Suspect's Reviews

Can't wait

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson)





"Chilling, Haunting and Beautiful. There Will Be Blood - One Of The Year's Best"

Daniel Plainview strikes oil while mining for silver. Knowing the riches there are in this field he quickly changes his career and adopts a son after his father is killed in an oil rigging accident. Daniel's greed for power and money consume him and turns his loved ones into enemies and quickly becomes the target of a young pastor, Eli, to turn to God.

Every time you hear that there is a performance so good it will win an Oscar, the first thing that comes to your mind is how boring is the film going to be? Monster, Ray and Capote all suffered this fate of not being able to keep u with the performance. With There Will Be Blood, P.T. Anderson gives us a stunning film that is as chilling as the performance from it's lead actor Daniel Day Lewis. If the film itself doesn't draw you into it's web, the performance from Daniel Day-Lewis without a doubt will. As it stands, it is impossible for him not to be recognized this year.

For the first twenty minutes or so there is no dialogue. It's just Plainview working underground, he's dirty and broken, but manages to find a way to still get money. Later on he becomes an oil man and uses his "son" as a cute image to get people to side with him. Lewis is remarkable here as you've all been told. He becomes to character, he is the character. While there have been amazing performances in the past few years, this one is without a doubt one for the books. Even if the film isn't remembered fifty years down the road, DDL's performance will be. Paul Dano is the supporting actor as the young pastor Eli, he also has a smaller role as Paul, Eli's twin. At times Dano is frustrating, his overacting is obvious for the character, who drives demons out of the residents, but there are times when his stone cold face is just too bare. Hearing him scream and whine like a little girl every now and then is a bit annoying as well.

The cinematography is beautiful. Anderson knew exactly how he wanted this film to look like at he got his wish. The landscape is so beautiful, it becomes a character itself. It holds the oil or main character wants, the people who live on this land stand in his way. The film opens, much like No Country For Old Men, with views of the mountains and the land. Both films are beautiful to look at and watch.

P.T. Anderson's previous films are pretty fancy. With There Will Be Blood you can clearly see his maturity as a director. This is not to say his other films are bad, on the contrary they are very good. But There Will Be Blood seems to be in another category all by itself. It doesn't belong with the others, it stands on it's own. If you were to watch Boogie Nights one day and Magnolia the next, you would be able to tel it was from the same director. Here he manges to hide his style within the film so well that it doesn't jump out at you like the others. He is more restrained with fancy camera movements and more concentrated at what the film is about. It's about this man and his greed for working.

If the visuals are beautiful, then the music is chilling. Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead supplies the film with the score it needs to be the film it wants to be. Without it, it might not have had as much of an impact in some scenes. It's the music that drives these few scenes and it works perfectly. The thing that makes it work so well is that it's unusual and bizarre.

There Will Be Blood is one of the years best films. It has one of the best actors giving us a powerful performance for the ages and a score that is chilling to the bone. There are bits and pieces of comedic fare, but most of the film is dark, much like the main character of Plainview. The final act of the film is heartbreaking and shocking. If you didn't like the ending to No Country For Old Men, you might not like this one that much either. While it is a more finished ending, it does kind of just happen. But it goes out with a bang and yes the film does live up to its title.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Great review i am hoping to see it this week

I changed the first post.

I've taken out the colour scheme and posted the grades of each movie.

I want to see you review Good Luck Chuck

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

In due time my friend, in due time.

Good Luck Chuck (Mark Helfrich)



"No Chemistry and No Laughs"

Charlie Logan is hexed as a kid after he denies a Goth in the "7 minutes in heaven" game. Years later the hex catches up with him and every woman he sleeps with finds their true love in the next guy they date. All is good as he has sex with dozens of women, until he falls for one. Now he has to resist the sexual urges, or she will find someone else to love.

Seems like a funny premise, has a beautiful lady and a funny guy for the two leads. Why doesn't it work? I don't really know why, all I can say is that it doesn't. If I were to take a guess though, it would be the next to no chemistry from Cook and Alba and the feeling that the film is purposely trying to push the bad taste button down our throats. Most of this button pushing is done Dan Fogler, Cook's best friend.

Let's get the most obvious reasons out of the way first. Alba cannot act. Sure she looks good in penguin underwear, but for the life of her cannot act. Seeing her in an R rated comedy is so out of place that is distracts the viewer fro getting any enjoyment out of it and since she has that no nudity clause, you know the only nude females you will be seeing are no name extras. Her character has a clumsy aspect to her, she destroys everything in her path. None of these gags work either, you know they are coming and are overdone throughout the film. For some reason she also has an obsession with penguins. I guess they were trying to get some kind of character arch here. Instead it comes off as a tail coat riding of other successful penguin films. I can see someone sitting in the office looking at "March of the Penguins", "Happy Feet", "Surf's Up" and thinking that throwing penguins in here will also get butts in the seats.

For my money, I think Dane Cook is a funny guy. Unfortunately he has yet to see a film to connect his stand up to the big screen. Employee of the Month could have been a great film but with a bogus plot, Andy dick and another pretty face who can't act in the lead it failed. Here Cook has the R rating to get his comedy style flowing, but it never works. Sure he gets a chuckle here and there, but he mostly looks bored. So does Alba, but she always looks like that. So far Cook has had two chances to shine in the lead and has failed on both accounts. I think he should stick to supporting roles like in Waiting, he'll be much better off.

Seeing Alba and Cook on screen together is like watching cousins trying to kiss. Completely awkward and wrong. Not once did I ever believe these character would be together, not even in bizzaro world. Add onto the fact that Dane Cook is a dentist. What in the world? When would this guy ever be a dentist? How about his best friend working right beside him...as a plastic surgeon who specifies in the breast enlargement area. Here is a guy who is more hornier then a 16 year old virgin on Viagra and he is able to become a plastic surgeon? At least 50% of the time I watched this movie I was thinking to myself that they only made it to show breasts.

Saying that, there is a montage in which all that happens in sex. Dane Cook has sex with dozens of woman and it is shown all at once. While this might sound intriguing, it is nothing of the sort. It's nowhere near as bad as critics have made it out to be. Nor is it funny. Sure you might snicker when most of the woman want to do others things while having sex, like read a book or pray, but snickering is all you'll get.

With every other romantic comedy Good Luck Chuck is structured. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fight, boy loses girl, boy fights to get girl back, boy wins girl. How many times have we seen the same thing over and over again? Will somebody....anybody....give us something new and fresh? If this film was made to push boundaries and be in bad taste with all the sexual acts and jokes, then why play it safe with it's conventional structure? Mix it up a bit, Alba should have fallen in love with someone else. If you think this is a spoiler, it's not, even a blind guy can see it coming.

Good Luck Chuck is funny on paper, not as a film. Fogler gets the most laughs, but they are few and far between. His character would have been a lot more interesting to watch in the lead.Hell, they could have even had some kind of emotional shift in this character. Here's a guy who loves naked women, have him change at the end because of the hex. Nope, they wanted an unfunny Dane Cook. Tis a shame.

As far as bad films of 2007 go, Good Luck Chuck makes the list.

Ryan (Chris Landreth)



"Beautifully Constructed and Presented - A Great Animated Short"


Ryan is an animated documentary about the artist Ryan Larkin. Through interviews with himself, family and friends we get some insight into the mind of this talented man.

Chris Landreth’s Ryan is a visual masterpiece of originality and passion. Landreth has taken us inside the head of an animator and it is a wonderful place to be.

What sets this film apart from anything else I have ever seen is the visual style that Landreth presents it in. Everything is CGI, computer generated images, but not in a way that anyone has seen before. It’s almost as if this takes place in another world all together. Characters have pieces of their faces missing, hair all over their body, or are just deflated. This style brings a unique visual experience to this film and takes it to a higher level.

Even though it is a short, clocking in at 15 minutes, I felt like I knew who Ryan was and his life. It shows great talent to get some kind of connection to the viewer in only 15 minutes. Landreth knew his subject well knew how he wanted to present him to us. The visual style in so unconventional that it takes multiple viewings to get any real sense of what's going on. Everytime you watch it you will discover something new.

We also hear from people in Ryan’s life who were close to him. These people are also shown to us in a bizarre way. Nothing about this film is conventional. At first the CGI may seem dated and underbidget, but the style and creative use of it makes up for it. Everyone who was a part of it was thinking outside the box, probably even further too. I have only seen this twise, but would be willing to watch it over and over again, because the film has so many things going on in it that I probably missed the first time.

Everything in this film is a character, even the drink that Ryan has. The thermos reminds Ryan to take a drink by extending it’s arms out and screaming, when Chris tells Ryan he thinks he should quite drinking, the thermos defends itself by giving Chris the finger. The central theme of Ryan is character. We see a glimpse into the life of this character and we are left wanting to know and see more. Beautifully done and well deserving of the Oscar it was rewarded.

Jumper (Doug Liman)



"Too Many Loose Ends For Jumper"

After falling into a lake covered in ice, David Rice teleports himself into a public library. He leaves home and goes to New York to hone his skills, which he uses to rob banks. After 8 years David finds that he's not the only one, and that there's been a war going on for centuries. Now those people sworn to kill Jumpers are after him.

Hayden Christensen was wooden as a board as Anakin in the Star Wars prequels, but out of nowhere showed he actually has some acting chops when he played a lying journalist in Shattered Glass. Well, now he's back in the sci/fi genre and for some reason he decides to jump back on that wooden board. I don't know why, but it seems that sci/fi films bring out the bad in him.

Jumper is an intriguing idea, it has the opportunity to bring a new series to film. The idea of people who can teleport to anywhere at anytime has been done before yes, but now we have people who have been sworn to kill them and that they've been doing it for hundreds of years. Sounds pretty epic, but Jumper doesn't really jump into any of that, they only mention it. Why? I have no clue, to me it sounded more interesting then what they were actually showing us.

The filmmakers had a great chance to go back in history and show us this war, as one character mentions, but not once do we get any idea of any of it. There is a lot more story to tell with these Jumpers, but we never get any of it, we only scratch the surface. Are they that confident that it will do so well that they will give a bit more in a sequel? Or did they really have no idea what they were doing and just hope the audience liked the jump scenes.

Those jump scenes by the way are nicely done. No, they never reach the coolness of Nightcrawler from X-Men 2, but they are very well done. One second your in New York and the next your sitting on top of Big Ben in London. With a film like this you know the special effects will either make or break the film, because so much of it relies on that. The believability that these people are actually teleporting themselves to another location. They pulled it off for the most part. My complaints are pretty much what other people will probably have. They teleport in open area, for everyone to see, but unless there's a fight going on no one seems to notice, or care. Also, wouldn't Christensen be really fat by now? 8 years of teleporting means he never moves anywhere. He won't even slide 2 feet over on a couch to get a converter. Does teleporting burn calories as well? You know those people sworn to kill them, one is Rolan, played by Samuel L Jackson. Jackson does what he always does, be a bad ass mofo. Here is sports white hair and spews off some dialogue that only God should be at all places at once. Are they the good guys? After all, our so called hero is robbing banks and breaking Italian Collisuem rules. Christensen isn't really likable, so many people will end up routing for Jackson to take him out. They fight scenes are too special, they consist of jumping and using a device that Scorpion from Mortal Kombat should sue for. Once you take away all the jazz from the jumping, you're left with nothing really.

The story is boring. Guy can jump, people find him and try to kill him, he gets away. In between he gets back together with a girl he use to like when he was a kid, they go to Rome because "hey, all girls will put their lives on hold to go to Rome with a guy they knew back in Highschool but haven't seen for 8 years...and maybe I'll have sex with him too." Bilson is cute, but she is given nothing to do besides ask questions. The real star here is Jamie Bell, who plays Griffin, another Jumper. He's the person we really want to follow in this story, he's funny, kicks ass and takes no crap from anyone.

By the time the film is over you're left sitting in your seat asking yourself, but what about this and what about that. There are so many loose ends in Jumper it's funny. We never know what happens to his father, we never know what happens to Griffin, we are never given anything but a sentence for a back story on these people. Also, the last 5 minutes seems like a last minute addition to try to tie one of those loose ends up. It seems way too forced, but you know it has to happen because there is no way this film can end without them going back to it. These loose ends will most likely be sorted out in the sequel. That's how films like this are probably going to end now, leave so many things unanswered that there just has to be another one.

Unless you want to see another special effects ridden sci/fi fest, skip Jumper cause there is no real substance. No real story or plot, no character development and no fun...well, there was a bit of fun, but there should have been so much more.

Vantage Point (Pete Travis)




Great Concept With Mediocre Execution.

Vantage Point tells the story of the assassination of the president of the United States from 8 different viewpoints. We see the people trying to protect the president, the media, civilians and the people taking out the attack.

Vantage Point's is Rashomon for today's audience, minus the talent and brilliance. The whole idea behind of Vantage Point is to tell the audience that everyone has their own perspective on things when in a crisis situation, then of course at the end it decides to tell us the whole story. This concept is really intriguing and could make a really intense action thriller. Vantage Point is indeed tense at times and has a really great car chase sequence, but the absurd plot and useless sub plots are too much for it's own good. It feels as if the film is trying to be to smart for it's own good.

We start off from the viewpoint of Sigourney Weaver and the media. She is the director of the station that is broadcasting the president. This is the perfect way to open the film because it is the closest thing that we, watching on TV at home, will get to see. The only information we know is what is shown to us. Bang, the president is shot, boom the stage explodes and then the film rewinds 23 minutes earlier to 12:00 noon and now we are seeing the event through the eyes of Dennis Quaid, one of the secret service agents protecting the president. The film tells everyone view in about 15 minutes or less, then rewinds to noon every time and then goes to another character. IT becomes very redundant and will no doubt get on people's nerves.

This is why the execution is not as good as it could have been. It could have been a new and innovative way of seeing things, but instead we literally see the events rewind and the clock strike noon 8 times. As repetitive as this is, it does keep things moving along nicely. The film never moves at a snails pace and it shouldn't. Since we know what happens, we sit there waiting for these things to happen every time. During Whitakers viewpoint I found myself sitting their simply waiting for the explosion to happen so it can get on with the story.

There are a lot of things going on in Vantage Point...a lot of things. Double crossers are being double crossed, think of the movie Heist. There are also dozens of characters, characters we never get to know. We get a quick back story on Quaid and know he 'took a bullet' for the president sometime ago and now he's back and that Whitaker has a family back in the States, but other then that we never get to know any of these characters or any explanation for their actions. Then again, that is the point of this movie. So it's safe to say the whole point of this movie is also its weakness.

That weakness is because of the script. There are many times when you have to throw logic out the window here, just to buy some of the things that happen. While the car chase scene is quite thrilling it would never ever happen. For one the streets are way to narrow and populated for these cars to be swerving in and out of. Also one of the vehicles takes a beating, yet keeps on ticking. It takes a giant truck to finally put it to rest. The subplots don't add anything to the film either. One character is doing things because the bad guys have his brother hostage. This subplot could have easily been taken out of the story and nothing would have changed. All you need to do is make the one guy simply be a bad guy instead of trying to save his brother and the same tasks can be taken out.

Vantage Point is not a bad film. Like Jumper I tried to like it, but there are just too many things about it that hurt it. It tries it's hardest to come off as a smart action thriller, but it's faults are too much to be forgiven. Enjoyment can be had, if you're willing to not take anything it shows you to be based on a certain reality.

I gave it one more star than you because I went in expecting a mindless thriller, and I got a mindless thriller. As for Jumper, I actually gave that one a .

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I see, I would have enjoyed it more if it didn't try to be so sly about everything.

you do very interesting reviews - thanks

The Nines (John August)



"It Keeps You Guessing Till The Very End"

The Nines tells three short stories, the first of about an actor who is under house arrest after flipping over his car, the second is about a writer who's pilot TV show is in jeopardy and the last deals with a video game designer lost in the woods after his car breaks down. All three stories are told with the same actors.

When I first heard about The Nines, everyone was raving about how original it was and how it was like nothing they have ever seen before. So obviously it peeked my interest. After finally watching the film, I can see where it gets it's praise, but don't fully understand why it's getting so much of it. Yes, The Nines is original and keeps you guessing until the very end, but the pay off isn't as good as the rest of the film.

This is John August's directorial debut, if you don't know who August is, he's the writer of such films like Big Fish, Corpse Bride and Go. The Nines is another impressive entry to his already good resume. It seems that August was confident enough to tackle this big project. I applaud him ambitions. He didn't fail by any means, but he didn't blow me away either. It is always a love hate relationship when the writer is the director. When it works, you get Pulp Fiction, when it doesn't you get Blade Trinity. When the writer is the director, he knows exactly what he wants, he knows the characters inside out and how to bring everything together. The Nines doesn't seem to fall into either category, it seems to sit on the fence.

Ryan Reynolds proves again that he has more range then people give him credit for. He might have painted himself into a corner with Van Wilder and Waiting, but he seems to be slowly breaking free of it. He showed range at the very end of Smoking Aces and in the recent rom com Definitely Maybe. With The Nines he again proves why he is underestimated and will bring greater things in the future. Reynolds plays the lead in all three shorts. We see him as a crack addicted actor, gay writer and family man video game designer. While he doesn't blow you away with his performance, he does manage to capture you and bring you along for the ride from start to finish.

Hope Davis appears here in a supporting role, again playing three different characters in all three shorts. She manages to get so much across the screen by doing so little. A look here or move there and you know exactly what she is thinking. Melissa McCarthy plays herself in one segment, I think she had the hardest job. She has to be bubbly, scared, mean and informative.

The three segments are all shot differently. The first segment, titled The Prisoner, showcases bright reds and yellows and was shot on 16mm. The second segment, titles reality television is shot on video. The entire segment plays out like a reality TV show as we follow Gavin (reynolds) and his troubles in trying to get his pilot on air. The third and final segment, titled Knowing, is darker and shot on 35mm. The third segment has the same title as the pilot that Gavin in the second segment is writing. Even the same events take place. Without giving too much away, all three segment interconnect with each other. But not exactly in a way you want or think.

If you are confused after watching the film, join the club. I knew what happened and sort of got some things, but had to read up on it to see what others thought to finally connect the dots. The films does a very good job of teasing the viewer with bits of information and bringing them along asking questions left right and centre. As the film concludes you sit there wondering if you are satisfied or not. I still do not know really. I like the idea behind the film and the presentation was nice, but the way they dragged us along seemed like it would amount to something bigger, something deeper, something more then what we are ultimately given.

The film doesn't answer everything and it doesn't need to. It's a film that leaves it's answers up to the viewer, to make whatever assumptions they want. But even this isn't satisfying enough. I guess because all the hype I head prior, I expected more. If you go into it not knowing anything about it, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks sounds interesting

Iron Man (John Favreau)



"Iron Man Is Made Out Of Gold"

Tony Stark is a wealthy weapons manufacturer on a routine trip back from a demonstration of his latest weapon, when he is attacked by rebels who want him to build his latest weapon for their own evil gain. Taking shrapnel to the chest, he must have a pacemaker like device on at all times in order to live. After escaping his captives, Stark sees a new side to life and wants to protect the people who have died from his weapons. Thus creating Iron Man.

I've read a few issues of Iron Man, enough to know what the story is about, who the characters are and what to expect from the film. I never went in with high expectations, wanting it to be the best thing since sliced bread, and I left the theatre with a smile on my face. Iron Man is the firs real summer blockbuster movie to grace the screen in a long time. Filled with humorous dialogue, great casting and high flying special effects, Iron Man is one of the best comic book adaptations ever put to film.

With the announcement of Robert Downey Jr. playing Tony Stark, I knew John Favreau was the right man for the job. Downey has shined a light on himself so bright that I expect more leading roles to come his way. With perfect comedic timing and a dramatic arc to boot, he has created one of the most compelling comic book characters on film to date. With Peter Parker we are beaten over the head with his love for Mary Jane and his guilt for his uncle, we never really get pass this. X-men has too many characters to keep track of for us to emotionally connect to one central character. Iron Man manages to make a womanizing, alcoholic, weapons manufacturer actually likable. All of that is because of Downey's charisma.

Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't have much to do here, but she makes the material work. Howard was a little off his game. His presence wasn't there. It seemed like he wasn't confident enough in this role and it was really out of place. Jeff Bridges is menacing in the looks, but comedic in the dialogue. I don't know if it is my hours upon hours of Lebowski watching, but I just did not find Bridges voice to be menacing at all. I kept hearing the dude. He wasn't threatening enough.

Iron Man sets itself apart from other comic book films (except for Batman Begins) with how serious it is. The film prides itself on being more realistic then what one would think. This is accomplished by focusing more on the man inside the armor then the high flying rocket shooting, breaking sound barrier hot rod red "superhero". This is because Iron Man is simply that....a man. He has no special powers, no enhanced ability. He has loads and loads of money.

The problem with most origin stories is that it has to set everything up. It doesn't have the time to have fun with the story and make it seem really dangerous to the characters. Iron Man has a lot of set up and little delivery on the action. There are two scenes in which Stark throws on the suit and does actual battle. Not including the cave made promo device. This has pros and cons, it does make the film seem more plausible. I believed a lot of what was happening, until the final fight scene. Unfortunately, that final fight scene doesn't knock anyone's socks off. It doesn't blow our minds, it's too generic and the suit, environments and weaponry were not used to their full potential.

The special effects are well done, nothing too jaw dropping. It seemed like the crew knew what they had to do and just went for that. Nothing seems to be trying to grab our attention, it all fits naturally. Some scenes are bit off and noticeable CGI is used, which may be distracting to the eye. Specially when Downey is sitting in front of the TV and he has the armor suits arm on his right arm.

I'm impressed with Favreau. I wasn't a big fan of Elf and Zathura was garbage. With Iron Man Favreau has found his calling. I hope he doesn't try anymore kid films and sticks to what he knows and does best. He never let the content get away from him, considering it is so huge and upon first glance, would seem out of his league.

Iron Man is a fun ride that kicks off the summer blockbuster trend. While it is not as good as X-Men 2 or some other comic book outings, it is indeed one of the strongest ones. With the inevitable sequel, we will get to see what Iron Man can really do.

Speed Racer (The Wachowski Brothers)



Can A Film Be Too Close To It's Source Material???

For those not familiar with the story, Speed Racer is not what this film is about, but who it is about. Yes, Speed Racer is the main characters name and that is exactly what he does. After the death of his brother, Speed follows in his footsteps to become the worlds fastest racer. His speed and talent catches the eye of a big rich racing company who offers Speed more wins and more money. When Speed declines, he learns the truth that the grand prix is fixed and they knew the winner of each race all along. Now it's up to Speed to win the big race and show the corrupt business side of everything.

Whether or not this makes sense is of no importance. I don't really think people are going to see this movie for it's deep plot, character development or even creative twists in the storyline. Instead Speed Racer expects to see it's audience that want to be gasping at the insane races, vivid colours and tongue in cheek comedy. Speed Racer has all this, maybe a bit too much, and none of the former. I've never seen a single episode of the cartoon, but in the style the bros have presented this film you can tell immediately that they stuck pretty close to the source material. Knowing the Japanese animation style, Speed Racer has captured it pretty accurately. My only concern is, was a story like this meant to be made into a live action film? I can appreciate the film for what is tries to achieve and respect it for that. The racing scenes are indeed spectacular, but the is what is expected. We all knew that the film would have crazy racing scenes that bend the norm of our world and it did just that. The race scenes make the viewer more interested in wanting to play them in a video game. They make the viewer want to be involved, instead we have to sit there and watch other people on the screen have all the fun and excitement. It kind of gets a little bit upsetting.

There are vibrant colours all throughout the film, like a lucid dream. Most likely exactly what the filmmakers wanted, it plays out like a dream from Hunter S. Thompson. It is exciting for kids, headache for adults. The use of colour and the detailed eye to the surroundings make the film seem more like an experiment in the digital era, rather then an attempt to make an actual film. The one thing that kept going through my mind was how this film would look on Blue-Ray, not what was actually happening on the screen.

The film has many missteps, the main one would be the editing. The entire opening sequence the details the reason for Speed's reason for driving is horribly done. It plays out exactly like a racing video game and jumps back and forth between time lines. Let me explain. Rex, Speed's older brother, who holds racing records all over the world leaves the house to race in a dangerous tournament, this is inter cut with Speed racing trying to break his brother's current record, his brother is also racing the same track, but it is Speed's memory of it. If you've ever played a racing game, it's exactly like you trying to beat the your previous time on the track and you are racing you're ghost car from before. All of this is confusing at first, and once you get a grasp of what is going on, the horrible pacing settles in. They use a lot of super imposed images of people crossing the screen to move to the next scene. It's when the camera paces across a character's face and an entire different scene is behind them. They over use so much that in one particular scene there are more then a dozen characters on the screen all inter cutting each other.

Yes the entire film is based on a cartoon and that is exactly the way it plays out. Everything is over the top and corny. A little too much if you ask me. The violence isn't harsh, people blow up in their cars, but it won't scare kids. Although, the random appearance of ninjas might. Yes, John Goodman fights a ninja in this movie....then says this exact line. "Ninja? Ha, more like a Nonja". That is the kind of dialogue this film has and it hurts to listen to it.

The actors aren't really given anything to do. Goodman and Hirsh are the highlights as expected. I wanted to like Fox and Racer X, but his monotone delivery and the story behind his character is just too bland. The conclusion at the end of the film with Racer X seemed tacked on and out of left field. As if they needed to beat us over the head with answers that they audience already knew, even though they were told something else. Christine Ricci and Susan Surandon are given absolutely nothing to do in this film. They are filler, eye candy at most. The young boy and his ape sidekick are there for comic relief, but it tends to be the same joke over and over again with them. It gets tiresome very fast.

In the end, the film is more for pleasing the eye. The poor editing and over the top cartoon style is just too much of a distraction. The story itself isn't very engaging and the people involved don't even seem to know what's going on either. The film has many problems and too few entertaining points. If a racing scene couldn't save The Pantom Menace, it can't save Speed Racer.

Southland Tales (Richard Kelly)



Weird For The Sake Of Being Weird?
Or Simply A Lost Message...

If I were to sum up the plot or the story of Southland Tales, I'm sure it would confuse you. So I'll pass all that and simply say that it is about the end of the world and the key players who bring it to it's destruction. Even though this might sound cool, it really isn't and this entire plot is lost in the film. It seems as if Kelly was so hell bent on matching his success of Donnie Darko that he tried to create another film that would take multiple viewings to decipher, the main problem is Southland Tales isn't good enough to warrant multiple viewings.

Even though Donnie Darko confused the hell out of many people (myself being one of them) it did have a strong narrative that people were able to grasp. With Southland Tales, it goes in too many directions that it gets lost in it's own story. Nothing seems to make sense. It's almost as if Kelly thought we would know exactly what he was talking about and not try to explain anything, or fill in the gaps. This is the main problem with the film.

The script is very uneven and it doesn't help that nothing is explained in the film. You can see it on the faces of the actors themselves. They have no idea what is going on either, and it shows in their wooden performances. You know you're in trouble when the best performance in your film is from a former wrestler. Things just seem to random and nothing seems to fall in place. The film had great ideas, but they are never fully realized or explored. The film never feels sure of itself, so much that it doesn't even know which characters to follow.

The cast is very bizarre and is not really believable. You have Jon Lovitz playing a "bad-ass" cop, are we suppose to take him seriously? In his one important scene it seems as if he can hardly hold a gun. Sean William Scott is surprising, but plays the role dull eyed. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a porn star who bigger dreams then just porn. None of this is ever followed, only mentioned. The Rock plays the total opposite of what the public knows of him, he is scared, nervous and pathetic. It is interesting to see him try and add something to a role that has nothing to begin with. The rest of the cast sees SNL members, highlanders and Justin Timberlake. Timberlake's role is still lost on me. One thing is for sure, Timberlake has the most memorable scene in the entire film, in which he has a drug hallucination and starts to sing a Killers song. Timberlake isn't the only singer though, there is also Mandy Moore, who does nothing but whine and complain. Kevin Smith has a small cameo role, upon first glance he is unrecognizable, but once he speaks he sticks out like a sore thumb.

The film tries to seem more important than it really is. It's message about society is lost in it's complex and confusing story line. I wanted to like this film, I enjoyed Donnie Darko and did not want Kelly to be a one hit wonder, but after this it is hard to see him regain his status. I really want his career to survive this mess. Unless he goes on and makes another Southland Tales, then he will be known as a poor man's Lynch.

The film looks great and Kelly creates a world that lives outside our own. In the end the film is frustrating, not knowing if it wants to be sci/fi, action, or comedy. A film shouldn't need graphic novels to explain things, it should be done the first time around. Unless you've created a world so deep that hundreds of stories can unfold (Star Wars, The Matrix). Southland Tales is not one of those worlds. You can tell how ambitious this film is, after a poor performance at Cannes, Delays and Re-cuts, it had 'DOOMED' written all over it. It seems that it couldn't get out of that hole. For a film with great ideas, it is poorly presented, confusing and boring.

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (Steven Spielberg)



"Crystal Skull Suffers From The Star Wars Syndrome."

When Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade came to theaters in 1989 I was only 2 years old. That is the same age as newcomer Shia LaBeouf and had never seen Indiana Jones up on the big screen. In fact, as a kid my favourite one out of the three was Temple of Doom. As I grew older and appreciated the art of film-making more, I found myself leaning more towards Raiders of the Lost Ark, with Last Crusade in a close second. Flash forward to 2008 and Indiana Jones is back, only much older. I re-watched the original three, as I'm sure almost everyone did, to get myself in the mood for the old whip slinger. The main problem with Crystal Skull is it had to please fans after 19 years of build up. So it was bound to fail (in one way or another). In that light, it suffers from the "Star Wars Syndrome." Upon watching Crystal Skull you have to immediately compare it to the other films. In doing that, even before seeing the movie you knew it wasn't going to be better then Raiders and those who though it would be would leave disappointed. Well, I didn't think it would be better and yet I can't help but feel disappointed in the final product of the film. While it does have the essentials to make an Indiana Jones film, there are too many things that they seem to have skipped in order to make an actual great film. Thus we have to settle for something that is simply good, which is fine, but not when you are Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones has crossed his way into the new age of film and George Lucas seems to have brought the heavy duty CGI with him. This has many pros and cons. While the CGI can create elaborate and exciting action sequences, it can't help but feel fake. The car chase through the jungle is exhilarating and ranks up with the some of the best action sequences in the series, but it is ruined with ridiculous scenes of sword play and Tarzan swinging, both from the same character. A character who seems to only have been added to draw a younger crowd and possibly pass the torch on.

Therein lies a problem with the script, it's characters. Allen is given absolutely nothing to do but bat her eyes at Ford. In Raiders she was a tough broad, here she has nothing. Winstone plays Mac, a good/bad guy who adds nothing to the plot whatsoever. Cate Blanchett seems to be having some fun in her role, yet her character is no where as evil or memorable as previous 'villains' in the series. It is mentioned she has psychic powers, yet that aspect is never explored. LaBeouf, I have always been a fan of. He has comedic talent, from his Disney days and can handle action films, as evident with Last years "Transformers". Ford of course still has his Indy chops, he actually looks like he is having fun again. It seemed that age got the best of Ford in the recent years, but here he engages more. Then we have hurt we seems to be there as an excuse to get characters to where they need to go.

In the Indy series there has always been a suspension of disbelief. The Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant and Sacred Stones don't really seem plausible. Yet we took it at face value and since all of those artifacts were based on our history it had a certain bit of grounded reality to them. Crystal Skull throws all of that out the window and deals with aliens. Sacrificial cults and ancient religion people can understand, but once aliens from the, and I'm quoting a line in the film, "the spaces between spaces" nothing seems plausible. This is the bit of the film where it seems to falls of the horse. Seeing Indy find treasures of the past is what the series was all about, with this film he seems to find things from the future. It doesn't jive very well with me. Spielberg needs to get off his alien fix in his films.

It also seems like Spielberg is slacking off, as the was very evident ADR with Ford's lines. This type of stuff could easily be fixed, with cutaways, yet Spielberg for some reasons focuses on the character when this is used and it stands out like a sore thumb. The overuse of CGI doesn't feel like an Indy film either, more along the lines of a National Treasure or Laura Croft. Speaking of National Treasure, it seems like Indy is taking notes from Ben Gates. There are clues left for him throughout the film, but none of them reach the level of National Treasure or even The DaVinci Code. Now code breaking wasn't a really big thing for Indy, he dabbles a bit, but here it seems more important. Yet it is treated as a mere side road. Which is essentially fine with me, but the make it seem bigger then it is, and instead of breaking the codes later on they just listen to the old crazy guy who tells them exactly what they need to know.

Indy is indeed back and the adventure and fun is there. That is what it is really all about. The fun and magic of the movies, right? If you can believe that three people can jump out of an airplane on a yellow raft and survive the fall into some rapids, then I guess you can believe a car driving over a cliff falling safely on top a tree top. Which safely places them into the water, then swings back and hits the bad guys. Convenient right? I guess the thrill and adventure of Indiana isn't the same, since so many films since the original three have ripped it off left right and centre. It seems that this films is doing the same, which is odd.

Shame, I was actually looking forward to watching Southland Tales. Think I might still try it if I have a better movie on hand to cancel it out.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0