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

vhsparrow Blog

  • See one of the Japanese originals instead...

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

    The Ring Two  (2005)

    Recently, I’d been positing a cinema that *resembles* Hollywood fare, but is made outside of Hollywood - in Spain, in New Zealand, Australia and Vancouver - with or without American studio dollars, promotion and all the rest. In short, the kind of thing that usually goes straight-to-video and the SciFi Channel, before a layover in the Chinese bootlegging terminal.

    A rash of these Hollywood/not-Hollywood type films landed in American cinemas this past winter - ‘Darkness’, an American film made in Spain with Miramax/Dimension dollars; ‘Boogeyman’ an American film made in New Zealand; ‘The Grudge’, the American remake of the Japanese ‘Ju-On’ ; ‘Hide and Seek’, incredibly enough, made here in the U.S.A., not to mention ‘Excorcist:The Beginning’ by Norweigan-born Renny Harlin and his yet-to-be-released ‘Mindhunters’.

    What do most of these films have in common? Besides the fact that all but one of them were produced outside of the U.S. but marketed as the ‘real’ thing — many of them were re-makes of foreign films, and NONE of them had American Directors.

    Granted, many of these films were American remakes of Asian horror-pieces, and the ones that worked best exhibited a fundamental understanding of a plot and a script. No such understanding is demonstrated in this sequel to 1999’s successful American remake of ‘The Ring’. ‘Ring 2′ was a double-disappointment, because this time out, the director of the original Japanese films was making his US debut. It was a triple-disappointment because the writer of the sequel was the same as that of the prior - Ehren Kruger - but the sequel sucked rocks. So what happened?

    ‘Ring 2' was so bad that it began to eat away at the virtues of the first film during the last half-hour. I know that Kreuger wrote both films, and the director of the original Japanese versions directed this new film, but it honestly felt as though Chuck Austen had snuck onto the set to give Hideo Nakata tips on storytelling, or was mis-translating the Director’s instructions to the actors and the crew.

    The movie felt like a Chinese bootleg, only in this case, they were working from a bootleged script to create a knock-off, imitation American movie. Somehow, I got the impression that the director didn’t understand the dynamics of English conversation - that the boy’s ‘Rachel’s - had the capacity to become grating. And/or that Nikata had been fed misinformation about Americans leaving dead people and animals scattered about our roadsides.

    Sure, stuff like that happens in shithole movies like ‘Jeepers Creepers’, ‘Final Destination’ and all of their sequels, but suspension-of-disbelief apparently works in those movies’ favor.

    Oh my.

    At least ‘Darkness‘ and it’s b-reel of outtakes, ‘Boogeyman‘ looked positively stellar in comparison. At least I could believe in those characters’ motivations. But here? Meh.


  • Too f^cking long.

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

    Batman Begins  (2005)

    **possible spoilers**

    The good? The first hour - the mythic stuff of murdered billionaire parents and quests for self in the Far East. Liam Neeson and Christian Bale did a great job there. At their serviceable best were Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman in the now-split role of Alfred. Where the Butler once did double-duty as Manservant and Armorer, Alfred is now split across Caine’s Alfred and Freeman’s Lucius Fox.

    The bad? The gratuitous car chase and the plurality of its villains. There’s the guy that murdered young Bruce’s parents - who may have not been a person, but only a symptom of city-wide corruption and the inevitable crime-boss; then there’s Ra’s Al Ghul - real and fake - and his lackey, the sometimes psychiatrist, sometime supervillain Scarecrow.

    The movie was bloated. Writers David Goyer and Christopher Nolan may both be fanboys, but the movie really didn’t need to be 2 hours and 20 minutes long. The movie didn’t have to have all of the Wangerian overtures that it did, and everything DIDN’T have to amount to a massive conspiracy cooked-up by the principal villain. Really, it didn’t have to be that way.

    Somewhere into the 2nd half-hour, I found myself wishing for a grittier film about Batman’s training and the Kung fu-like trials that he no doubt had to face. But this was NOT that movie. Instead, the Archvillian’s Far Eastern mountain hide-out (China? Tibet? Khandahar?) was suddenly in the exurbs of Gotham City, and within shouting distance of Bruce’s faithful LearJet. Segue into the 3rd Act of a 4 Act play.

    This gives way to the inevitable board-room dramas and the IPO that corporate custodian Rutger Hauer wants to pursue, given the 20 year absence of a Wayne family member to run the company. The corpo-drama was like the car chase, and could have been cut from the final draft, just like the ‘End of Days’ Strum und Drang that brings Gotham to its knees, the survival of which the writers never fully explain.

    The promising bits of this film were the Memento-like Nolan signature bits, where he breaks up the timeline, and flashes back and forth between Bruce Wayne’s past and present, between his childhood, young adulthood and the present. A better film could have emeged from further play on that ambiguity - there’s a key moment, somewhere during the 2nd Act that could have taken place anywhere along BW’s timeline, though it’s supposed to take place before Bruce’s Eastern training sessions. If Nolan had been given greater control over the story, I suspect the film might have pursued that arty uncertainty at greater length, but alas, not.

    What we got was 70 minutes of promise and 10 minutes of Gary Oldman playing against type.

    Three stars, out of five.


  • E.T., who?

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

    It’s almost a ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ for the thinking set, while simultaneously being ‘entertainment’ for the mall-rats.

    The attack sequences are a re-enactment of the US assaults on Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah - from the Iraqi  P.O.V. That much is clever, but

    The thing is a too linear. Sure, it’s the anti-’Close Encounters’ and writer David Koepp has done a masterful job of rendering the inter-familial relationships, including little side-jabs at ‘Independence Day’ and the novelty of doing an invasion film from a singular, non-omniscient P.O.V., as opposed to Emmerichian and Speilbergian control-room cutaways. The Government isn’t gonna save us this time, folks.

    We’ve already seen Dakota Fanning get all wide-eyed and screamy this summer, just like we’ve also seen Tom Cruise in roles where he’s O.D.’ed on testosterone and proceeds to over-aggress through the rest of the film.

    It’s a fun little entertainment for Liberal ‘America-haters’ like myself, but I’m not sure there’s much more ‘there’ there. There’s a ‘comment’ about American foreign policy buried in Cruise’s live-alone Dad, but I’m not sure it’s worth pursuing.

    ***1/2 out of *****


  • Michael Bay has a brain. Who knew?

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

    The Island  (2005)

    Too bad his screenplay was plagiarized...

    As a first-time outing without the overadrenalized Jerry Bruckheimer, ‘The Island’ comes off as a well considered project. While few of the ideas posited in this new film are ‘new’, Bay and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have done a more than serviceable job of recycling ideas from other movies that arrived D.O.A.

    ‘The Island’ is, of course, a remake of ‘Parts:The Clonus Horror‘ (1979), one of the most sordid of D-grade Mystery-Science Theater 3000 candidates, ever. ‘Clonus’ was ‘Coma‘ (1978) made on a budget of $256,000. Straight-to-video? Straight-to-the-SciFi Channel? Not even close. Even Albert Pyun never managed to stink up celluloid so badly - though he’s come close, many a time.

    However this is a review of ‘The Island’ and not ‘The Clonus Horror’.'The Island’ is a good movie, built on a solid script, excellent production values and sound performances delivered by A-list actors.

    As I sat in the theater watching this movie, I found myself going through a mental checklist, “‘Logan’s Run’, check. ‘The Island of Dr. Moreau’, check. ‘Brave New World’, check. ‘The Matrix Reloaded’, check.’Revenge of the Sith’, check.” There are even shades of ‘Total Recall’ and ‘Gattaca’ buried in here, as the film is a dystopia-buried-in-a-futuristic-consumer-fantasy kind of flick. The question remains, though - was this picture brought to fruition by Michael Bay, or just one of the higher-ups at Dreamworks SKG - SKG as in Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen.

    Ewan MacGregor redeems himself here, for the 6 years he spent trying to imitate Alec Guiness in the woebegone ‘Star Wars’ prequels. There’s a wonderful long moment in the film where we’re reminded he was once Scottish - ‘Shallow Grave’, ‘Trainspotting’ anyone? And OMG! Scarlett Johansson is actually a fairly attractive woman - I really couldn’t tell before, with her abused girlfriend and serfdom turns in ‘Lost In Translation’ and ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’. Again, who knew?

    But the former Director Bay manages to shine through in some areas, with his signature explosions and oddballs in the supporting cast: Steve Buscemi, showing greater range than evidenced before, demeans himself once again, while Ethan ‘Neelix’ Philips shows up to disgrace himself as a roly-poly balding-on-top Stryker refugee.

    For shame! Is it possible to have a Michael Bay movie without cartoonish archetypes? Michael Mann got over it - I suggest that Bay get ahold of the manual and further his attempts at meaningful content. There may be something more memorable than ‘Armageddon’ or ‘Pearl Harbor’ in Bay’s future. Let’s hope that he’s able to continue the evolution and that audiences can catch up.

    **** out of *****

    It’s gotten beaten to death at the box-office during its first weekend, but this is a film better seen in the theater than on DVD. Here are two more good reviews worth checking out:

    A.O. Scott from the New York Times
    Liza Schwarzbaum for Entertainment Week


  • Ehren Kruger is a hack.

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

    The Skeleton Key  (2005)

    FULL DISCLOSURE:

    Item #1.) Before I went to this movie, I looked up the ‘twist ending’ on the internet. I was less interested in playing plot-twist games with the writer and director than I was interested in seeing a story well told. For 3 weeks, television commercials have been trumpeting the “re-introduction of the classic thriller from the creator of ‘The Ring’” — but ‘The Ring’ was a remake of a Japanese horror film directed by Hideo Nakata with a screenplay by Hiroshi Takahashi based on a novel by Kôji Suzuki. I didn’t see THEIR names anywhere, but I did see the name Ehren Kruger.

    The Skeleton Key‘ was written by the AMERICAN re-writer of the Japanese ‘Ringu‘ (1998) — Ehren Kruger, who somehow wrote ‘Arlington Road‘ back in 1999. His ‘Ring‘ was actually very good, and there is a rumor that ‘Ring 2‘ actually had a reasonable script, before Director Nakata - one of the creators of the Japanese ‘Ringu’ - violated the thing by adding sentient reindeer and fingernails-on-chalkboard recitations of ‘Rachel!’ to David Dorfman’s dialogue. But I digress.

    Item #2) A small Child, approximately 3 years old, attended the same showing as I. About halfway through the screening the child broke out of her seat, and proceeded to run up and down the theater’s central aisle, playing an improvised game of tag with her half-crippled sextogenarian father or grandfather.

    The Child’s mother and brother were of no avail — Paternus had to limp up and down the aisle as the child squealed and dodged the Old Man’s advances. She continued to race around the theater a few more times even after the Old Man dragged her back to her seat.

    That said, I can now resume this review and warn readers against spoilers.

    Ehren Kruger is a hack.

    With the exception of ‘The Ring’, all of his screenplays have had the appeal of last week’s leftovers, up to and including the script that somehow won him the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ coveted Nicholl Fellowship (’Arlington Road’). In Kruger’s teleplays, the antagonist typically flips the script with a role-reversal, and the ‘hero’ typically finds him- or herself in a 1st Class seat on his or her way to some personal hell. It happened in ‘Arlington Road’ (1999), it happened in ‘Impostor‘ (2002) and ‘Reindeer Games‘ (2000). Kruger has Shyalaman’s Disease™ and seems incapable of delivering a script without a revaluation of all story elements.

    Characteristically, movies that depend on ‘twist’ endings tend to be the most linear and artificial kinds of stories — typically they are told from the solipsistic P.O.V. of one character and feature the periodic visits from other characters, whose opinions, goals and objective may, possibly differ from the central protagonist. Seldom, however do these alternative characters manage to delay the tragic ends that the protagonist seem to be bound for. Twist endings, it seems, must always betray common sense in order to defy expectations. And such is the case with ‘The Skeleton Key’.

    ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW***

    If Kruger’s ‘Skeleton Key’ is supposed to be an accurate rendering, African-Americans in Louisiana at the turn of the last century are supposed to have been jealous enough of white children to want to pull a body-snatching routine on them. Two adults. Must be prepared to re-live their formative years in order to exact some sort of revenge on their oppressors. To be beholden and dependent upon those selfsame oppressors for another 10 years, as they repeat their maturation toward adulthood and autonomy.

    As an adult, I would find it difficult to want to re-visit all of the dependency and the privations that accompany childhood. I locate a central plot-hole there, in Kruger’s script — as if two powerful members of New Orleans’ so-called HooDoo community would be willing or able to sacrifice their social standing to become young children in their employer’s caste. That’s a f@cked-up and racist supposition to make: Jack-and-Jill is one thing, but the suggestion that brujos would really prefer to be Yanquis is something else altogether.

    So, Kruger follows his unspectacular Ring sequel with an unspectacular ‘Body Snatchers’ redux, using folk magic as a catalyst, rather than spores from outer space. I won’t be buying tickets to any more of Kruger’s movies —I’ll be buying tickets to the show in the next theater over, and sneaking into the Kruger feature, if not taking a two-fer at the cineplex. It’s that disappointing.

    * out of 5


  • ‘The Constant Gardener’ (2005)

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

    O.k. you pinko, librul ‘Murica-haters and anti-Capitalists — this is your movie. Why? Because screenwriter Jeffrey Caine and Director Fernando Meirelles reveal that the 21st c. is built as much upon the commodification of the 3rd World as it is Oil.

    All of those ‘miracle drugs’ that you buy over the counter and through expensive prescriptions HAD to have human trials. Yes, those trials are often expensive and setbacks often run the cost of those trials up, but by the tens of millions of dollars.

    You see, Big Pharma is a lot like the Bush Administration — if they’re running a survey up a proverbial flag-pole and they don’t like the results, they’ll take the thing down, apply weights to it and repeat the process until they get their desired results. So it was with Nigerian Yellowcake, WMDs Vioxx and Paxil. But if you’re testing drugs in the West, companies sometimes become accountable to the test-participants.

    Just as Western Capitalism is 85% dependent upon petroleum to get the seed from the market, plant it in the ground and market it again, so it goes with the drug industry: Drug trials are no longer the province of rabbits and mice - 21st c. Pharmacology is the arena of human test-subjects. They need human livestock to test their new cocktails on, be it Vioxx, Viagra or some new AIDS remedy. Yet human trials for experimental drugs are expensive and participants often hard to find, particularly if a company is trying to rush something to the market ahead of the competition.

    Such is the half-spoken backdrop of ‘The Constant Gardener

    The ‘Gardener’ in this case is Ralph Fiennes’ Justin Quayle, a man who has taken on horticulture as a prophylactic to the skullduggery and unintentional hardship that he emits as a member of the British Foreign Service (and possible spy). What derails him and gets the story going is that he starts to care for something other than his potted-plants.

    On shore-leave from the Nairobi consulate, Quayle meets the lovely Tessa (Rachel Weisz), and thus begins his own rehabilitation from the objectivist role of a career diplomat. When Tessa joins him in Africa she - unbeknownst to him - initiates her own world-saving agenda. And no good deeds go unpunished.

    ‘The Constant Gardener’ is most definitely a ‘by/for’ effort of adult calculation - there are no running gun battles, no wire-fu and only one hand-to-hand confrontation, which our hero loses. There is no Bennifer, no Tomster no Halle, no Samuel J. calculation, just unfiltered story - solid thespians performing their roles within the confines of believability. Surely, Globalism and its sibling, Poverty deserve screen credit here, alongside Fiennes and Wiesz.

    Does being ‘Western’ mean that others have to die for your sins?

     

    **** out of 5.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement