

    Director: Maria Arita Howard

    CodeBlack Entertainment and Vivendient Films

    I am always skeptical of what seem to be cash-grabs. You know, those books you see in the supermarket, promising to be a titillating expose on the flavor of the month, only to be duped by works that are at best cobbled together by random facts and stats easily revealed by a quick Google search?

    When it comes to our latest historic presidential inauguration, I have my fair share of memorabilia (pins, posters, etc). But I am wary of documentaries that seem pre-packaged and ready to ride the coattails of the success for monetary gain, which is why when I sat down to review “President Barack Obama: The Man and His Journey,” I was, at the very least, dubious.

    It is far from the overnight, stitched-together compilation that it could have been – with interview footage handsomely shot, subtly lit ,and including a wide-range of interviewees. But the film will perhaps serve better for classrooms of future generations as a cursory primer of Barack’s political life; for it is not really the “intimate portrait” we are promised on the back cover of the DVD box.

    Director Maria Arita Howard keeps matters moving briskly for its 90-minute run time, but sometimes falls back on one too many shots of smiling children, flapping flags and amber waves of grain that were too much even for an Obama supporter.

    She does populate it with a nice mix of supporters -- everyone from radio personality Tom Joyner, actor Blair Underwood (who also serves as narrator and who has not seemed to age at all since his “L.A. Law” days), Martin Luther King, III, journalist Roland Martin and actor Hill Harper, a Harvard classmate of Obama.  The film rapidly covers his life’s journey, yet barely stays too long in any particular area for us to get a sense of its influence on Obama, or his on it.

    Each fawns over the politician, from the grassroots campaign volunteer to his fellow senators. And while Obama’s story is quintessentially American, the viewer is never stirred to the goosebumps one can encounter by watching a speech given by the man himself.

    Now, being a political beast myself, there was little included that I did not already know about our President’s political past, so for those who have only gleaned their Obama knowledge throughout the latest campaign, there may be many an interesting kernel of information of his personal and political past.

    But there are also segments that seem rather superfluous to the man’s impact (do we really need to hear the entire song of “Fired Up”?).  For someone with such a meteoric rise to power, some insight along the way would have certainly been advantageous. I would much rather have spent time learning about his childhood struggles as a bi-racial child and how they have strengthened his reserve and convictions than to see grainy footage of him waving to crowds that were played on endless loops during this past election season.

    Of course, the biography of the man is still being written and will undoubtedly serve to inspire song, film and documentaries for years to come. As it stands, “President Barack Obama: The Man and His Journey” is a serviceable primer, filled with a nice range of articulate, interesting supporters from throughout his life.  But as a probing, in-depth portrait of this inspirational figure and the motivating factors that led him to become the most powerful man on the planet, “President Barack Obama” only skims the surface.

    The disc also includes seven motivational “Yes We Can” shorts, which depict several strife-ridden situations, all inspired by the words of our president, and each closing with the seminal  will.i.am number, but sadly, no video of the song itself. Instead you can watch “Fired Up” again from the Bergevin Brothers, which is already played at length during the documentary, and a music video for Brian McKnight’s “Yes We Can!” There are also extended interviews from many of the interviewees that prove more entertaining than insightful.


  • A 'Bloody' good time, as long as it's in 3-D

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Creepshow  (1982)

    The Fog  (1979)

    Jaws 3  (1983)

    Prom Night  (2008)

    Friday the 13th  (2009)

    My Bloody Valentine 3-D is a film comfortable in its own skin... even if that skin is either impaled, gouged, filleted or otherwise decimated by its pickaxe-wielding killer.

    Count me as one of the chorus members who bemoans each and every new "re-imagining" of old horror films. I found the latest Texas Chainsaws to be dull blades at best, the new Prom Night to be just as awkward and unfulfilling as my own, and I really have no real urge to see Jason arrive on his unlucky Friday in a few weeks (but I'm sure I'll still go).

    But by dressing it with the novelty of 3-D, the creators of Valentine have taken a forgotten, otherwise expendable little slasher film from back in the day and gave it a William Castle-style jolt. For those unfamiliar, Castle was the legendary director who in the '50s resorted to gimmicks like buzzers in theater seats for some of his films to entice audience involvement.

    The use of 3-D is certainly nothing new for horror films, as everyone from Jaws to Jason has at one time promised "a new dimension in terror" or some weak derivative. But it is only recently that the medium has been perfected, ditching the old school red-and-blue tinted glasses (called anaglyph) for the much more fluid "Real 3-D" and "Dolby 3-D"," in which patrons sports gray-tinted shades that reduce the risk of headaches often incurred by the former. It is no longer seen as a hokey gimmick and is becoming more and more commonplace for animated films to be released in this format (in theaters that can project this format) simultaneously with 2-D versions.

    And Valentine certainly realizes that this added dimension is its biggest (perhaps only?) selling point. From the signature weapon of choice for the film's killer to various other objects (tree limbs, ham hocks, eyeballs), Valentine is not stingy with its device and hurls things at the audience at a brisk clip. It's even conveniently set in a mining shaft, whose cavernous walls allow for excellent scope. Fans of the genre will also be happy to note that it is quick to the bloodshed, punctuating the film with several inventive impaling, creative crushings and slick slaughters.

    But perhaps even more surprising is the film's little Scooby-Doo-style mystery that had me and my viewing mates guessing until the end. It's not perfect and does bend the rules a bit, but for those seeking more accurate crime scene analysis, there's more than likely a procedural drama on television right now for you.

    The original film was notable to young gore hounds such as myself in the pages of Fangoria magazine (imagine Entertainment Weekly, with more dismemberings), which previewed the film's deliciously bloody deaths in full color. As with most films of the era, the result was not the sum of its body parts. But the producers of the remake have apparently recognized its strengths (the gore) and realized its flaws (everything else), and have crafted an efficient little scary, fun date movie that claims to be nothing more.

    The plot, if it matters, concerns an incident in a small Pennsylvania mining town in which an accident brought tragedy to the town. In it, a group of miners were trapped inside, all killed by a co-worker who was not all that into sharing the limited oxygen below. He emerges from his coma after a year and, muscle atrophy be damned, manages to massacre an entire hospital in a violent rage. A decade later, similar killings befall the same sleepy town.

    The only actor worth mentioning is the elder cast member who serves as a shout-out to old school horror fans. Tom Atkins, veteran of such '80s-era horror flicks as Halloween III: Season of the Witch, The Fog, Creepshow, and Night of the Creeps plays a sheriff who supposedly originally disposed of the killer years ago, only to find that he may not have sealed the deal.

    Director Patrick Lussier's prior credits include crappy direct-to-video fodder that would not suggest this film would have any mark of quality whatsoever. And while his skills here are not top tier, they are better than the average genre junk that pummels audiences into sensory overload.

    My Bloody Valentine by no means redefines the genre or reinvigorates the device of an added dimension. But where it succeeds is in embracing both, accepting them for what they are and offering viewers a wholly entertaining diversion, filled with cheap, effective thrills and senseless mayhem that are the staples of the slasher film.

    (Those who view the 2-D version, though: Enter at your own risk.)


  • Nothing 'Revolutionary' along the well-traveled 'Road'

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

    Director Sam Mendes does not seem to be a big fan of the suburbs. Between his latest film Revolutionary Road and 1999’s American Beauty, Mendes picks at the scabs of suburbia, allowing viewers to gaze at all that oozes from it.

    Like Beauty, Road focuses on a couple whose relationship luster is fading fast, as youthful aspirations fall wayside to the compromises of adulthood. But where the former film dealt with the struggles of a modern day, middle-aged couple, Road focuses on a '50s-era husband and wife (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) at the earlier stages of their domesticity. And for those fans looking forward to the romantic pairing of the leads from a certain movie about a big boat, let's just say they had it easy with the iceberg compared to what they put themselves through here.

    Frank (DiCaprio) and April's (Winslet) life certainly begins storybook enough – meeting at a social event, eyes locking across a crowded, smoky room and soon settling into cookie-cutter suburbia to raise a couple of rugrats. Frank, the breadwinner, dutifully goes to a job in which the only perk for him is that it allows him to “swim” in the secretarial pool from time to time. April, meanwhile, struggles with the fact that her acting dreams have been dashed and puts on a Douglas Sirk-sized smile as she attempts to conform to her role as Happy Housewife.

    As April grabs at some sort of identity outside the home, Frank half-heartedly goes along for the ride, agreeing to flee to Paris, where she thinks they can start anew and she can be their sole support system. The vision is as childishly executed as it sounds, with no real plan or vision as to what will happen once they arrive (we never see the couple attempt to even learn the language). We spend more time with them telling everyone they're giving their American Dream lifestyle the big kiss-off, rather than actually preparing for their future life. When that dream dies on the vine, their world begins to implode.

    Revolutionary Road is based on an acclaimed 1961 novel by Richard Yates, which, at the time, might have been seen as groundbreaking, as most domestic images of the time were that of the Cleaver clan. But today, the film seems already dated. Gone is the slightest trace of wit (albeit for one supporting character) that Yates infused in his novel, and it's pretty much a given now that the media-fueled visions of the perfect family were usually anything but. Viewers are thrust into their relationship mid-tempest, and there is hardly any trace of love that was ever shared between the two. Even their children are used as props, both figuratively and literally, as they vanish from the picture for conveniently long stretches.

    The result is like being invited over to the neighborhood home of a querulous couple, as you sit awkwardly counting the minutes until you can excuse yourself to relieve the babysitter. Under Mendes' direction, the couple never becomes an actual “couple,” just sounding boards for each other's frustrations.

    The only character who is halfway interesting is John (played by the excellent Michael Shannon), a neighbor's son, fresh from a mental institution, who delights in exposing the couple's flaws and hidden truths to their life together. Also to the film's credit is production designer Kristi Zea who captures the suburban sterility in almost every scene within the home.

    But despite the effective histrionics of Leo and Kate – which feel more like Oscar-clip reels than part of a cohesive narrative – the film is never the deeply moving, personal character study it wants to by. Directors Douglas Sirk (Imitation of Life, All That Heaven Allows) and  Nicholas Ray (Bigger Than Life, Rebel Without a Cause) covered the same dirt-under-the-astroturf territory decades ago, when it felt more dangerous to do so. Hell, even the Brady Bunch got in on it in their 1995 film. 

    Exposing the lack of conformity of '50s wedded bliss today carries none of the same impact. We are closing in on the second decade of the new millennium, and I think it's pretty well established that the image of the “perfect family” was a myth. Viewers can simply tune into AMC's expertly crafted Mad Men each week to witness a much more colorful, developed expose of the era's seamier side instead a dead-end drive down this Road.


  • Review: "Three Monkeys' (Uc Maymun)

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    In the Bedroom  (2001)

    Distant  (2002)

    Climates  (2006)

    So often, when a film is described as 'deliberately paced,' it's can be read as being 'slow.' 'In the Bedroom' initially comes to mind off the top of my head.

    And while the camera may stay statioary to soak in the scenery, the electrical undercurrent of 'Three Monkeys'  (Uc Maymun in Turkish) is anything but lethargic.

    Cinematographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan uses natural and man-made elements as supporting actors. A rolling storm cloud here, a thundering train there, all signify struggles the main characters face as they attempt to lie and cheat their way out of the dark corners in which they've found themselves.

    A middle-aged politician (Ercan Kesal) drives down a desolate road, eyes heavy with sleep, when he is jolted awake by his car slamming into and killing a pedestrian.

    In a panic, he bolts the scene and later persuades his longtime driver, Eyup (played by Yavuz Bingol), to take the fall and and serve the jail time in exchange for large chunks of change for him, Hacer his wife ( played by Hatice Aslan) and Ismael, his young son (played by Ahmet Rifts Sungar).

    As often does happen with money, problems arise. Ismael is of limited motivation and feels that only if the money were spent on a new car, his dream career could be attained. Hacer, on the other hand, begins an affair with her hubby's boss -- yes, the man Eyuap's serving time for -- and is reluctant to let it go upon his prison release.

    The film's title refers to those little chimps that cover their eyes, ears and mouth in order to "see no evil..." etc. And that is exactly what the characters do, they shut down the darker parts and sort of wish their troubles away.

    And this often justifies the lingering, physically inert stretches, hoping that those dark clouds will just roll over eventually and sunny skies will soon follow. But just as director Ceylan cuts away, so does the hope for a cheerful conclusion.

    It's not the prettiest portrait of human nature ( as evidenced by Eyup's violent reaction to his wife's affair, but indifference of his boss killing a man and covering it up), but may be more accurate than we're comfortable with. If it's pictures on the TV, we feel brief sadness before turning the channel; if it hits home, we're pissed.

    The performances are uniformly believable, with Aslan as the true standout. She's the victim of a loveless marriage, and when her husband's jailed for the better part of a year, her flirtation with freedom is palpable.

    And though Three Monkeys dabbles with excellence throughout, it never fully acheives it. Resolutions come a tad too easy in a film as emotionally messy as this, and while the cinematography enhances, it is too often used as a narrative crutch.

    Still, Three Monkeys offers further progression of a filmmaker who is not afraid of a few risks, and with each film, Ceylan has been building a solid resume (with 2002's Distant and 2006's Climates) that will most likely reap future rewards


  • 'The Wrestler': Rourke's emotional bodyslam

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Homeboy  (1988)

    The Wrestler  (2008)

    JCVD  (2008)

    Full disclosure: My love for Mickey Rourke is pretty boundless. In college, I devoted an entire expose that even lavished praise on such works as the little-seen underrated gem Homeboy (which Rourke wrote) and the misunderstood Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man. It is almost as though he has tried throughout the years to pummel away at his good looks, and prove to someone (himself?) that there was much more to the man than his Brando-esque visage suggested.

    At a time in his career which many of his peers were bruising their bodies in an attempt to reverse time, he decided to step into the ring as a semi-pro boxer, subjecting himself to beatings no film critic could ever bestow upon him.

    That personal history is quite possibly the reason why The Wrestler resonates with such humanity and humility, as Rourke does not portray so much as inhabits the character of Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a man hopelessly devoted to the '80s-era heights of his fame that have long passed him by. And yet he is still entering the ring in front of devoted, albeit fewer, fans. His entrance is still set to the solidly '80s metal of Quiet Riot's "Bang Your Head," and his van's stereo is often blasting tunes from other bygone acts such as The Scorpions and Cinderella.

    You can almost hear his tendons stretching and snapping after each performance now. And still, he subjects himself to low-rent gigs, hitched onto memories of former glories and the nostalgia of what once was. Scene after scene aches with honesty, from the makeshift matches in which wrestling's washed up and wannabes mingle in high school cafeterias that double as changing rooms, to the quiet moments of Randy desperately extending a crippled hand to his estranged adult daughter.

    The one ember of hope in Randy's life comes from Cassidy (played by Marisa Tomei), a stripper whose sympathy for the tough-but-tender wrassler blossoms into friendship. Her predicament is quite similar, in that her career is one defined by her body, and as time begins to erode its youthful elasticity, she can see her shelf-life is nearing its expiration date. As Cassidy, Tomei continues to set the screen ablaze as she did in last year's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. The only criticism is that her role requires her to be rejected by some patrons who mock her age and request another stripper, and I cannot envision a rational person who would ever scoff at the chance for even one minute in the Champagne Room with her.

    It's fitting that Bruce Springsteen closes the film, as the entire film unfolds like a dramatization of a character from the musician's catalogue. And the film is director Darren Aronofsky's Nebraska: honest, raw, stark and nakedly personal. The director, who is more known for his flashy, dramatically braided dramas (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain), applied no technical wizardry here, even allowing passing migrating geese to populate the background sound (which, in itself takes on meaning of moving on, something the main character just can't do).

    This is not to say that The Wrestler is without its moments of levity. During a shopping trip for Randy's daughter, Cassidy asks him what type of style the girl prefers in clothing: Goth, hippie, preppy? “I think she's a lesbian, does that make a difference?” he cluelessly responds.

    Anchoring it all is Rourke, whose performance feels like his entire career has been working toward this role. Battered, bruised, but doggedly determined to stay relevant, Rourke's impassioned pleas for acceptance are heartbreaking and captivatingly honest. In one brief bit between Randy and his daughter (played by Evan Rachel Wood, whose career is littered with parts like this), it plays almost like an off-camera confessional from Rourke himself. The scene is vaguely similar to one in this year's JCVD, in which Jean Claude Van Damme places his muscular heart squarely on his sleeve.

    The Wrestler explores no new ground thematically, but demonstrates that, in the right hands with the right actors, even time-tested tales can be polished off and presented anew with astounding results.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

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


Categories
 


Advertisement