Iro's One Movie a Day Thread
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
#440 - Ida
Pawel Pawlikowski, 2013
In 1960s Poland, a novice nun is about to take her final vows when she is sent to meet a long-lost relative who knows the truth about her past.
The most recent recipient of the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film is a brief and monochromatic venture where the 1960s setting and focus on religion is enough to conjure easy comparisons to the work of Ingmar Bergman, differing nationalities notwithstanding. Ida is substantial enough to define itself outside of that particular frame of reference, but not quite enough to come across as a truly great film. It has an interesting enough premise with the titular novice being urged to visit long-lost aunt Wanda who reveals the truth about Ida's background - that she is actually of Jewish descent and that her parents were killed during World War II. Thus begins a road trip where Ida and Wanda have different goals - Wanda wants to give Ida a chance to experience more of life before taking her vows, while Ida wants nothing more than to find her parents' remains and give them a proper burial.
Ida maintains an appropriately bleak aesthetic with uncomplicated cinematography and a lack of non-diegetic music, while its cast give naturally understated performances. You don't have to have the greatest knowledge of Poland's history during World War II to properly comprehend the drama involved, though it does kind of become a bit too familiar with its "one last trip" narrative that naturally ends up vastly changing its odd-couple participants. That being said, it handles that familiar set-up reasonably well and the film's brevity is also a point in its favour. It is most definitely not a waste of what little time it takes to watch, but it's not hard to feel like it doesn't bring anything especially new to the table aside from its stoic-faced yet emotional treatise on post-WWII Poland.
Pawel Pawlikowski, 2013
In 1960s Poland, a novice nun is about to take her final vows when she is sent to meet a long-lost relative who knows the truth about her past.
The most recent recipient of the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film is a brief and monochromatic venture where the 1960s setting and focus on religion is enough to conjure easy comparisons to the work of Ingmar Bergman, differing nationalities notwithstanding. Ida is substantial enough to define itself outside of that particular frame of reference, but not quite enough to come across as a truly great film. It has an interesting enough premise with the titular novice being urged to visit long-lost aunt Wanda who reveals the truth about Ida's background - that she is actually of Jewish descent and that her parents were killed during World War II. Thus begins a road trip where Ida and Wanda have different goals - Wanda wants to give Ida a chance to experience more of life before taking her vows, while Ida wants nothing more than to find her parents' remains and give them a proper burial.
Ida maintains an appropriately bleak aesthetic with uncomplicated cinematography and a lack of non-diegetic music, while its cast give naturally understated performances. You don't have to have the greatest knowledge of Poland's history during World War II to properly comprehend the drama involved, though it does kind of become a bit too familiar with its "one last trip" narrative that naturally ends up vastly changing its odd-couple participants. That being said, it handles that familiar set-up reasonably well and the film's brevity is also a point in its favour. It is most definitely not a waste of what little time it takes to watch, but it's not hard to feel like it doesn't bring anything especially new to the table aside from its stoic-faced yet emotional treatise on post-WWII Poland.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
#441 - Don't Look Now
Nicolas Roeg, 1973
After their young daughter dies as a result of accidental drowning, her parents travel to Venice for work reasons.
Nicolas Roeg is one of those filmmakers who makes interesting films but not necessarily great films. On paper, Don't Look Now doesn't make for the most interesting film - Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie play a married couple who are left distraught by the accidental death of the daughter and both eventually relocate to Venice as part of Sutherland's job restoring old cathedrals. Where things get interesting is when Christie encounters a pair of old ladies, one of whom is apparently psychic and is capable of communicating with the dead (which naturally includes the couple's dead daughter). Of course, this sets up a fundamental believer-versus-skeptic conflict between her and Sutherland and...well, that's about as much elaboration as the plot really gets. Of course, if the Roeg movies I've seen are any indication, he generally isn't concerned with developing elaborate plots so much as using said plots as springboards for captivating visuals. Don't Look Now definitely provides enough of those with its extremely kinetic camerawork and rapid editing making for a handful of memorable scenes.
Of course, just because there are a handful of well-done scenes doesn't automatically make the film as a whole great. Despite its distinctive visual style, Don't Look Now is probably still a little too long for its own good as it spends several scenes trying to develop its plot, which still feels kind of besides the point. The two leads are good actors and most of the supporting cast are serviceable, but the histrionic acting of the old psychic lady is a bit too distracting for its own good. It works reasonably well as a psychological thriller outside of its attempts to actually focus on a plot and that infamous ending is still as bizarre as ever. It's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it before, but I can't help but feel like its appeal only goes so far.
Nicolas Roeg, 1973
After their young daughter dies as a result of accidental drowning, her parents travel to Venice for work reasons.
Nicolas Roeg is one of those filmmakers who makes interesting films but not necessarily great films. On paper, Don't Look Now doesn't make for the most interesting film - Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie play a married couple who are left distraught by the accidental death of the daughter and both eventually relocate to Venice as part of Sutherland's job restoring old cathedrals. Where things get interesting is when Christie encounters a pair of old ladies, one of whom is apparently psychic and is capable of communicating with the dead (which naturally includes the couple's dead daughter). Of course, this sets up a fundamental believer-versus-skeptic conflict between her and Sutherland and...well, that's about as much elaboration as the plot really gets. Of course, if the Roeg movies I've seen are any indication, he generally isn't concerned with developing elaborate plots so much as using said plots as springboards for captivating visuals. Don't Look Now definitely provides enough of those with its extremely kinetic camerawork and rapid editing making for a handful of memorable scenes.
Of course, just because there are a handful of well-done scenes doesn't automatically make the film as a whole great. Despite its distinctive visual style, Don't Look Now is probably still a little too long for its own good as it spends several scenes trying to develop its plot, which still feels kind of besides the point. The two leads are good actors and most of the supporting cast are serviceable, but the histrionic acting of the old psychic lady is a bit too distracting for its own good. It works reasonably well as a psychological thriller outside of its attempts to actually focus on a plot and that infamous ending is still as bizarre as ever. It's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it before, but I can't help but feel like its appeal only goes so far.
X
Favorite Movies
#442 - Lady Snowblood
Toshiya Fujita, 1973
When her quest for revenge against a gang of murderous thieves is prematurely halted by her imprisonment, a widow conceives a daughter who will finish her quest off for her.
It's no surprise that Quentin Tarantino "steals from every movie ever made" in his own words, but in the case of Lady Snowblood his tendency towards affectionate homage becomes especially pronounced. This is no slam against the film itself, but it does mean you have to consciously apprecite the film on its own terms, which is almost besides the point when it comes to getting lost in a film. Lady Snowblood does compensate for any imitations for rising above its apparent genre limitations. After its convoluted set-up that ambitiously involves flashbacks within flashbacks explaining not only its protagonist's back-story but also her deceased mother's back-story, the protagonist then gets started on taking down the remaining members of the gang that pre-emptively wronged her. I've talked before about how revenge movies have started to bore me in recent times, but I never got that particular feeling with Lady Snowblood. It helps that it does have a rather solid plot developing at a strong pace underneath its exploitational surface.
As for the action, well, it's used sparingly and the film is developed in such a way that it keeps from being boring even when it's not showing Lady Snowblood wreaking bloody vengeance on her foes. The action consists mostly of sword-fighting with the occasional spot of gun violence thrown in for good measure, which is all captured with some effective use of cameras and editing without much use for background score. and there is a degree of moral ambiguity to a lot of the violence perpetrated in this film (most obviously when it turns out that one of Snowblood's targets is now a miserable drunkard full of regret and whose only daughter must resort to sex work in order to pay for his habit). That at least promises to lend a bit of depth to the cartoonish geysers of blood that frequently erupt from characters that are mortally wounded. The setting also means that there are some interesting undertones of European imperialism (the finale takes place during a very French-looking masquerade party, for instance), while the film has twists that can be seen from a mile away but do little to lessen the entertainment. Though Lady Snowblood may not be quite as awesome as I'd have hoped, it is a fine example of a film that exceeds its exploitation-like standards and becomes a genuinely enjoyable film in the process.
Toshiya Fujita, 1973
When her quest for revenge against a gang of murderous thieves is prematurely halted by her imprisonment, a widow conceives a daughter who will finish her quest off for her.
It's no surprise that Quentin Tarantino "steals from every movie ever made" in his own words, but in the case of Lady Snowblood his tendency towards affectionate homage becomes especially pronounced. This is no slam against the film itself, but it does mean you have to consciously apprecite the film on its own terms, which is almost besides the point when it comes to getting lost in a film. Lady Snowblood does compensate for any imitations for rising above its apparent genre limitations. After its convoluted set-up that ambitiously involves flashbacks within flashbacks explaining not only its protagonist's back-story but also her deceased mother's back-story, the protagonist then gets started on taking down the remaining members of the gang that pre-emptively wronged her. I've talked before about how revenge movies have started to bore me in recent times, but I never got that particular feeling with Lady Snowblood. It helps that it does have a rather solid plot developing at a strong pace underneath its exploitational surface.
As for the action, well, it's used sparingly and the film is developed in such a way that it keeps from being boring even when it's not showing Lady Snowblood wreaking bloody vengeance on her foes. The action consists mostly of sword-fighting with the occasional spot of gun violence thrown in for good measure, which is all captured with some effective use of cameras and editing without much use for background score. and there is a degree of moral ambiguity to a lot of the violence perpetrated in this film (most obviously when it turns out that one of Snowblood's targets is now a miserable drunkard full of regret and whose only daughter must resort to sex work in order to pay for his habit). That at least promises to lend a bit of depth to the cartoonish geysers of blood that frequently erupt from characters that are mortally wounded. The setting also means that there are some interesting undertones of European imperialism (the finale takes place during a very French-looking masquerade party, for instance), while the film has twists that can be seen from a mile away but do little to lessen the entertainment. Though Lady Snowblood may not be quite as awesome as I'd have hoped, it is a fine example of a film that exceeds its exploitation-like standards and becomes a genuinely enjoyable film in the process.
X
Favorite Movies
#443 - 42nd Street
Lloyd Bacon, 1933
Follows the behind-the-scenes drama that happens as a production company attempts to mount a Broadway musical.
Regular readers of this thread will know that I don't have the greatest appreciation for musicals, especially those of the old-school variety. It's hard to tell if I have any particular preferences for the type of musical that prioritises song over dance or vice versa, but I guess there is room to criticise the musicals that somehow end u prioritising plot over both. 42nd Street ends up being the lattermost type of musical, with much of its brief running time being dedicated to following the cast of characters involved with the production of a Broadway musical at the height of the Great Depression. As a result, there is barely anything in the way of musical numbers until the film's third act, where the musical itself actually gets underway.
In the meantime, you'll have to content yourself with the occasional glimpse of auditions and rehearsals in between some very 1930s melodrama with a few clever lines there and there plus some relatively competent acting, which is only just good enough to stop me seriously disliking the film. I think this marks the first instance of me watching a film where the numbers have been choreographed by Busby Berkeley, and the ones in the last third of the film were easily worth the hype with their elaborate routines being captured by some reasonably complex camerawork, though the songs themselves are passable at best. The location changes that happen during the extended number towards the end are certainly a nice touch, in any case. Ultimately, though, there's not enough here to make me think I need to see this again, even though I am giving it a relatively good rating. I guess I'm starting to think that I prefer a good dance-based number to a good song-based number, and it's easy to tell which one 42nd Street features most prominently.
Lloyd Bacon, 1933
Follows the behind-the-scenes drama that happens as a production company attempts to mount a Broadway musical.
Regular readers of this thread will know that I don't have the greatest appreciation for musicals, especially those of the old-school variety. It's hard to tell if I have any particular preferences for the type of musical that prioritises song over dance or vice versa, but I guess there is room to criticise the musicals that somehow end u prioritising plot over both. 42nd Street ends up being the lattermost type of musical, with much of its brief running time being dedicated to following the cast of characters involved with the production of a Broadway musical at the height of the Great Depression. As a result, there is barely anything in the way of musical numbers until the film's third act, where the musical itself actually gets underway.
In the meantime, you'll have to content yourself with the occasional glimpse of auditions and rehearsals in between some very 1930s melodrama with a few clever lines there and there plus some relatively competent acting, which is only just good enough to stop me seriously disliking the film. I think this marks the first instance of me watching a film where the numbers have been choreographed by Busby Berkeley, and the ones in the last third of the film were easily worth the hype with their elaborate routines being captured by some reasonably complex camerawork, though the songs themselves are passable at best. The location changes that happen during the extended number towards the end are certainly a nice touch, in any case. Ultimately, though, there's not enough here to make me think I need to see this again, even though I am giving it a relatively good rating. I guess I'm starting to think that I prefer a good dance-based number to a good song-based number, and it's easy to tell which one 42nd Street features most prominently.
X
Favorite Movies
I like 42nd Street. It's one of the few musicals that I do like, though I've not seen it in forever. Like most early 30's talkies, I remember it as a little stagey/static when the musical numbers aren't taking place, but I'm ok with that.
I really like Lady Snowblood, so I'm pleased to see that you liked it, too. Do you have any plans to watch the sequel?
I really like Lady Snowblood, so I'm pleased to see that you liked it, too. Do you have any plans to watch the sequel?
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.
5-time MoFo Award winner.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
#444 - The Ring
Gore Verbinski, 2002
After the death of a relative, a journalist starts to investigate a supposedly cursed tape that will cause whoever views it to die within the space of a week.
I had somehow managed to miss seeing the American version of The Ring yet had still heard about its intriguing urban-legend premise. I did watch Ringu a few years ago and liked it well enough, so I had a pretty good idea what to expect from a remake. In that regard, it's good that The Ring is actually a rather decent example of a remake that (at least to my memory) doesn't stray too far off the script of the original. Though you could easily make the case that this does make a remake even more fundamentally pointless, I'm just glad that the existence of a remake doesn't insult my intelligence too much. It is a bit difficult to think of this as a horror film despite its paranormal premise, and it's debatable as to how well the actors involved pull this off. Good actors such as Naomi Watts and Brian Cox deliver decent enough performances, but these generally aren't the most demanding roles as they serve the story and do little more (Martin Henderson in particular doesn't feel especially good here).
The film tries to replicate the visual style laid down by the original complete with VHS-like flickers and tracking effects but also renders events in washed-out shades of blue-green so as to lend its own style to proceedings, which is a decent enough attempt to differentiate itself from the original. While I don't particularly care for the acting on display and there's not all that much in the way of serious scares beyond its inherently unsettling and abject premise, I can't fault The Ring too much. It's a passable attempt at introducing new ideas to 21st-century American horror without grossly unnecessary variations upon its source and at the very least it maintains a decent visual aesthetic, but that's not enough to make it a classic.
Gore Verbinski, 2002
After the death of a relative, a journalist starts to investigate a supposedly cursed tape that will cause whoever views it to die within the space of a week.
I had somehow managed to miss seeing the American version of The Ring yet had still heard about its intriguing urban-legend premise. I did watch Ringu a few years ago and liked it well enough, so I had a pretty good idea what to expect from a remake. In that regard, it's good that The Ring is actually a rather decent example of a remake that (at least to my memory) doesn't stray too far off the script of the original. Though you could easily make the case that this does make a remake even more fundamentally pointless, I'm just glad that the existence of a remake doesn't insult my intelligence too much. It is a bit difficult to think of this as a horror film despite its paranormal premise, and it's debatable as to how well the actors involved pull this off. Good actors such as Naomi Watts and Brian Cox deliver decent enough performances, but these generally aren't the most demanding roles as they serve the story and do little more (Martin Henderson in particular doesn't feel especially good here).
The film tries to replicate the visual style laid down by the original complete with VHS-like flickers and tracking effects but also renders events in washed-out shades of blue-green so as to lend its own style to proceedings, which is a decent enough attempt to differentiate itself from the original. While I don't particularly care for the acting on display and there's not all that much in the way of serious scares beyond its inherently unsettling and abject premise, I can't fault The Ring too much. It's a passable attempt at introducing new ideas to 21st-century American horror without grossly unnecessary variations upon its source and at the very least it maintains a decent visual aesthetic, but that's not enough to make it a classic.
X
Favorite Movies
Oh look, yet another movie that I like and you don't. 
__________________
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
#445 - Cars
John Lasseter, 2006
In a world populated entirely by sentient vehicles, a self-absorbed racing car ends up being stranded in a small town while making his way to a big race.
Cars has earned the unfortunate reputation of being the first misfire in Pixar's generally impressive filmography, which is rather understandable for a number of reasons. The emergence of DreamWorks Animation as a serious competitor for Pixar's dominance of the CG animation market may have been the inspiration (or lack thereof) that was less about trying to tell a genuinely interesting story and more about trying to keep up with a growing trend that started to over-emphasise the medium's flashy visuals and simple yet family-friendly humour over well-developed plots and characters. In that regard, Cars isn't exactly a shambles, but it falls apart a bit because of just how generic its story is even by family-film standards. It begins with a fast-paced race sequence that establishes its hero (Owen Wilson) as a bright red sports car whose spotlight-hogging showmanship and refusal to depend on others costs him a very lucrative victory against his even more arrogant rival (Michael Keaton) and means that they must have a re-match in a week's time. Of course, a series of unlucky circumstances result in Wilson being effectively stranded in a small town in the middle of the Californian desert with the locals refusing to let him leave until he repairs a road he broke upon entering the town.
In short, it's a fairly basic journey of self-discovery for the arrogant hero as he learns to be more humble and to be content with what he's got (wait, isn't that kind of the same deal as Shark Tale?), which would be fine if the film itself didn't run for almost two hours. Even in an age where blockbusters regularly pass the two-hour mark, that seems especially excessive considering how the film doesn't pad out its thin plot and themes with much in the way of good jokes. The characters aren't awful or irritating, but they generally don't come across as genuinely amusing, though they are played by quite a few good actors (of note is Paul Newman as the small-town judge, adding world-weary gravitas to every line he speaks). At the very least, even the country-bumpkin tow-truck (Larry the Cable Guy) could have been a lot more irritating but he, like everyone else, ultimately ends up being tolerable instead of terrific or terrible. Another point in the film's favour is that, if nothing else, it is visually impressive with its well-rendered desert landscapes, striking use of neon lighting, and fast-paced action sequences (though the quality of the actual character designs are debatable). Unfortunately, the main thing to take away from Cars ends up being a whole bunch of questions about how the film's universe works doesn't seem to make any sense even within the bounds of fantasy. Other Pixar films may also build worlds that beggar a lot of questions once you stop and really think about them, but at least they're entertaining enough so that you don't really mind at first. Cars may look like a treat and it's not aggressively awful, but it's ultimately a bit too boring for its own good.
John Lasseter, 2006
In a world populated entirely by sentient vehicles, a self-absorbed racing car ends up being stranded in a small town while making his way to a big race.
Cars has earned the unfortunate reputation of being the first misfire in Pixar's generally impressive filmography, which is rather understandable for a number of reasons. The emergence of DreamWorks Animation as a serious competitor for Pixar's dominance of the CG animation market may have been the inspiration (or lack thereof) that was less about trying to tell a genuinely interesting story and more about trying to keep up with a growing trend that started to over-emphasise the medium's flashy visuals and simple yet family-friendly humour over well-developed plots and characters. In that regard, Cars isn't exactly a shambles, but it falls apart a bit because of just how generic its story is even by family-film standards. It begins with a fast-paced race sequence that establishes its hero (Owen Wilson) as a bright red sports car whose spotlight-hogging showmanship and refusal to depend on others costs him a very lucrative victory against his even more arrogant rival (Michael Keaton) and means that they must have a re-match in a week's time. Of course, a series of unlucky circumstances result in Wilson being effectively stranded in a small town in the middle of the Californian desert with the locals refusing to let him leave until he repairs a road he broke upon entering the town.
In short, it's a fairly basic journey of self-discovery for the arrogant hero as he learns to be more humble and to be content with what he's got (wait, isn't that kind of the same deal as Shark Tale?), which would be fine if the film itself didn't run for almost two hours. Even in an age where blockbusters regularly pass the two-hour mark, that seems especially excessive considering how the film doesn't pad out its thin plot and themes with much in the way of good jokes. The characters aren't awful or irritating, but they generally don't come across as genuinely amusing, though they are played by quite a few good actors (of note is Paul Newman as the small-town judge, adding world-weary gravitas to every line he speaks). At the very least, even the country-bumpkin tow-truck (Larry the Cable Guy) could have been a lot more irritating but he, like everyone else, ultimately ends up being tolerable instead of terrific or terrible. Another point in the film's favour is that, if nothing else, it is visually impressive with its well-rendered desert landscapes, striking use of neon lighting, and fast-paced action sequences (though the quality of the actual character designs are debatable). Unfortunately, the main thing to take away from Cars ends up being a whole bunch of questions about how the film's universe works doesn't seem to make any sense even within the bounds of fantasy. Other Pixar films may also build worlds that beggar a lot of questions once you stop and really think about them, but at least they're entertaining enough so that you don't really mind at first. Cars may look like a treat and it's not aggressively awful, but it's ultimately a bit too boring for its own good.
X
Favorite Movies
I agree with you on The Ring, I'd probably give it a half a popcorn higher than you though. Both Cars and Inside Out are the only Pixar's I've still to see.
X
Favorite Movies
I'll admit that Cars is not quite as imaginative as some of Pixar's other efforts, but it's still a fun movie. It also makes me cry. Every. ****ing. Time.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I watched Brave like two weeks ago..man. Not a bad film but full of potential it failed to realize, I know how cliche that is but if it is ever right to apply that to a film its Brave.
X
Favorite Movies
I really don't like Brave. When I watched it in the theater, I kept thinking "I've seen this movie before, only it was better and it was called Brother Bear."
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Not seen Cars, but The Ring remake was pretty underwhelming. Not bad or anything, though I hate the stylistic choices, but not as well done as the original which results in it being less atmospheric, which was the main selling point of the film for me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
To me, Cars is one of the worst Pixar movies. I'd probably give it the same rating, maybe even less.
__________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
The Ring is a solid remake that surpasses the original in just about everything you mention, but especially in style.
Cars is okay. Certainly way better than Evolution.
And your Shark's Tale rating is too high.
Cars is okay. Certainly way better than Evolution.
And your Shark's Tale rating is too high.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
#446 - Deadfall
Christopher Coppola, 1993
After accidentally killing his father during a botched con, a criminal goes on the run and plans one last job involving his long-lost uncle.
Like almost every Nicolas Cage movie I've watched, this one ended up on my watchlist less because it was likely to be a good film and more because it'd earned a certain degree of notoriety on the basis of Cage delivering a memorably unhinged performance in it. His character in the film is almost never seen without a pair of wrap-around sunglasses, a bad wig, and a scraggly pencil moustache - and that's without getting into his weirdly sleazy and off-kilter delivery that frequently lapses into scenery-devouring yelling. Unfortunately, Cage's character is but a supporting one in the tale concerning a con artist (Michael Biehn) who works on jobs with his father (James Coburn), but when he accidentally shoots his father during one such job he then splits and ends up seeking out his long-lost uncle (Coburn again), who needs Biehn to help out with his own con involving counterfeit diamonds. Of course, Biehn isn't that capable or level-headed and soon ends up carrying on an illicit affair with the girlfriend (Sarah Trigger) of one of his uncle's offsiders (Cage).
Considering the surname of the writer-director, it's easy to jump to conclusions about nepotism that would explain why well-known performers of varying degrees of respectability would appear in a film that would have to work its way up to amateur-ish. At the very least, it would explain why many of them give such half-assed performances (Cage notwithstanding). It's an incredibly dated and patchy neo-noir that is incredibly dull for the most part as it tries to spin Biehn as a character whose fate is out of his hands while also having him make the kind of decisions that threaten to ruin everything (case in point - affair with a co-worker's lover). Even the odd moment of non-Cage weirdness, such as Charlie Sheen's sole scene as a sharp-dressed snooker player or Angus Scrimm's crime boss with a gold pair of clippers for a hand, aren't enough to give this film the personality it needs to not be genuinely terrible. Throw in a twist ending that somehow manages to be predictable and ridiculous and you have a real chore of a movie on your hands. You're far better off just looking up Cage's scenes on YouTube rather than bothering to check out the whole thing.
Christopher Coppola, 1993
After accidentally killing his father during a botched con, a criminal goes on the run and plans one last job involving his long-lost uncle.
Like almost every Nicolas Cage movie I've watched, this one ended up on my watchlist less because it was likely to be a good film and more because it'd earned a certain degree of notoriety on the basis of Cage delivering a memorably unhinged performance in it. His character in the film is almost never seen without a pair of wrap-around sunglasses, a bad wig, and a scraggly pencil moustache - and that's without getting into his weirdly sleazy and off-kilter delivery that frequently lapses into scenery-devouring yelling. Unfortunately, Cage's character is but a supporting one in the tale concerning a con artist (Michael Biehn) who works on jobs with his father (James Coburn), but when he accidentally shoots his father during one such job he then splits and ends up seeking out his long-lost uncle (Coburn again), who needs Biehn to help out with his own con involving counterfeit diamonds. Of course, Biehn isn't that capable or level-headed and soon ends up carrying on an illicit affair with the girlfriend (Sarah Trigger) of one of his uncle's offsiders (Cage).
Considering the surname of the writer-director, it's easy to jump to conclusions about nepotism that would explain why well-known performers of varying degrees of respectability would appear in a film that would have to work its way up to amateur-ish. At the very least, it would explain why many of them give such half-assed performances (Cage notwithstanding). It's an incredibly dated and patchy neo-noir that is incredibly dull for the most part as it tries to spin Biehn as a character whose fate is out of his hands while also having him make the kind of decisions that threaten to ruin everything (case in point - affair with a co-worker's lover). Even the odd moment of non-Cage weirdness, such as Charlie Sheen's sole scene as a sharp-dressed snooker player or Angus Scrimm's crime boss with a gold pair of clippers for a hand, aren't enough to give this film the personality it needs to not be genuinely terrible. Throw in a twist ending that somehow manages to be predictable and ridiculous and you have a real chore of a movie on your hands. You're far better off just looking up Cage's scenes on YouTube rather than bothering to check out the whole thing.
X
Favorite Movies
#447 - Jurassic World
Colin Trevorrow, 2015
A highly successful theme park where the main attraction is the presence of genetically engineered dinosaurs gets into trouble when a newly-bred dinosaur breaks free and wreaks havoc.
Jurassic Park was always going to be a tough act to follow. Its combination of ground-breaking special effects, rollercoaster narrative, and general fun-for-the-whole-family vibe were deftly combined to make for what was then the highest-grossing film ever made (and an erstwhile entry in my top 100 movies to boot). A couple of sequels followed, but they were both distinctly underwhelming follow-ups that couldn't replicate the magic of the original as they attempted to maintain the thrill of dinosaurs come back to life amidst the blatant recycling of the original's concepts or introducing terrible new ones. Even so, that didn't deter Hollywood and they eventually hit upon the idea of making a sequel that also effectively functioned as a reboot (that particular type of franchise installment . seems to be getting really popular these days). Though it does reference the events of the first film, this time around the theme park has not only been constructed and filled with dinosaurs but now it is a bona fide success that draws in thousands of customers a day. However, with the public getting used to the existence of dinosaurs and interest in the park dwindling as a result, the powers that be have decided to introduce a new attraction in the form of a genetically engineered dinosaur that combines several different types of dinosaur into one highly dangerous package. No prizes for guessing what happens next...
Ultimately, Jurassic World feels like one big exercise in cinematic self-awareness. It's not exactly subtle in its use of dialogue or plot developments that reflect its status as a film that knows it's not going to match up to its much-beloved source film but still wants its viewers to have some fun anyway. To this end, it peppers the film with all sorts of call-backs to the other films not just in the way of sight gags or references but also in its re-use of certain plot elements (and even recycles a few concepts from other films). In that regard, I have to wonder if the decision to make the film's main villain a genetic mix-and-match of many different beasts was a deliberate choice that reflects Jurassic World's true nature. Human characters feel like nigh-disposable plot devices that are occasionally bumped against one another to provide humour or otherwise provoke some emotion, but they all feel like extremely hollow archetypes that aren't exactly terrible but generally don't create much in the way of favourable impressions. They all just feel like means to an end in ways that not even the most talented of performers are able to rectify, even when trying to play things for.
Leaving aside the plot and characterisation that is the very definition of serviceable in its supporting of the spectacle that is the film's main draw. Given the greatly expanded scope of the action, one can sort of forgive how much the film depends on CGI in order to bring its creatures to life. What one may find it hard to forgive is the ridiculous sequences to which said CGI is applied, which feel weightless at best and ire-raising at worst due to the implications. All things considered, Jurassic World isn't a horrible film; it deserves credit for at least managing to wrangle a decent enough plot out of the series' main premise and adequately compensates for its extremely familiar characters by casting some decent actors. It also deserves credit for not being a mess when it comes to its gratuitous use of CGI. Unfortunately, all the clever call-backs and self-deprecating jokes aren't enough to make me totally forgive how this film still feels very inessential.
Colin Trevorrow, 2015
A highly successful theme park where the main attraction is the presence of genetically engineered dinosaurs gets into trouble when a newly-bred dinosaur breaks free and wreaks havoc.
Jurassic Park was always going to be a tough act to follow. Its combination of ground-breaking special effects, rollercoaster narrative, and general fun-for-the-whole-family vibe were deftly combined to make for what was then the highest-grossing film ever made (and an erstwhile entry in my top 100 movies to boot). A couple of sequels followed, but they were both distinctly underwhelming follow-ups that couldn't replicate the magic of the original as they attempted to maintain the thrill of dinosaurs come back to life amidst the blatant recycling of the original's concepts or introducing terrible new ones. Even so, that didn't deter Hollywood and they eventually hit upon the idea of making a sequel that also effectively functioned as a reboot (that particular type of franchise installment . seems to be getting really popular these days). Though it does reference the events of the first film, this time around the theme park has not only been constructed and filled with dinosaurs but now it is a bona fide success that draws in thousands of customers a day. However, with the public getting used to the existence of dinosaurs and interest in the park dwindling as a result, the powers that be have decided to introduce a new attraction in the form of a genetically engineered dinosaur that combines several different types of dinosaur into one highly dangerous package. No prizes for guessing what happens next...
Ultimately, Jurassic World feels like one big exercise in cinematic self-awareness. It's not exactly subtle in its use of dialogue or plot developments that reflect its status as a film that knows it's not going to match up to its much-beloved source film but still wants its viewers to have some fun anyway. To this end, it peppers the film with all sorts of call-backs to the other films not just in the way of sight gags or references but also in its re-use of certain plot elements (and even recycles a few concepts from other films). In that regard, I have to wonder if the decision to make the film's main villain a genetic mix-and-match of many different beasts was a deliberate choice that reflects Jurassic World's true nature. Human characters feel like nigh-disposable plot devices that are occasionally bumped against one another to provide humour or otherwise provoke some emotion, but they all feel like extremely hollow archetypes that aren't exactly terrible but generally don't create much in the way of favourable impressions. They all just feel like means to an end in ways that not even the most talented of performers are able to rectify, even when trying to play things for.
Leaving aside the plot and characterisation that is the very definition of serviceable in its supporting of the spectacle that is the film's main draw. Given the greatly expanded scope of the action, one can sort of forgive how much the film depends on CGI in order to bring its creatures to life. What one may find it hard to forgive is the ridiculous sequences to which said CGI is applied, which feel weightless at best and ire-raising at worst due to the implications. All things considered, Jurassic World isn't a horrible film; it deserves credit for at least managing to wrangle a decent enough plot out of the series' main premise and adequately compensates for its extremely familiar characters by casting some decent actors. It also deserves credit for not being a mess when it comes to its gratuitous use of CGI. Unfortunately, all the clever call-backs and self-deprecating jokes aren't enough to make me totally forgive how this film still feels very inessential.
X
Favorite Movies
|
|