Archive for the ‘Movie Reviews’ Category

Movie Review: Civic Duty

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

Civic Duty is a fairly standard thriller that uses the post-9/11 climate of terror suspicion as the backdrop for the story of one man’s paranoid crisis. The film has a strong cast, and occasionally interesting stylistic choices, but is ultimately held back by the story they’re choosing to tell. There are very few actual events in the film; it’s mainly just a guy watching another guy from his apartment window, and despite some attempts to infuse visual drama, that’s just not going to make a particularly exciting film.

The story revolves around Terry Allen (Peter Krause), a recently fired CPA who becomes suspicious of his newly arrived “Middle Eastern looking” neighbor. This causes major issues with his wife (Kari Matchett), and, driven by a fear-mongering media, eventually gets him involved with the FBI.

Watching the film, I wasn’t particularly liking it. Engaging with the lead character required the viewer to go along with his post-9/11 suspicion of everyone around him, and I wasn’t ready to make that leap. The film is talking about a time that has, to a large extent, passed. George Bush may still claim we’re in imminent danger, but I just don’t think most people feel that way, and the fact that Allen is so fearful makes him seem irrational. There’s some justification for how he feels in the story, but when dealing with an issue like that, the viewer comes in with a lot of outside baggage.

It’s quite possible that another viewer could sympathize with his fear, and understand the conflict he’s going through, but I felt increasingly alienated from him, to the point that I actively disliked the character for most of the film. Now, having a character you dislike as a protagonist is workable, if that character has a high level of charisma. I wouldn’t want to meet Jack Nicholson’s Frank Costello of The Departed in the real world, but he’s fascinating to watch on screen. Terry Allen has no charisma, and he’s actively alienating.

For most of the film, I wasn’t sure if this is what they were going for. He’s in practically every scene, and you would expect him to have the sympathy of the filmmakers. Maybe he does, I can’t say that for sure. But near the end, I found a reading of the film that worked for me. Allen is meant to be America, or at least the Bush government, frightened by this attack, and driven to paranoid violence as a result. It doesn’t matter if the Middle Eastern guy in the next apartment is a terrorist or not, we have to go after him just to be safe. Terry will do anything in the name of ‘national security,’ but in pursuing this violent end, he loses himself. Reading his character arc as a stand-in for American foreign policy after 9/11 makes the film much more effective on a thematic level, and helps to justify his seemingly irrational behavior.

That salvaged the film on an intellectual level, and it’s a complex feat to make a nation’s journey into a personal one, but it still doesn’t make the film work on the whole. There’s a couple of serious issues. The major one is I just don’t like the main character, and I found him horribly misguided in his choices. Stand in for America or not, the film should still work on a character level.

Now, this isn’t Krause’s fault. His work as Nate on Six Feet Under is some of the best acting I’ve ever seen, in any medium. There he was given a morally ambiguous character who, particularly in the last season, was disliked by much of the audience, but even when he did bad things, we could always understand his actions. Here, the writing just doesn’t give enough justification for Allen’s odd behavior. There’s an implication at the end of the film that he has a history of violent behavior, and he also fears that he’s not exciting enough for his wife, but is that really enough to push this guy so far over the edge? It just didn’t work for me.

The issue with a film like this is the character needs to go on a journey. Unfortunately, they chose to take him from boring, everyday life to paranoid psychotic. Depicting boring, everyday life is always a problem, and the film’s opening sequence certainly captures the dull, dreary world of a commute, but that’s not particularly exciting as a viewer. The score throughout is very subdued, and contributes to this sleepy lack of energy. The film is confined almost exclusively to his apartment, and it becomes oppressive after a while. Hitchcock could pull off the confined setting in Rear Window, but it doesn’t work so well here.

The film reminds me a lot of Hard Candy, both in terms of style and subject matter. But, the issues Candy addressed were inherently more interesting, and the stakes higher. This movie takes most of its running time just to get to its core issue. The final sequence is an improvement over the rest, but it’s held back by again being trapped in an uninteresting visual environment.

Visually, the film uses a lot of handheld camera and jump cuts to try to create excitement. Normally, I love these techniques, but you need more interesting sets and music to turn them into fully realized film moments. Look at a show like Battlestar Galactica to see this style used well, where it complements the narrative action. Here, it’s like the filmmakers knew that their sets were boring, and the film wasn’t really visual, so they just did whatever they could with the camera. Do all the tracking shots and dissolves you want, someone looking up stuff on a computer is never going to be particularly exciting.

So, this film didn’t really work for me. I can see what the filmmakers were trying to do, and there are some successful moments, but in execution, it just doesn’t work. I’m not sure when this film was shot, but it definitely comes out of a 2002 or 2003 mentality, and just doesn’t feel as relevant today as it might have then.

Patrick is a filmmaker/reviewer based out of New York. His films are available on RespectFilms.com, and writings at Thoughts on Stuff.

Slow Burn (2007)

Monday, April 16th, 2007

Slow Burn (2007)Filmed in 2003 but kept on the shelf until now, Slow Burn smells a lot like a flimsy version of The Usual Suspects. While the plot of this so-so film noir comprises plenty of bewildering twists that shade most of its positives, the movie is effective enough to maintain a fast pace and generate a considerable amount of suspense. (more…)

Firehouse Dog (2007)

Monday, April 16th, 2007

Firehouse Dog (2007)Firehouse Dog is likely to lie low at the box office and could have easily skipped a theatrical release and went straight to video, but as an overall enjoyable romp doing an OK job at promoting a fairly common moral, the movie is worth the price of its admission ticket. (more…)

Grindhouse

Monday, April 9th, 2007

Grindhouse

Year Released: 2007
Directed By: Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Rose McGowan, Marley Shelton, Freddy Rodriguez, Josh Brolin, Jeff Fahey, Michael Biehn, Naveen Andrews, Kurt Russell, Sydney Poitier, Jordan Ladd, Vanessa Ferlito, Zoë Bell, Rosario Dawson, Tracie Thoms, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Michael Parks, Danny Trejo, Bruce Willis, Quentin Tarantino
(R, 191 min.)

grindhouse

More than just a fun three hours at the movies, Grindhouse is a total immersion into movie geekdom, in which the packaging, marketing, lore, and accumulative experience are as much a part of the deal as the images that are up on the screen. If they could, I suspect Rodriguez and Tarantino would design their own grind-house movie chain of theatres that would re-create the urban scuzz-holes of the past, which ran cheap movies nonstop – a usually eclectic mix of exploitation, horror, and action films, as well as a random assortment of top studio product that had seen better days and more intact prints. As it is, Grindhouse is an homage to an experience rather than any certain type of film, and with its two separate feature films – “Planet Terror” by Rodriguez and “Death Proof” by Tarantino – a host of tongue-in-cheeky trailers by the likes of Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright, and Eli Roth; scratches and notices of missing reels intentionally inserted into the prints in order to heighten the illusion of the celluloid’s sprocket-weary authenticity; a splashy two-for-the-price-of-one marketing campaign; and enough cast members to keep the talk-show couches on permanent rotation, Grindhouse raises the bar for a certain kind of movie lollapalooza (and also for the kind of filmmaker who is also a showman, along the lines of a William Castle or Cecil B. DeMille). It’s this injection of playfulness and fun and attention to the entire moviegoing gestalt that will probably become Grindhouse’s lasting contribution to movie history rather than any on-the-screen content of the movie itself. Ultimately, “Planet Terror” and “Death Proof” are as transient and expendable as the movies they ape (which is meant as a tribute to their authenticity rather than a put-down). Of course, by now, everyone in Austin knows that Grindhouse was filmed here last summer, and part of the local fun will derive from the sight of and references to familiar locations in Tarantino’s section, whose first half is set in Austin. First up, however, is Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror,” a zombie barrage that begins with some pus and guts and builds to an all-out Armageddon between the humans and zombies. Rodriguez again proves that he’s a brilliant action director, making those of us who wish he would give at least equal attention to his scripts seem churlish for desiring more storyline when he’s able to invent a set-piece as good as that of a leading lady who has a machine gun for a leg (McGowan). Tarantino’s half is harder to judge within its Grindhouse context, as “Death Proof” is practically two discrete movies in itself – the first part a talky jamboree of girls’ night out and the second a gloriously staged car chase/vengeance film, which plays like a demented filmmaker/fan’s love offering to stuntwoman Zoë Bell (who is showcased here doing her own stunts) and the non-Disney career of Kurt Russell (who plays a badass called Stuntman Mike in both “Death Proof” segments). Following the zombie rampage of “Planet Terror” and the crazed momentum of the whacked-out trailers and fake ads, the detail-rich dialogue of Tarantino’s girls-night-out segment becomes an unfortunate victim of the adrenaline-fueled madness that precedes it. Then an abrupt change of place and characters, linked only by the centrality of Stuntman Mike in both segments, leads directly into the near-wordless muscle-car mayhem that consumes the second half of “Death Proof. ” I imagine that somewhere down the line we’ll get to see “Death Proof” and “Planet Terror” as stand-alone DVD releases with lots of extras, which is the point at which we’ll get a better handle on how Tarantino’s film plays without the pacing predicament of this combo release. Grindhouse holds a wealth of opportunities for potential DVD releases in the future: Don’t be surprised to see whole movies spun out from some of the trailers or characters (Trejo’s Machete and Poitier’s Jungle Julia seem likely candidates) or a special directors’ cut version that restores the missing reels and “remasters” out the splices and scratches. Rodriguez and Tarantino are nothing if not inexhaustible masters of movie revivification. (For more about Grindhouse, see p.56 of this week’s Screens section.)

Originally printed in the Austin Chronicle by Marjorie Baumgarten [2007-04-06]

300 – A Film by Zach Snyder

Monday, April 9th, 2007

Zack Snyder’s “300” is noteworthy because it’s going to be one of the most commercially successful films of the year.    Based on Frank Miller’s graphic novel about the Battle of Thermopylae in 470BC, it recounts the efforts of several hundred Greeks (mostly Spartans) to fight the enormous Persian army of King Xerxes to a standstill.    LIke the heroes of the Alamo, these men die with their sandals on, fighting to the last man, and ultimately inspiring subsequent armies to carry on their battle to a victorious conclusion.

More than anything, “300” resembles a comic book.   As in “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” and “Sin City,” live actors are drawn over and then placed in a sketched out background.    The effect is that we recognize the actors, but they don’t look like their real selves.    Though visually stunning, the comic book quality is regrettably reflected in every other aspect of the film.   Characters are either heroic or base.    The fight scenes involve creatures that don’t really exist and battle skills that defy gravity.    Men spend most of their time screaming in cliches.   The ultimate effect is like watching the best of modern film technology applied to a Steve Reeves Italian clunker from the 1950’s.    To be sure, “300” looks great and the action scenes are exciting.   It’s an enjoyable two hours.   But that begs the question of its huge success, and how it fits into the landscape of other films about male comraderie.

As “300” careens towards $200 million of domestic box office, it has inspired a host of explanations for its popularity.    It’s a stirring defense of the war in Iraq, as the Greeks fight for “reason” and against “mysticism.”   It’s a critique of the war in Iraq, as the Persian hordes with their numbers and technology represent the immense American war machine.   It’s a racist attack on Persians meant to pave the way for our next military intervention in Iran.    It’s a fascist celebration of hyper-nationalism, militarism, racism, xenophobia, and adoration of a charismatic leader.   It’s a rendering of the sensibility of World Wide Wrestling- with uber-muscled, scantily clad men.   And of course there seems to be a homo-erotic quality to all of this male bonding, touching, hand-holding, piercing, and long, soulful looks.  But, I think that “300” isn’t nearly as homosexually situated as the average contemporary buddy films and romances.

“300” celebrates the male bonding that is found in most war and sports movies.   What gives those films their homosexual subtext is less the sweating, shirtless males working together for victory.   Rather it’s the unstated assumption that unlike the men, none of the women in these men’s lives will ever really grasp this singularly important, defining experience.    Whatever these men and their future wives share, the women will just never “get it.”   However, in war and sports films, the men still hunger for a life of normalcy- settling down and raising a family with their female soulmate.     But that fantasy of living happily ever after with your true love has little emotional resonance in contemporary buddy films and  romances: think The Break Up, Failure to Launch, Old School, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, American Pie.

It wasn’t always so.    In ’50’s and ’60’s films, the emotional relationship that men craved was with a woman.   Then two films undermined that assumption.   For the artier crowd, “Diner” depicted male friendships as deeper than anything that a man could share with a woman.   For the mass audience, the same message was abundantly clear with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.   No woman could ever be as perfect for Redford or Newman as they were for each other.

Yet in those films, there was still a kind of true love.    The guys in Diner were in love with each other, not with guys generically.    Butch and Sundance were perfect only for each other.    But then came Doug Liman, Kevin Smith, John Favreau and others, and they created something entirely new.    Guys didn’t really want to be with women.   Nor did they need to be with the true-love-best-friends of their youth.   Almost any guy would do.  And almost any guy was better than any woman.

In terms of what seemed important in a relationship: understanding, companionship, support, nurturing, fun, shared priorities- men could provide this better than women.   Moreover, the existentially bedrock experiences of life were about guys and their own fathers and sons.   The emotional logic of contemporary buddy films is that guys would be so much happier if they shared their lives with guys.   It’s not that men are commitment phobic.   They’re phobic about being intimate with women when the best of life’s experiences are those shared with other guys.    In these films, women are valued primarily as sexual partners and status symbols.

Women often have a more valued role in sports and war films.   In “300,” the Spartan queen is not only gorgeous and a fabulous lover, but she also strongly supports the values of her husband and the Spartan men.    But in contemporary buddy films and romances, the woman often wants to come between a guy and his friends.   Her desire to domesticate and tame is not new.   But her desire to separate him from his most important emotional ties seems especially damning.   The revealing exceptions are the Minnie Drivers in films like Good Will Hunting, where the woman both respects the relationships between male friends and is herself “one of the guys.”

In most war and sport films, the defining battle or game is something only guys can share.   But there’s still the longing for heterosexually living happily ever after.   But in a wide array of buddy and romance movies- it’s clear that these guys would be happier living with other guys.    Heterosexually driven to be with women, their sexuality becomes a curse.

Next Movie – Review

Monday, April 9th, 2007

Based on the novel “The Golden Man” by Philip K. Dick and Directed by Lee Tamahori (Die Another Day), NEXT features
Nicolas Cage, Julianne Moore, Jessica Biel, Thomas Kretschmann, Tory Kittles, and

Peter Falk. NEXT is also co-produced by Cage, who has starred in such box office hits as National Treasure, Gone in Sixty Seconds, Con Air, and Face/Off. NEXT is slated for theatrical release on April 27, 2007.

A potpourri of magic, terrorism and a built-in nuclear holocaust threatening to unleash itself, NEXT is focused around Cris Johnson (or should we say, “Magic” Johnson?) – a showroom magician from Las Vegas.

Cris has a secret gift which is not as menacing as the multiplier-effect of “The Prestige,” but equally tormenting with its limitations as well as potential. Cris Johnson has the ability to peek into the future, but only a few minutes into it. It’s difficult to change the future if all you got are a few minutes, right? Still there are things he can influence the outcome of, hence the extreme interest of certain organizations in his abilities, with their own vested interests.

Fed up by the interest-overkill in his unnatural gift by the outside world – government and medical establishment, and the numerous examinations he underwent as a child — he goes underground. Maintaining a low profile under an assumed name in Vegas, he gets by, performing cheap tricks and living off small-time gambling “winnings”. But especially gifted people are also especially “wanted” — in this case, for a big-time requirement.

Everything is fine until a terrorist group threatens to detonate a nuclear device in Los Angeles. The countdown to extinction begins and time is running out. Government agent Callie Ferris uses all of her smiles and wiles to weed out and corner Cris to convince the tormented hero into helping her stop the imminent cataclysm and beat the ticking clock. Cris is ultimately faced with the daunting choice of saving the world or — hold your breath — the woman he loves. Ah, is that cliché or what? And all that in just under a couple of hours!

An action thriller, NEXT was shot in Los Angeles. Gary Goldman, Executive Producer, told Variety, “This is a movie that translates the excitement of the videogame experience into cinema.”

NEXT, is a Saturn Films/Broken Road Production, with Gary Goldman, Jason Koornick, and Ben Waisbren as Executive Producers. It is produced by Nicolas Cage, Norm Golightly, Todd Garner, Arne L. Schmidt and Graham King.

Next Movie : Official Movie Site from Paramount Pictures.

About the Author

Ben Padnos is an Internet Enterpreneur based in Manhattan Beach, California and enjoys writing on various subjects. You can reach him at DONE! SEO Services.

Spiderman 3 preview (new trailer)

Sunday, March 11th, 2007
Sony Pictures Entertainment’s third film in the popular franchise, Spider-Man 3 which is scheduled for May 4, 2007 while Japans get a first look at the third chapter in the ‘Spider-Man’ series on May 1. The upcoming movie was directed by Sam Raimi and futures stars like: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden [...]

DVD Review: Clean, Shaven

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006

Lodge Kerrigan’s directorial 1993 debut places the viewer into the mind of a schizophrenic through its brilliant use of sound and imagery, creating a very realistic portrayal. After being released from an institution, Peter Winter returns home to search for his daughter, who was put up for adoption by her grandmother after her mother died. His journey is not without diversion, as he becomes a suspect in a series of child murders. Clean, Shaven plays with the audience’s expectations and prejudices toward those with mental illness.

Rather than the slow realization of the loss of a mind, such as HAL in 2001, Winter is already in the midst of schizophrenia, though he is unaware, which is all the more frightening a reminder of the mind’s fragility. He can’t stand his image and covers all mirrors. He thinks his head contains a radio and his fingernail a transmitter. His attempts to stop them lead to a very memorable and graphic scene.

He is a great character because he is the ultimate unreliable narrator. When things are heard on the soundtrack but unseen on screen, how do we know what is real? A focused look at the techniques used to simulate Winter’s state of mind is examined in the video essay A Subjective Assault: Lodge Kerrigan’s “Clean, Shaven” by critic Michael Atkinson.

It’s amazing what Kerrigan was able to accomplish on a $60,000 budget, shooting over two years and edited over another. The scenes blend together well and the film has great pacing, assisted by its length of 75 minutes. He discusses the film with Steven Soderbergh on the commentary track; they became friends at Sundance in 1994. As a filmmaker, Soderbergh is a great interviewer because his understanding of the job allows him to deconstruct the process and ask probing questions that prod Kerrigan to reveal a great deal he might not have thought of on his own.

They discuss all manner of production, from self-imposed aesthetic rules and influences during pre-production — Kerrigan was watching a lot of Polanski and documentaries about mental illness at the time — to location hunting and working with the cinematographer and editor. Jay Rabinowitz was the latter and has gone on to work with directors Jim Jaramusch and Darren Aronofsky.

The film does have some problems, though. The film isn’t as captivating when Winter isn’t in the scene. There isn’t much to the other characters for the actors to work with. Stylistically, that could work when Winter is an observer in the scene, but it happens throughout the film. The plotline with the police detective is heavy-handed. He inserts himself into the story awkwardly, looking almost as if there were some scenes that would transition him into the story easier were cut.

One great feature that more DVDs will hopefully offer is the film’s soundtrack and selections from the film’s final audio mix, downloadable as MP3 files.

Though it offers more style than substance, Clean, Shaven presents a harrowing character study through a great acting performance by Peter Greene and wise choices by Kerrigan. While its depiction may not be 100% accurate, it is much more believable than something hokey like A Beautiful Mind. It is also a great DVD to learn about filmmaking as the process and results are presented to the viewer.

This writer is a member of The Masked Movie Snobs, a collective that fights a never-ending battle against bad entertainment. El Bicho is an active contributing editor for BC Magazine.