Theothervip's Reviews

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

10/10

Not just a great sequel, it's a brilliant ORIGINAL.

2 December 2011

1996's BABE was an out-of-nowhere hit. Coming out on a risky summer season, where BATMAN FOREVER was the talk of the town, BABE found its audience thanks to word of mouth and some positive critic reviews. Now, it's considered one of the finest family films ever made; an witty, creative and original movie. If only its sequel BABE: PIG IN THE CITY received such grace. It more than deserves it.

At first, a sequel to BABE seems like trying to sequelize the original WIZARD OF OZ (And no! RETURN TO OZ does not count). Why make a sequel to a surprise hit that was unique and surprising which would only detract from what the first one achieved. But in the hands of the inventive yet sadly under-appreciated Australian filmmaker George Miller (co-writer and producer of BABE), the sequel finds an interesting direction: Why not do what the original did; do something that goes against what audiences are expecting. Sadly, audience don't always warm-up to re- inventions of familiar premises. And whereas BABE was a light-hearted charmer sprinkled with moments aimed at grown-ups, PIG IN THE CITY is a little darker and more menacing, but still mixed with some of the same charm and inventiveness of the first. People sadly didn't warm-up with Miller's darker and more eccentric tone (the film is almost outright surrealism) and it remains misunderstood to this day. Luckily, home video has done the proper justice to this little gem and its finally seeing more positive light than during its original release.

The storyline is incredible; combining a witty live-action cartoon, a quirky slapstick comedy, a Dickensian modern fairy tale, and some totally oddball surrealism. Immediately, the story begins with Farmer Hoggett (the brilliant James Cromwell, given very little screen time here though) getting caught in an accident that leaves his wife Esme (a hilarious Magda Szubaski) doing all the work in the farm, until a notice for foreclosure forces her to travel to the big city, in hopes of taking Babe to a special appearance and use the appearance fee as payment to their loan. But their city isn't as welcoming as expected. Almost immediately, Mrs. Hoggett finds herself accidentally convicted of drug possession and gets kicked-off almost everywhere ("Scram lady! This isn't a farm!"), until she finds a small hotel that actually hosts a couple of strange homeless animals. There, Babe meets a number of strange denizens including a group of showbiz chimpanzees, a disabled- to-the-waist dog named Flealick, a couple of other dogs and cats, and then some strays who finds comfort in Babe's hospitality and a ruthless pitbull who finds himself converted when an act of kindness from Babe gives him a wake-up call. Eventually, he also meets up with old pal Ferdinand, who thinks of Babe as his "lucky pig", only to realize to this little porker's potential.

Though the storyline is rather simple (it's really another fish-out- water tale) and its morals are traditional, the film doesn't offer easy paths. "You're just a pig in the big city!" says Ferdinand the duck at one point in the film. "What could you possibly do? Why even try?" Immediately, the merits of morality and kindness in a different world where the rules are very different from the simple life in the country are questioned. Could kindness and humility overcome differences, change lives, inspire others even in a world as hopelessly bleak as an uninviting urban environment? Add to that, the movie even makes possible references to Babe as something of a Christ-figure, who finds himself serving up kindness to a bunch of city animals who finds the very idea oblivious. "I'm just a pig on a mission." Babe says at one point. Even if you don't see it at that angle, the movie is still the stuff of classic fairy tale viewed on more mature eyes. Kids will love its cute animals and fun slapstick (the climax is as crazy as it is lively and hilarious), but adults will find the story actually willing to transcend beyond the levels of what "kids movies" would usually go.

There's just so much to say about this movie (Did I even mention about how creative and how seamless they make the animals talk and "act"?) that it just begs to wonder why people don't even notice something so unique and wonderful. It's not just a brilliant sequel, it's a brilliant original work all its own. I say, go see BABE again and love it as you always have. Now go see BABE: PIG IN THE CITY again, and see a vastly different film that you might not have noticed before.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Election (1999)

10/10

Clever, satirical black comedy about high school and politics.

1 July 2011

A little gem clearly meant to be a sleeper hit (it's much too quirky and clever to be classified alongside mainstream efforts), Alexander Payne's ELECTION takes a neat concept for a high school comedy and turns it into a sly, cynical look at current politics. And with great performances, sharp comedic dialogue, and a neat premise, you just can't help but love it.

Reese Witherspoon (in a spunky enjoyable performance) plays the over-achieving and slightly obnoxious know-it-all Tracy Fink, who is the fore-runner for the candidacy for student council president. This social studies teacher Jim McCallister (Matthew Broderick, in his usual performance only more unlikable) won't allow. In order to establish a more democratic election (and mostly to get that Fink girl out of the way for some reason), he requests former jock Paul Metzler (Chris Klien) to run for presidency, due to his charisma but with complete disregard for his lack of interest. In addition, Paul's tomboyish sister Tammy (Jessica Campbell) also runs purely out of spite, since her "girlfriend" runs off on her and hooks up with her brother instead. While all this is brewing, McCallister has problems of his own. Whilst happily married, he's also fooling around with his old friend's ex-wife. It's not a gratuitous subplot; it just adds to the crazy complicated world that Payne (along with screenwriter Jim Taylor) has created and it adds to the silliness and cleverness of it all.

This is not your typical Hollywood teen movie and very much every cliché in the book is ignored here. Payne's high school is not simply surrounded with easily distinguished stereotypes. In fact, the good and bad guys aren't easily distinguishable here. There's a cunning, scheming side most of the characters here, and yet Payne and Taylor does a great job of actually making them likable (sort of). For example, we hate Mr. McCallister because he cheats on his wife and he would stoop so low to make sure Tracy will lose. And yet, part of us wants him to succeed, just because that Fink girl can easily get on our nerves for being obnoxious and rather b*tchy. Paul on the other hand is a rather nice guy; in fact too nice. He's a sardonic look at those candidates that may know very little about being a leader but somehow manages to get people's votes just because of how popular or nice they are. Meanwhile, his sister's campaign is a simple "who cares?", a not-too far cry to what some members of society would choose to think. And this is what the whole movie's about: It's about how messy and silly politics today can be and how messy the election of officials can be since mostly everyone plays dirty just to get what they want. It's not just America, but in other countries as well (including here in the Philippines).

A neat little gem with some funny performances and a bitingly satirical premise, ELECTION has my vote. See it!

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Innocents (1961)

10/10

Things that go bump in the night, or in the mind.

14 May 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

Jack Clayton's adaptation of Henry James' "Turning of the Screw" can either be taken as a straightforward horror movies about things that go bump in the night. Or it could be seen as something that's more psychological, which is far more unsettling.

THE INNOCENTS is one of the most intelligent horror movies I've seen. It's got the right, spooky atmosphere and some downright chilling sequences (the black-and-white cinematography by Freddie Francis is just perfect), but I'll remember it more for its psychological view of its characters. Are the ghosts real, or are they figments of a fractured mind? The movie takes it as either and comes up with a far more intelligent effort than the usual assembly-line horror.

The story is set in 19th Century England. A governess named Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr in an emotionally distressed performance) who is employed in an the isolated Bly estate in the countryside. There, she is tasked to look after two children, Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephens), who was originally in boarding school until Ms. Giddens receives an unexpected news that he was expelled for his behavior. This comes as a mystery to her because both children are mostly cheerful and well-behaved... or so it may seem. And who are those two people, a woman and man, that Ms. Giddens seem to be seeing throughout the estate.

THE INNOCENTS is a number of substantial creeps, achieved by building up the suspense than simply outright scares. The appearances of the spectres themselves are more creepy than they are shocking, and that's just as effective. This is also an example of the classic ghost movies, where walking down a dark hallway accompanied only by a candelabra are more chilling than actual scares. But I guess the real treat for me about the film is how complex it is. The movie doesn't totally dismiss the supernatural; in fact it deepens it. In the end, the movie can be seen as both a chilling ghost story and a disturbing psychological analysis. Horror fans must see this!

9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ninja Assassin (2009)

2/10

It's bloody! Bloody bad and bloody stupid.

12 May 2011

Remember when Quentin Tarantino was interviewed live by a critic on his movie KILL BILL, wherein the critic calls his movie "souless" and "overly-violent" (one which ended with Quentin arguing fiercely at her for her negative comments)? Well, I guess that critic would have fainted and would have thrown a fit when she sees NINJA ASSASSIN.

Don't get me wrong, I like stylish aestheticization of violence in movies. Although they may reach over-the-top levels, they can sometimes accomplish a kind of artistry to them. NINJA ASSASSIN is not one of those times. This is not an aestheticization of violence; it's a masturbation of violence. It's like a wet dream from someone who has seen 300 over a dozen times. I know what style the movie is attempting, but as the movie goes on it insists of topping itself again, and again, and again until it doesn't know when to stop and when it's simply repeating itself. The movie feels like being whipped in the back several times and then having the wounds doused with alcohol afterwards. It's punishing, bullying, and, to be honest, tiresome. How many times can anyone depict mass slaughter on screen?

The story, if you care, centers around a renegade ninja named Raizo (Rain), who was train since childhood by the Ozunu clan of assassins to be a brutal and unfeeling killer. Through flashbacks, the movie shows us every painful detail of Raizo's trainings, from every whipping and every wounding, without any sign of restraint. As a grown man, Raizo has turned his back on the clan and is now being pursued by them while Raizo himself swore to avenge those thy have killed, including the daughter of his own master. And that's about it with the plot as Raizo, along with an Europol investigator (Naiomie Harris) as a companion, slice and dice his way through every ninja he crosses paths with. The carnage isn't even done with style or artistry to them. Mostly' it's just CGI blood splattering on the screen excessively. The stunts are at least done with actual stuntmen, but the movie betrays them being editing it in a way Raizo might do: cutting very quickly. And having already mentioned that this movie is like a 300 wet dream, there are at least a couple of sequences that are directly lifted from this film. So much for creativity! They can't even shoot a good bloodbath!

And by God is it stupid! I mean mindless, over-the-top violence I can handle; stylish action movies like FACE/OFF and KILL BILL are admittedly over-the-top and ridiculous. But even those films have restraint. This one is just ugly and reprehensible, and just blatantly stupid until you can't just buy into it anymore. I literally gave myself a headache watching this movie.

If wanton carnage is your kind of thing than this might be worth a look, but be forewarned!

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

August Rush (2007)

5/10

I'm no cynic, but...

10 May 2011

Now don't look at my like I'm someone who doesn't enjoy a heart-warming fairy tale! I thought AUGUST RUSH had the potential to be really good. The story was interesting, the movie looked decent, and the soundtrack was good. But wow! So much potential was lost in translation.

The story follows the Dickensean adventures of a young boy named Evan (Freddie Highmore). He's an orphan, but like most orphans in movies he knows that his parents are still alive. He's also born with an exceptional, yet to everyone else (of course) unusual, talent in music. Feeling lonesome and neglected, Evan goes searching for his parents in New York, where their fates meet many years ago. Turns out his parents are alive, but are also separated from each other and doesn't even know he's alive. Along the way, Evan stumbles upon a streetwise monger named Wizard (Robin Williams) who takes him in but sees his exceptional talents as profitable (he also changes his name to August Rush at this point). He also stumbles upon a church where the people there are also at awe with his talents. The film builds up about as fast as that summary I just wrote. Too fast! And that's the problem. How can we invest our emotions on an admittedly decent story if we can't even spend enough time to. One moment Dylan/August is an ambitious little performer, then he's suddenly a little celebrity in the hands of Wizard. One moment he just stumbles into a church, then faster than you can say "this phrase is so totally cliché" he's studying in Juilliard! Slow down movie! Granted there are a lot of plot points this movie has to go through (another problem), but moving at an all too rapid pace doesn't help. It never does! Then the story of Dylan/August also intercuts with the story of his parents, Lyla (Keri Russell) and Louis (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), from that fateful night they met to a couple of years later until they realize that they actually have a son. And it does so pretty... badly. In fact, it actually becomes rather confusing in a while.

So with so much happening in the movie but very little time to care about them, AUGUST RUSH feels like a Hallmark TV movie rather than a really good fairy tale which it could have been. I'm all for a movie that doesn't try to be realistic and just goes for an artistic sensibility, but it's hard to care about it here. Granted, the performances are good, the camera work is decent, the soundtrack rather good actually, and like I said, I kinda liked the story. If the movie actually spent much of its time developing the story rather than getting them over with and move on to the next, it might have been great. This is one of those movies where I actually don't mind if it ran for an hour or so more, as long as the story is engaging and well-developed. There's just so much potential in it that I started picturing a different movie in my head while watching it. OK, I'm not boasting that I can do a better job, but if the movie can make me think I could then it's loosing my attention.

So AUGUST RUSH is not a bad movie, but it's a very maudlin, disappointing one. So much potential lost in execution.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Couples Retreat (2009)

Well-cast, and I'm pretty sure it's well-intentioned, but only mildly amusing.

23 April 2011

Rating: ** out of 4.

COUPLES RETREAT is like a small get-together where married guys in their forties having a small pick me up. I'm pretty sure the film has no other intention but to get together for a movie and do what they would normally do, but I don't think good intentions are good enough to make a good movie.

OK, based on the reviews the movie got upon release, COUPLES RETREAT ain't as horrible as everyone else says. It's watchable, and the stars do what they do and they seem to enjoy it. Plus, the scenery's not bad eye candy. But if you're looking for anything special or even a simple formula comedy done right and hits the right marks, then it's a total letdown. COUPLES RETREAT tries to do a movie that isn't to much slapstick and I respect that (it really could have been worse), but there's just not much effort here. It's going through the motions and not much is happening.

The story follows a group of tightly-knit couples who decide that the only way they got really get close as couples is to attend a couple's therapy session on beautiful Bora-Bora. Actually, only the married couple of Jason and Cynthia (Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell) are supposed to attend, but since a packaged rate would be more affordable, the others decide to tag along and eventually forced to attend the same seminar since participation is not optional. So there are a couple of gags where the couples have a fit at it each other and other parts where their councilor named Marcel (Jean Reno, in another waste of his talents) making them do goofy things while being himself a bit goofy. Well, it's not much fun.

The cast here, including Vince Vaughn, Malin Ackerman, Bateman, Bell, Jon Favreau, Kristin Davis, and Faizon Love try hard, but they're having much more fun than we do. The location is the real star here as Bora- Bora is just simply eye-catching and impossible to look away from. But the movie is still so-so and I guess reading the brochure for this resort will be much more interesting than this movie.

Overall, not terrible but there are better times spent on a tropical island resort with beautiful people in them. A lot!

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ghost Writer (2010)

10/10

Slow but tense and atmospheric thriller in the Hitchcock mold.

9 April 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

"What have you got me into?" - The Ghost

Without a doubt, most audiences will find THE GHOST WRITER slow and unsatisfying. It's slow and there's not much happening big in it for most of the time. It builds slowly throughout, building tension instead of action (which is what most audiences want these days). But I admire these attempts at real thriller precisions which are usually forgotten nowadays. Slow-burn adult entertainments like THE GHOST WRITER are pretty hard to come by nowadays and this one is very well done and, pretty much like the novel it's based on, riveting and intriguing up until it's bleak, uncompromising finale.

Despite what you think of his reputations, you can't argue that Roman Polanski has not lost his talent as a top-flight filmmaker. This, his first film since his Oscar win for THE PIANIST, takes us back to his days as a terrific suspense director. THE GHOST WRITER builds dread and tension, set on a cloudy, sometimes rainy Martha's Vineyard (actually it's Germany, refitted to look like Massachussets). Polanski himself might find a certain connection with one of the film's characters: An ex-Prime Minister who is convicted for crimes he *might* not have committed and is unable to return to his hometown. Ewan MacGregor plays an unnamed ghost writer asked to write the memoirs of the ex-British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) when his original ghost, also his political aid, mysteriously died in a suspicious drowning accident. MacGregor agrees to continue the already finished manuscript for the huge pay, despite the pressuring deadline. Not to mention he may be a step closer to uncovering the shocking truth and getting caught in a web of a political conspiracy who wants him out of the picture. Olivia Williams provides excellent support as Lang's pressured wife while Timothy Hutton and Jon Bernthal provide decent support. Kim Catrall tries to adapt a British accent, and comes off decently though barely convincing. Veterans like Tom Wilkinson (in another suspicious character actor role) and Eli Wallach (haven't seen him for a while) fill in for small roles.

Polanski takes what could have been a typical conspiracy thriller and fills it with a sense of dread and unease. Polanski ratchets up the tension and suspense, recalling the "bomb-under-the-table" rule from Hitchcock. The film is pretty long but it moves evenly and smoothly; there's not much action in it but lots of suspense and intrigue that is arguably more interesting and sustaining. The whole mood for the film has a huge role here, and the cinematography by Pawel Edelman perfectly captures the cold, isolated location of Martha's Vineyard set to the gloomy tone of Alexandre Desplat's very Herrmann-esque score (a score Hitch himself might be proud of). Polanski also keeps a cynical eye towards the real-life political climate of the time (the parallels between Lang and Tony Blair are unmistakable, as are some of the allusions to other political figures, issues, and possible conspiracies).

THE GHOST WRITER is fast becoming the most underrated film of 2010 for me. Although the critics and some of the public have regarded it as a fine return to form for the controversial filmmaker, very little else has been said about it all year. No Oscars are even considered for the film's terrific cinematography and score. Heck, a DVD of the film isn't even out here in the Philippines yet! An unfortunate fate for what I think is one of the best films of 2010.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rio (2011)

Nothing new, but look at that breathtaking scenery. Wow!

8 April 2011

Rating: *** out of 4.

I usually don't like movies like RIO, mainly because they always end up being rehashes of previous movies; unless your talking Pixar, there's very little to no new things in animated movies nowadays other than their exquisite looks. So when I saw a special advanced screening of RIO a few days ago, my expectations were low, enough for me to expect that the film will fail. But hey, what a surprise! It's pretty good actually. So RIO ain't a new masterpiece-it's not at all much different with any Dreamworks or Blue Sky Animation effort that comes out every given year- but it was fun. The kids at the screening had a ball with it, but I can also hear older teenagers and adult audiences chuckling along with them. And I'm up there with them.

The story isn't something you haven't heard before. Blu (voiced by Jesse Eisenberg) is a rare Blue Macaw raised in Minnesota by the bookish Linda (voiced by Leslie Mann). But being the last male of his species, Blu is requested to leave his Minnesota homeland and shipped to his real birthplace, in Rio de Janeiro, where a female of the same species is being kept in captivity. Blu doesn't warm up easily to the impetuous Jewel (voiced by Anne Hathaway), and certainly a rare bird such as her being kept in captivity like that doesn't help. It also doesn't help that Jewel wants to escape and Blu, being a total "housebird" and all, can't fly.

But what it lacks in a fresh new idea it more than makes up for in lively execution. This movie is just amazing to look at, boasting one of the most gorgeous looks of any animated movie since some of the Pixar films and the occasionally bizarre but lavish-looking BEE MOVIE. It may even be more beautiful since this is exactly what it wants to be and not much else. Director Carlos Saldanha, who helmed two ICE AGE sequels, and the rest of the crew have done just that. The eye-popping visuals are the moneymaker and one of the few films to come out once and a while that is worth paying extra money to see on 3D. Once again, the 3D ain't something groundbreaking, but it's exactly what comes to mind when thinking of 3D; the visuals are pristine and dynamic, with flying scenes that are just breathtaking to watch. I could almost feel the wind as a glider glides past the Christ the Redeemer statue. Rio itself looks gorgeous, from the "Carnival" parades to the look of it during the nighttime scenes are just beautiful. If nothing else, it's a virtual tour of a beautiful portrait painted by Saldanha and his animators. The voice cast ain't bad either. Eisenberg is hilarious, and granted he'll be doing these kind of work sometime soon. The real standout is Jemaine Clement (from FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS), who lends an irresistible bad guy charm as a cockatoo named Nigel. Hathaway, George Lopez, will.I.am and Jamie Foxx all fulfill their roles perfectly.

RIO ain't much new, but at least I enjoyed it for what it is. And I wouldn't mind going back to it during its official release and wallow in the dazzling scenery again. Here's a movie meant to be done (and seen) on 3D.

17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

A decent surprise.

6 April 2011

Rating: **1/2 out of 4.

I had little to no expectations for Disney's latest animated-to-live- action translation THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE. It looked like serviceable popcorn entertainment; lots of jarring CGI effects and slapstick humor. Turns out it's true that minimal expectations help in seeing a movie in its own terms and, as family-film trifle, APPRENTICE delivers, if not much else.

Exposition abounds when we are introduced to the plot, which opens in 700 A.D., where great Wizard Merlin is killed by his evil adversary Morgana (Alice Krige, in it for only a few minutes), and passes his legacy to one of his young apprentices, Balthazar (holy smoke! It's Nicholas Cage!). Before his death, Merlin hands him a tiny dragon statuette which turns into a ring which would determine the great wizard's heir. Oh yeah, Balthazar also traps the souls of other wizards, including the evil Morgana and sweetheart Monica Bellucci (barely in it for other than being, well, Monica Bellucci) inside a nesting doll called the Grimhold. Forward a thousand centuries later and Balthazar, still in search of the bearer of Merlin's gifts, finally comes upon a boy named Dave Stutler (who is what else? A total nerd!). Forward a few years more and Dave, now a geeky teenager (Jay Baruchel), is now ready to be trained with the Magical Arts (which, the movie explains, is actually more connected to modern science than we thought) and save the world.

Whew! That's a lot of plot exposition for a movie based around a segment in Disney's Fantasia (with Mickey Mouse no less!). And it moves so quickly from one situation to the other. But better to throw in dozens of special effects and action sequence. The special effects are nothing new; the CGI reeks of CGI circa 1990. But this comes off a charm. With so many movies around throwing out fantasy for realism (meaning lots of shaky "you are there" camera work), THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE is a pretty close throwback to some of those 80's effects-heavy fantasy movies usually associated with Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic effects house (the film reminds most of the effects-laden YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES when I saw the trailer). It's not so much as true movie magic than simply throwing in as much effects as they can to substitute for a lackluster action-oriented story.

The actors aren't in such bad shape. Cage, who's been on the slums lately, is pretty good here though it's a bit of a stretch to call it an improvement over some of his previous roles. But he does have more fun here and I had more fun with him here; it's in this role did I get the feeling that he knows very well that he looks ridiculous and goes to hell with it. Same goes for Alfred Molina, turning in deliciously campy baddie with an accent Horvath. These two guys do better than the rest of the younger members. Baruchel is trying too hard to be your total loser- turned-hero character when he really shouldn't. He seemed fine doing voice-over in HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, but he can't bring the role from animated world to reality. Teresa Palmer is your typical girl-of-your- dreams leading dame. Some actors (Bellucci, Krige) barely makes what passes as appearances.

THE SORCEROR'S APPRENTICE is fun, and at a time where movies like these fail to deliver such simple mercies, it's a pleasant little surprise.

11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Others (2001)

9/10

Effectively bone-chilling, but there's more to it than that.

12 March 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

Sadly, there are fewer and fewer movies horror stories like THE OTHERS being made nowadays. Ask even some horror movie fans and they might pick SAW or Friday THE 13TH over THE INNOCENTS or DON'T LOOK NOW any day, and to an even lesser extent, some of the horror fans of my generation prefer the PG-13 junk to any of those classic 70's horror thrillers. Well, it's a good think that once in a while, great horror movies like THE OTHERS come out and bring us back to horror movie heaven where we truly belong.

THE OTHERS is one of the better horror movies to have come out in years. I can't believe I have only seen it recently! Consider this one of the movies in my "Should have seen it earlier" list. Director Alejandro Amenabar takes us on a psychological horror mind trip rather than the latest disposable PG-13-level release. It's scary but not in ways you expect. There are an occasional number of "boo" moments, but Amenabar handles them better than most; taking full advantage of our expectations and than catching us when we least expect. The whole theme of the story too is far more mature than most films of the genre. Perhaps it ain't as thought-provoking as, say, THE INNOCENTS (a film THE OTHERS takes a few notes from), but it's brilliant in its own clever, mind-blowing way.

Having only recently landing a role in MOULIN ROUGE as a playful, sumptuous Can-Can dancer, Nicole Kidman takes an opposite turn playing a dark, fragile character as Grace, a woman who lives alone with her two children, Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley), in an old dark mansion while her husband Charles (Christopher Eccleston) is away at war. Grace hires a trio of helpers - housekeeper Mrs. Mills (Fionnula Flanagan), a mute named Lydia (Elaine Cassidy), and gardener Mr. Tuttle (Eric Sykes) - to attend to the house. Then strange occurrences start happening, prompting Grace to believe that the house is haunted by "intruders". Anne starts seeing a boy she calls "Victor", as well as an old woman she believes is a witch. Plus something may or may not be all right with the new help.

THE OTHERS returns to the classic horrific atmosphere of those old-school horror movies - the candelabra-lit walks through dark hallways, doors being slammed shut by other things than the wind, and specters that look even creepier without the use of gruesome make-up effects. Even without the use of a lot of "jump-out-and-scare-you" moments (though there are a couple here), Amenabar keeps us interested because, unlike recent throwaway fare, he has an excellent story and an interesting array of tragic, unstable characters, and an atmosphere than effectively (literally) keep us in the dark throughout the movie.

Amenabar has not made an outright horror outing since (he did make TESIS prior to THE OTHERS, but nothing else after), which is sad. The genre needs more like him these days, one that can perfect the balance of good writing, performances, atmosphere, and scares and delivering a ideal entry in the much under-utilized genre.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Vertigo (1958)

Hitchcock's VERTIGO: My all-time favorite movie and a simply one of the best movies ever made.

18 February 2011

Warning: Spoilers

Rating: **** out of 4.

Scottie: "I hope we will, too." Madeleine: "What?" Scottie: "Meet again sometime." Madeleine: "We have."

Many films in his career have proved his title as "The Master of Suspense", but VERTIGO reveals a different side of the Master, digging deeper into his darkest obsessions and revealing them with a kind of perverse beauty. No wonder this movie wasn't so well-received back then! At the time, some critics were still classifying Hitchcock as just another filmmaker, not quite yet the artist we consider him to be (Though he already has gained the affection and interest of French critics who were taking film criticism into new heights at the time). Time was certainly kinder to Hitch, and time came that he would be considered one of the most artistic filmmakers of all time, and VERTIGO was finally seen as the true masterpiece that it is.

"Did he train you? Did he rehearse you? Did he tell you exactly what to do, what to say? " - Scottie

This movie is not just another suspense thriller from Hitchcock (another factor as to why people didn't quite embrace it at the time); this is an even darker dream-like melodrama that reveals some of the Master's own dark obsessions. The more you know about what happened behind the scenes in VERTIGO, the more the movie will make sense to you. Originally, Hitch wanted Vera Miles to star in the film, but due to pregnancy she had to decline. This disappointed Hitch, so he had to pick a different actress for the role. This led Hitch to pick Kim Novak for the role. After the film did poorly in the box-office and was heavily criticized, Hitch partly blamed Novak for delivering a bland performance; clearly Hitch wanted to bring out something from Novak that he felt Miles already had in her. Obviously, he was modeling both Novak and Miles to his most preferred blonde muse: Grace Kelly. The parallels to Hitchcock and Miles/Novak and Scottie and Madeline/Judy are undeniable. "The gentleman certainly knows what he wants!", says a saleslady in the film, and same can be said to Hitch and the way he tries to bring out that certain performance he wants to his latest in a long-line of icy blonde characters. It's perverse and chillingly interesting.

"Anyone could become obsessed with the past with a background like that!" - Scottie

(Warning! This summary may contain a few SPOILERS)

After a dizzying, nightmarish opening sequence, backed-up by Bernard Herrmann's most haunting and memorable score (alongside his TAXI DRIVER, another great score that takes us right into the heart of its main character), we are plunged into the dream-like world of San Francisco, this time at night, where an unknown man runs for his life from rooftop to rooftop, pursued by a cop and a detective; the detective is John "Scottie" Ferguson, played by James Stewart in a performance that wipes him of his Capra-esque nice-guy image. While pursuing the unknown man, Scottie slips down a rooftop and dangles for dear life. When he looks down the ground below, he starts getting dizzy and the height itself seemed higher. The cop goes back and tries to save him but he himself slips and falls. What an inconvenient time to discover you have Acrophobia.

After the fatal accident, Scottie decides that he quit detective work as he feels compelled to blame himself for the accident. "It wasn't your fault.", convinces his close friend/ex-fiancée Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes); this early scene in Midge's apartment will be just some of the few moments of touchy-feel Hitchcock humor as the film descends into somber tragedy as it goes along. Scottie is then recruited by an old college mate named Gavin Elster (Tom Hellmore) to trail his wife Madeline (Novak) who may have either gone insane or possessed by a dead ancestor. Scottie agrees to follow the wife around a maze-like San Francisco, where Madeline makes several stops to buy flowers, then to visit the cemetery, then visit a small motel, then the museum at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, then finally a Golden Gate Park, where she stands perfectly near the crashing waves... and jumps to her death. Luckily, Scottie jumps in just in time to rescue her. At this moment, Scottie will find himself looking for a love that he may never find. After a failed second attempt to save Madeline, Scottie finds another woman named Judy (also Novak) to assume the role of Madeline, obsessively dressing her up with the same clothes and dyeing her hair with the same frozen blonde hair.

The movie starts out as one thing and takes a twisted turn and becomes something else, but this is all part of what Hitch had planned all along. He never really wanted to do another suspense movie with something as personal as VERTIGO. This is an even more powerful story with a deeply compelling look at obsession as only a true artist can do. Jimmy Stewart's performance is so deeply tragic and twisted that it may just rank as one of his best. There's also no need for Novak to apologize with her performance, which captures both the mystery shrouding Madeline and the tragedy of Judy trying to want a man to love her by assuming the identity of another. This is one of the most tragic tales of unrequited love ever made, and a truly powerful motion picture that's perfect in almost every way (cinematogrpahy, music, EVERYTHING). A true triumph meant for multiple viewings.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

Drag me to horror movie-heaven.

18 February 2011

Rating: ***1/2 out of 4.

Critics, audiences, and horror movie buffs are already torn between the consensus of Sam Raimi's return-to-horror-roots effort DRAG ME TO HELL; some critics declared it an instant cult classic while others, some horror movie buffs included, were skeptical. Me, I just thought DRAG ME TO HELL was the most fun I ever had in a horror movie in a long time. Is it a new classic? Only time will tell, but saying DRAG ME TO HELL is more fun than a bucket-load (or maybe even a shipload) of PG-13 horror remakes would be a dead give-away.

At first, I too was very skeptical as to what makes Raimi's latest horror offering worth of high-praise. This not the first time since his EVIL DEAD trilogy that he touched a horror movie since he served as a producer to some crappy PG-13 horror remakes like THE MESSENGERS and THE GRUDGE 2; that's not really a good sign. But this is his first since in the genre both as a director and writer (along with brother Ivan), and finally mys distinctions of Raimi as a bit rusty has been proved wrong. In fact, seeing DRAG ME TO HELL kind of improved my affection for Raimi himself. I liked his earlier SPIDER-MAN pictures, but didn't hold any particularly high affection to them. Now that I've seen DRAG ME TO HELL (after missing out on it in the big-screen), I may have a higher appreciation for Raimi's style in his preferred genre and the manic energy in his earlier films. The EVIL DEAD series were gory, violent, but at the same time twisted funny and maniacally entertaining. DMTH throws us back to that era where Raimi's infant terrible sensibilities are at a high point.

Alison Lohmann plays Christine Brown, a loan officer who longs for the position of an assistant manager position. She gives it her all, but her play-nice sensibilities puts him behind his scheming, butt-kissing competition Stu Rubin (Reggie Lee). It doesn't help when her unlikely position doesn't make an impression on the parents of her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long). Christine gets her chance to prove herself a tough decision maker when a old lady named Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) begs for an extension to her loan. Christine makes the decision to decline, making a good impression to her boss Jim Jacks (David Paymer, in an amusing straight-faced performance). But something's not right with the old Ganush crone, and after assaulting her in her car, Christine is cursed by the old woman to be sent to hell by demons within a few days.

Like his earlier works, DRAG ME TO HELL pushes every jump scare and gross-out horror to over-the-top heights, serving it up with shock and equal amounts of sadistic humor, but playing it all with a straight-face (Don't worry about laughing during the scenes meant to be scary or solemn, Raimi and co. are laughing along with you). Like The Looney Tunes before him and Peter Jackson and Robert Rodriguez after, Raimi orchestrates his slapstick horror mayhem like a shameless prankster that he is, and there's also I kind of randomness to them; even at its most solemn, Raimi playfully throws in a scare or to unexpectedly. The special effects themselves look relatively low-tech but insanely playful, like the crazy Deadites of his earlier projects. Christopher Young's Elfman-esque score is loud and over-caffeinated, clearly playing those infamous jump-scare tactics of horror movies for laughs. The film may be PG-13, but pushes the envelope to the extremes with it; this is definitely the most fun PG-13 horror movie to date! Think Tourneur's NIGHT OF THE DEMON and THE EXORCIST played out as a Three-Stooges comedy and you got a clear picture of DRAG ME TO HELL.

Lohmann is fun to watch (especially when she goes all tough when the spirits pushed her around too far), and a great sport considering the amount of disgusting, twisted hijinks she had to endure. Justin Long is hilarious playing what seems to be a needless role as the boyfriend, always standing around and "believing in her", but doing very little to actually save her. Dileep Rao is even funnier in a straight-faced performance as the psychic determined to help Christine, but is either useless at providing procedures or conveniently giving them when it's almost too late. Adriana Barraza pops up near the end as the medium hell-bent (pardon the pun) to bring down the demon which she faced before many years ago. And then there's the goat...

Not everyone will succumb to Raimi's stomach-turning craziness and the film is already getting some heavy backlash. but go ahead and just go see DRAG ME TO HELL for yourself. If you, like me, thought the movie is just the usual serving of perfunctory PG-13 horror, you might be surprised after a second look on DVD, and maybe bring a few friends over to have someone jump off your seats and laugh along with you.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Carrie (1976)

A poignant "horror" movie.

30 January 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

Brian De Palma's career took of with the success of this adaptation of Stephen King's first novel (who also boosted King's own success) about a teenage girl with telekinetic powers, using it to enslave her high school bullies during the most unforgettably horrifying prom night in history. CARRIE was a box-office hit and became an famous entry in the horror genre. But surprisingly when I saw CARRIE for the first time, I enjoyed it for more than being JUST a horror movie. Have you ever seen a horror movie that is touching and heartwarming? Or a horror movie where the supposed monster or horror is depicted as a sympathetic outcast? Or a horror movie that, before descending into a bloodbath, is staged as a romance? CARRIE has it all. It's a horror movie as well as a send-up of one. De Palma knows that the movie isn't really much about Carrie's telekinetic abilities, but about Carrie herself.

An icon of every high school outcast ever since, Carrie (played perfectly by Sissy Spacek) is depicted less as the violent monster she would eventually be and is depicted like anyone else who is bullied by popular kids in school and tormented by an oppressive parent. In that way, De Palma and Spacek is able to make us sympathize for Carrie as a nice girl who is pushed too far, making her now famous Greek tragedy-inspired finale all the more affecting. Piper Laurie is superb in an Oscar-nominated role (rare for a horror movie at the time) as Carrie's tormenting mother Margaret, who believes that her innocent girl is proof of her sinfulness. Laurie is both disturbing and devilishly campy, making her character one of the most memorable in the whole genre. Nancy Allen plays the notorious Chris Hargensen, a representation of the "Most Popular Girl" in high school, while Amy Irving plays the opposite in the role of Sue, a character who feels guilty for treating Carrie like dirt. William Katt plays her sweetheart who asks Carrie to the prom as an informal apology from Sue to Carrie. Betty Buckley provides the nice teacher role (a much nicer character here than in the book) who takes young Carrie under her wing. Oh, and watch out for John Travolta as Chris' nothing-but-trouble boyfriend.

I hate it when some audiences from our generation look back on CARRIE is a campy, scare-free "horror" movie. Why, look for some cheap "gotcha" moments that aren't there? CARRIE is more than just the now-usual treatment of horror movies; it's a mature and affecting tragedy of sorts. How many horror movies these days are portrayed with sympathy and warmth that CARRIE had in its smaller moments? In the end, the movie is something that may not be scary, but its rather poignant and sad. In fact, I think some of the horror elements of the film are portrayed as intentionally campy, but that's just me.

CARRIE is also a visual tour-de-force, with some memorable use of color and other visual techniques to drive the story. De Palma's trademark split-screen makes an appearance here during the famous "Prom Night" sequence. The film also has some underlying satire on high school life, during the 70's and even today. In fact, watching CARRIE today gives a few insights that probably wasn't a big deal back in the 70's.

CARRIE is a masterpiece in the genre, and one of the most touching, funny, most tragic, and one of the most memorable horror movies ever.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Body Double (1984)

De Palma at his most subversive and satirical. Not for everyone.

30 January 2011

Rating: ***1/2 out of 4.

Brian De Palma has had it with his critics and the rating's board. After the cuts that needed to be made to his masterpieces like DRESSED TO KILL and SCARFACE (which eventually got to be released in its intended format inconspicuously), the line is drawn. So naturally, he would make a movie about it. The result is BODY DOUBLE, a big thumb-in-the-nose to Hollywood conventions and 80's pop-culture. It's one-part Hitchcockian thriller and one-part satire, but its an all-around crazy movie.

If you despise De Palma, chances are you'd consider BODY DOUBLE as one of his worst. Here, De Palma doesn't give a damn if you get him or not. Here, he revels in who he is and what he wants. He also intentionally throws in the trashy 80's fad at the time, from a tacked in music video of Frankie Goes to Hollywood's one-hit wonder "Relax" to the voyeuristic obsession with porn, as the sufficient atmosphere (as well as a social critique) of the era. The story, which basically riffs VERTIGO and REAR WINDOW, has a B-movie actor named Jake Scully (Bill Maher look-alike Craig Wasson) who has a very bad day when first he gets fired from his only B-movie gig and later sees her girlfriend in bed with another man. Discouraged, he bumps into a friend named Sam Bouchard (Gregg Henry, the most noticeable "Hey, isn't he that guy?" character actor appearing in De Palma's films) who invites him to watch over his place; a campy-looking tower mansion that looks like it came out of an episode of LOST IN SPACE. While there, Sam introduces him to his "favorite neighbor", a beautiful woman named Glora Revelle (Deborah Shelton) who does a striptease in her bedroom, not knowing she's being watched. Every night, Jake would watch Gloria doing her routine like clockwork through a telescope, which is harmless perverted fun until he realizes that her life may be in danger; danger in the form of a weird-looking Indian(!) who's spying on her too.

It may take a lot of suspension of disbelief to understand the plot of BODY DOUBLE as it goes to even crazier heights. At first, it looks like the usual De Palma-as-Hitchcock thriller with some terrific sequences, then it turns into something out of a slasher film, then enters the sleazy world of 80's pornography where a young Melanie Griffith plays Holly Body, a porn star who may be a key to solving the crime. But when people realize that this is meant to be a thriller-cum-satirical comedy, they might enjoy it more. As usual, De Palma demonstrates his talents with staging mise-en-scene in sequences like when Jake stalks Gloria who is being stalked by the Indian (which is obviously borrowed from VERTIGO but is actually a little more voyeuristic in nature here) and there's the REAR WINDOW-inspired scene where Jake spies on Gloria while she's doing her striptease routine, backed up by a catchy score by Pino Donaggio.

Overall, it's not meant to be taken seriously. "It's only a movie!", Hitchcock once said to some of his difficult actors, and this movie screams that mantra. Wasson's character was meant to be a an average loser and his casting isn't just coincidence; he was meant to play the audience's surrogate. The film being set in Hollywood is another. And is it no wonder that the director that Dennis Franz plays is a direct copy of De Palma? BODY DOUBLE thumbs its nose at Hollywood and many pop-culture fads of the era, turning out to be both a sleazy re-working of Hitchcock's classics and a clever satire.

28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

Hitchcock's "first" film.

30 January 2011

Rating: ***1/2 out of 4.

Hitchcock has said it himself. THE LODGER is really his first film as a director, or at least the film wherein he would find the genre that he's truly capable of doing. The future trademarks are all here: the framed innocent man, the mysterious murderer, the icy blonde, the visual style and storytelling skills, and the macabre humor. THE LODGER is a real first for the late, great "Master of Suspense" and despite its age, is still great cinema.

The story follows a string of murders in London, blamed as the works of the mysterious "Avenger". The story then focuses on Daisy (June), the daughter of a landlady, who that night welcomes a mysterious lodger to their home. Daisy is seeing a detective (Malcolm Keen) who is assigned to track down the murderous Avenger. Could the stranger murders and the arrival of the lodger be somehow connected? And what is the deal with him wanting to get rid of the paintings hanging on the wall in his rented room? Even early on his career, Hitchcock already displayed a talent in visual storytelling. Since the movie was done in silent, with only a few titles to narrate the story. So Hitch had to find a way to tell the story by visual means. To show that the landlady and her husband are feeling the lodger is pacing in his room, Hitch superimposed a footage of the lodger on a glass floor. A flashback is viewed from a puddle in a footprint. Recurring images like the sign that states "To-Night Golden Curls". The use of Christian symobolism (the crucifix-like shadow reflected on the lodger's face, the "crucifixion" near the end). The images in THE LODGER shows that even at this point in his career, and at the dawn of cinema itself, Hitchcock is a true master filmmaker and storyteller with pure talent. He's my favorite director and still one of the best and most quoted talent in the business.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The 39 Steps (1935)

An oldie, but always a goodie.

30 January 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

The great Alfred Hitchcock, who would later go on with grander projects with enough money to back him up, started with simpler, humbler efforts like this classic British spy thriller. It's obviously done in a low budget, with a feel to it that still embraces the silent era. But with Hitchcock's born talent, THE 39 STEPS is an unqualified success and still is one of the best in his career. Many might see it as a prototype for his later thrillers like SABOTEUR and the classic NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but having seen it, it deserves to be seen in its own right.

Robert Donat plays Richard Hannay, a typically pedestrian man who finds himself in a wave of conspiracy and murder when he meets and escorts a random woman (Lucie Mannheim) who is actually being pursued by enemy spies for a secret which she possesses. Now on the run himself, Hannay picks up a blonde stranger named Pamela (Madeline Caroll) and grows an affection for her while being pursued by enemy spies. There are a number of respectable (if dated) set-pieces here worthy of attention, and the funny and romantic leads may the journey worthwhile. The ending was great, especially when you realize that what all these characters, the good guys and the bad guys, are making such a fuss about doesn't even really matter to you. This is the birth of the classic Hitchcock trait; The MacGuffin.

THE 39 STEPS is a classic, and a worthy curio for you movie buffs out there.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saboteur (1942)

Not Hitchcock's best, but a fine thriller still. Great set-pieces.

30 January 2011

Rating: *** out of 4.

Alfred Hitchcock was not on the top of his game in SABOTEUR, an Americanized version of his own 39 STEPS, littered with propaganda elements; like his superb thriller THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, this Hitchcock thriller was used to promote awareness of "the enemy". But even if SABOTEUR won't be remembered as his best work, and one that certainly won't be outdo its own prototype, it's still a fine crackling good yarn that occasionally lulls but mostly interests.

Robert Cummings (who later would work again for Hitch in the arguably better DIAL M FOR MURDER) plays Barry Kane, an aircraft factory worker who is framed for setting the factory on fire, resulting the death of one of his own friends. Sadly, his friend and another fellow named Fry (Norman Lloyd), are the only witnesses, and one is dead and the other is on the run. Now, as any Hitchcock character would do, Kane runs out to find the true saboteur and along the way he picks up a blonde companion named Pat Martin (Pricilla Lane) who has no use but to trust him despite her doubts.

There are a number of bizarrely humorous moments in the film, particularly in a scene where Kane and Pat hitches a ride with a couple of circus freaks (!). This probably has a lot to do with the fact that author Dorothy Parker is a collaborator. A number of memorable set-pieces give the film edge and excitement; there's a second attempt at sabotage on a ship setting sale, a shootout in a theater (that mirrors the film itself), and the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty (a fight for liberty, perhaps?).

Overall, a pretty flawed but nonetheless engaging film.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dressed to Kill (1980)

De Palma's masterpiece of pure, unmatched visual storytelling.

30 January 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

Director Brian De Palma has made a career out of borrowing from the great master Alfred Hitchcock. In his earlier works, like SISTERS and OBSESSION, De Palma borrows to the point of nearly remaking some of Hitchcock's techniques and sequences; OBSESSION itself was a near-remake of the masterpiece VERTIGO. But if imitation is really the sincerest form of flattery, then this man and his movies are the finest example. As a Hitchcock fan (he's my favorite director), I must say I have grown a fondness for De Palma's works; that his movies almost reminds me too much of Hitch's own works is actually a plus. His 1980 slasher thriller DRESSED TO KILL took some heavy criticism upon release, aimed mostly at the fact that the film borrows from Hitch's masterpiece PSYCHO or that the movie's gory sequences seem to suggest violence toward women. But time has been kind to DRESSED TO KILL, and finally it is seen as the underrated masterpiece that it is.

Giving too much of the story away would be criminal, but just to give you the heads up, the story follows sexually-frustrated housewife Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson), who's married life is loosing its passion. During the opening sequence, we see her fantasizing about being raped in the shower while having a passionless "wham-bang" lovemaking with her husband. When its over, he pats her on the cheek as if to tell her she did a good job, leaving Kate wanting. Questioning her own sexual worth, she regularly sees her shrink Dr. Robert Elliot (Michael Caine). But the good doctor has problems of his own. A patient of his named Bobbi is on a murderous rampage using the doctor's own razor as the weapon of choice. Nancy Allen is back playing another hooker, but this time as one of those "heart of gold" types, named Liz Blake. In bit performances, Kieth Gordon plays Miller's nerdy but courageous son and Dennis Franz in one of those cop roles as the cantankerous Det. Marino.

DTK may have veered a little too close to PSYCHO, but according to the words of the great "New Wave" French director Jean-Luc Godard: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." And with regards to De Palma, he has used PSYCHO as the ground work for his skills at visual storytelling and mise-en-scene. Combine De Palma's superb skill at setting up shots and orchestrating set pieces, excellent cinematography by Ralf Bode (though frequent collaborator Vilmos Zsigmond would have done just as adequate a job), and a memorable score by Pino Donaggio (here at his finest; a score that Hitch himself would have been proud of) and the result, among other brilliant sequences, is the film's classic museum scene, a beautifully shot and mysterious sequence that might have been something out of VERTIGO and may not be too much a big deal to the story itself, but its pure cinema at its finest. It's just...amazing! There a number of set pieces that are just as outstanding, including the gruesome elevator scene that recalls the classic PSYCHO shower scene, but is a classic scene all its own.

Beautiful set-pieces, a haunting score, some fine acting, some biting moments of black humor (the PSYCHO-inspired psychological-babble is followed by a hilarious send-up of it) and sarcastic satire (the scene set in the subway, where a couple of black thugs harass Allen's character, are a clear critique on the racism of the day) and above all a talented director at its helm. What a classic! DRESSED TO KILL may be one of De Palma's finest works, and I'd argue that its certainly his signature work.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Fountain (2006)

10/10

You just have to see it again!

27 January 2011

Rating: **** out of 4.

Darren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN was such a disappointment on his part that, eventually, it's bound to inspire a few defenders who think differently from the not-too-impressed critics and audiences. You can include me there! I just saw THE FOUNTAIN a few days a go and thought it was great; a movie that may demand multiple viewings for it to sink through and you can count on it, I will see it again! One of the things Aronofsky wanted for THE FOUNTAIN, like its own main character, was for it to remain timeless. People might look at THE FOUNTAIN today and find it confusing, difficult, and rather odd, but art is sometimes like that. A work of art is not evaluated immediately; a true work of art stands the test of time and I think THE FOUNTAIN could prove itself to be a future classic. Right now, it's an immensely underrated but lovingly defended film for a more thoughtful and patient audience. It's certainly bigger, in scale and budget, that Aronofsky's earlier efforts, but it packs the same punch and is bound to find more audiences in the future as those films had.

The story unfolds in three separate time frames. Dr. Tom Creo (Hugh Jackman) is a scientist desperately finding a cure for the tumor that's slowly killing his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz), but too much time working sets him apart from his already dying spouse. Rewind a thousand or so years, and an almost similar tale unfolds with a conquistador (also played by Jackman) searching for the Tree of Life in a hidden Mayan temple for his Queen (also Weisz). Meanwhile, in the far future, a space traveler (Jackman--with a bald head) protects the Tree of Life concealed inside a space bubble, taking it to the Xibalba Nebula where, it is said, stars go to be reborn. So it's part historical epic, part sci-fi, and all love story, or at least a story about love and a quest to save it that spans across time.

Jackman and Weisz may not be the most compelling couple ever, but they make their characters work and we believe that there is love between these two. Ellen Burstyn provides some excellent support (this is her 2nd time working with Aronofsky, after REQUIEM FOR A DREAM). Clint Mansell's score is alluring, mysterious and at time simply beautiful. The stunning cinematography and the use of lighting all play a significant part in telling the story, something that's best saved for more discussions to come.

So if you haven't seen it yet, give this underrated masterpiece a shot. Never mind the critics on this one and judge it for yourself. You might be surprised at what you get here.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

A wonderful, daring if somewhat difficult piece of work.

27 January 2011

Rating: *** out of 4.

How do you depict smell in a movie? You certainly won't do any good telling the audience the fragrance of a perfume or the foul stench of a fish market if they can't sense it. This is the challenge bestowed upon director Tom Tykwer (RUN LOLA RUN) when he directed PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER which is, above all things, a story of a strange young man in search of the "perfect scent".

If some Hollywood director would have a hard time trying to provide us the feeling of intimacy between two lovers in a formula romantic comedy, how could any director possibly create the perfect scent and share it with the moviegoers. There's really no way that the audience can actually smell the scent, but through visual storytelling, Tykwer is able to create the "perfect scent", as well as other scents and blemishes, and almost get us closer to the real thing. How smelly is a dirty fish market? How sensual is the scent of a beautiful young woman? Tykwer, in place of making us smell the real things, deliver his message through the use of sight. The visuals almost give us an ideal depiction of just how alluring or repulsive are the smell of certain objects.

PERFUME is a quite a daring experiment, bound to garner praise and hatred by audience. Some will find Tykwer's vision bold and daring; others may find the movie repulsive and pretty hard to stomach. But you can put me on the former. PERFUME, whilst overlong and occasionally excessive, is a very outlandish vision. Sure, it's not a perfect film or a truly great film for that matter, but it's a bold move and an intriguing experience in filmmaking that it just begs to be seen, even if not everything you see would be easy to take. Performances by popular names as Alan Rickman and Dustin Hoffman (in an amusing performance) are great, but its Ben Whishaw's performance in the title murderer Jean Baptiste Grenouille that steals the show, eliciting sympathy for a rather unsympathetic role of a killer (making the film's mythic theme all the more effective).

Overall, If you can take it, it's an intriguing if bumpy ride.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Black Swan (2010)

10/10

Perfection

27 January 2011

Every time I see a film I absolutely love, it's hard for me to put into writing my show of affection. Oh sure, I could apply the usual words like "masterpiece" or "pure cinema" like I always do, but the more I get the opportunity to see movies like BLACK SWAN, it's pretty hard for me to apply all the usual praises ad naseum. You just got to talk about the unique visual style, the direction, the superb acting, the poetic imagery, the music, and everything else. BLACK SWAN is that kind of film; a film that I'm truly wild about. This is definitely one of the best of the year.

Darren Aronofsky has never been the formula guys; he's one of those directors that are always there to surprise us and restore our faith in a cinematic world where spoon-fed formula is always the order of the day. Films like PI, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, THE WRESTLER, and even the underrated THE FOUNTAIN are works of an artist to watch, and with BLACK SWAN, he has proved once again that he's a true filmmaker. After a more conventional but still outstanding work with THE WRESTLER, Aronofsky returns to the surreal style of his earlier films in this dark, beautiful, grotesque, and absolutely amazing work. Like what it said in some of the reviews, it's THE RED SHOES meets Polanski's REPULSION, with elements comparable to the works of Cronenberg, De Palma, Hitchcock, and even animator Satoshi Kon (whose 1998 anime PERFECT BLUE is numerously referenced here), but the film is still purely Aronosky's, with his trademark visual style and camera angles, as well as the resurfacing of themes in his earlier works; like the characters in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, Nina (Natalie Portman) slowly loses her grip with reality and her dreams as she becomes obsessed with "perfection" and slowly descends into madness. Like one of the best thrillers, Aronofsky understands the importance of visual clues; a manner of showing rather than telling (The endless use of mirrors, for example, imply a dual personality). Aronofsky also gives the film a more natural feel like his previous THE WRESTLER, which means it requires natural performances, and the actors deliver.

Natalie Portman deserves all the praises she got portraying Nina, a goody-two-shoes ballet dancer who gets the lead part of the White Swan in their company's audacious reimagining of Tchiakovsky's Swan Lake. But to be able to truly nail the role, she must also play the character's mysterious and looser alter-ego, The Black Swan. Mila Kunis plays Lily, Nina's understudy who may or may not be driving her crazy so that she could get the role. Vincent Cassell is terrific as the commanding artistic director Thomas Leroy, who tempts his young performers so that he can get the performance and grace he wants from them. Credits should also be given to bit role performances by Barbara Hershey as Nina's domineering mother who watches anxiously as her daughter lives the dream she left behind, and Winona Ryder as Nina's predecessor and professional ballet dancer Beth, distraught by getting replaced.

And as usual, I've applied all the usual praises to a film I know I loved WAY more. I just simply can't do justice to this superb masterpiece. It's just, well, perfect. The beautiful choreography of the ballet sequences (backed up by Clint Mansell's brilliant recapturing of Tchiakovsky's original compositions) are gorgeous to behold, as well as mysterious and dream-like. The movie also has the feel of a waking nightmare where the lines between what's real and what's a hallucination have been blurred out; we feel Nina's slow descent into madness as we see things as she sees them.

Is BLACK SWAN the best of the year? A bit of a stretch, but it's still unlike any movie I've seen all year.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mission: Impossible (1996)

An intelligent action movie; not the best but fun.

29 December 2010

Rating: ***1/2 out of 4.

Brian De Palma's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE gets such a bad rap from both critics and fans of the series of its injustice to the source and for how the story is such a complicated mess. Even the cast of the original TV series had a bone to pick with De Palma's revision of the classic. If so, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is best viewed not as the TV series revival but as a stand-alone movie, which it actually is pretty good.

While MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is far from De Palma's best works, and it is pretty mainstream from the usually independent director, but it does boast some of his signature styles. The split screens may be gone, but the use of long takes and Hitchcockian suspense sequences (the classic CIA vault break-in is something Hitchcock would have loved to see), as well as his love for Hitchcockian elements as double-crosses, espionage, plot twists, suspicious train rides, and seeing things that are not what they seem (actually, the last one was more De Palma than Hitchcock). In the end, while it is a Hollywood product, it's still very much De Palma.

Now, stepping away from my obvious affection for De Palma's style, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is quite a good action movie, even an uncommonly intelligent one. In fact, most of the action occurs momentarily and doesn't consume the storyline as it is often in Hollywood action movies. The film's terrific set-piece, a helicopter chase and a fight on top of a speeding train rolled into one, is saved for last. The plot takes full center in this one, which is about a an operation gone horribly wrong leaving IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) framed for the death of his teammates. The rest that follows will either be confusing to write down or would reveal some of the surprises that the story holds.

The cast is quite great, but their not given all that much to do given that the movie is basically plot-driven. There's no romance in this one either which gives the film a "no mushy business" directness but a lack of any human dimension, which is why the film's midsection is quite dull (until we reach the film's now-famous CIA break-in scene). And of Still, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is great fun.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rear Window (1954)

Still one of the best ever! Hitchcock in prime form.

29 December 2010

Rating: **** out of 4.

Hitchcock is really at the top of his game in the 1950's and REAR WINDOW might as well be his most successful. Here is a genuine Alfred Hitchcock movie sprinkled with suspense, humor, and romance unlike any movie of its time, and in fact, any movie today. While it's not as deep, dark and personal as his 1958 masterpiece VERTIGO, this is nonetheless his ultimate triumph in establishing his title; "The Master of Suspense". Has there ever been a more suspenseful moment in film history than the scene where one of our plucky characters brakes in on the suspect's apartment, while the suspect is just about to come home? Well, if there were, then it would have owed a debt of gratitude to this Hitchcock masterpiece.

The story revolves around L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart, in a role that's pretty much James Stewart in character), a photographer who gets wheelchair-ridden when he caught himself in an accident (Hitchcock did a much better job at telling you about Jeff's background in an early scene where the camera pans through his works and his camera, and eventually the last picture he ever took before the accident; a rear that was about the crash into him). Jeff, with nothing to do, basically does what every neighbor would do: look out the window and watch his neighbors' everyday lifestyle. Be it the ballerina, dubbed Ms. Torso (Georgine Darcy), or the hopeless romantic old lady, dubbed Ms. Lonelyhearts (Judith Evelyn), Jeff has seen 'em all, including a man named Lars Throwald (pre-PERRY MASON Raymond Burr) who one day stops talking to his demanding, invalid wife in the bedroom and starts cleaning up what seemed to be blood stains in the bathroom. Did Jeff see a murder happening just right across the block, or was it just a case of a Peeping Tom having delusions? Hitchcock occasionally puts aside this story and explores what many see as the core of the film: The romance. Jeff and his relationship to his high-class but spunky and stubborn socialite girlfriend Lisa Freemont (the irreplaceable Grace Kelly in her irreplaceable role) is one of the reasons why REAR WINDOW is one of the best. In fact, Hitchcock himself knew the importance of the love story in the movie, that he made sure that the whole plot revolved around it. The neighbors around Jeff's apartment, from Ms Lonelyhearts to Ms. Torso and a couple of newlyweds next door all suggest what might happen to Jeff and Lisa as time went on with their relationship. The Thorwalds represent the darker side of their relationship: the possibility that they would hate each other as an old married couple.

This along with a dozen more elements (performances, music, atmosphere, direction, EVERYTHING) make REAR WINDOW the quintessential Alfred Hitchcock movie. It's funny, it's romantic, it's clever, and it's suspenseful as hell. That last act had me by the neck and it would never let go. Now that's suspense!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sisters (1972)

Early De Palma film; not his best but stylish and entertaining.

29 December 2010

Rating: ***1/2 out of 4.

SISTERS isn't Brian De Palma's first film, but it might as well be called that because this is the first film where we got acquainted with his real tastes and his all-time admiration to the works of Alfred Hitchcock. It also introduced us to his love for split-screen techniques, long takes, over-the-top and dark humor, and violence. Although this is a lower-budget film than his later efforts, SISTERS shows what De Palma is truly capable of as a stylish visual storyteller. It's not his best work, but it's quality De Palma.

The story is a bit strange, rather implausible, but in the end it doesn't matter. Some of De Palma's Hitchcockian thrillers are usually divorced from reality anyway, and rely solely on his skills as an excellent director and storyteller to grab the audience. It works, albeit not for everyone, which is why De Palma gets such a bad rap. While it's true that his later works were either works of a hired hand (his later films were Hollywood blockbusters) or works of someone who further alienates himself from his critics (FEMME FATALE is a quintessential De Palma film, suffice to say critics hated it), De Palma remains a natural born filmmaker who still believes in the real role of a director in a film, which is why most of his movies are "Director's movies".

SISTERS has this quality, especially the visual style which is just impressive. The use of split-screen is rather primitive here (it would be put to greater use later), but De Palma is already getting the hang of the technique and knowing what to do with it. The scene where it is used, two suspects trying to cover up for a fresh murder before the police arrive, is captured perfectly as two separate events simultaneously occurring. The humor too is there. In the opening scenes, De Palma sends up the era's racial discrimination by having a black contestant in a game show receiving a free dining pass to the "African Room." It's little sequences like these that De Palma would use in later films. There's also, of course, the set-piece murder scene sprinkled with some semi-sadistic black humor amongst the carnage.

Above all, the standout of theme of SISTERS is what De Palma would keep on using in his later films: The study of characters as voyeurs. There's also the use of the plot about voyeurism here since most of the characters are always looking, sometimes at things they are not meant to see. He even shamelessly borrows from Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW in one sequence, and successfully repeats Hitchcock's way of manipulation to keep audiences' palms sweating. There are a lot of Hitchcock allusions here (of course). Basically, the plot is PSYCHO by way of REAR WINDOW, with the use of doubles (another recurring De Palma motif) as in VERTIGO. The great Bernard Herrmann provides an odd yet superb score, sort of a medley of his VERTIGO and PSYCHO score and some of the cues from his THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL score.

Overall, fans of De Palma will love this and I doubt that they haven't seen this gem. Despite the low budget and the occasionally dated moments, SISTERS is a great Hitchcockian thriller in pure De Palma fashion. I've only been into De Palma's works recently and already I'm hooked.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Exorcist (1973)

Still one of the best horror movies ever.

29 December 2010

Rating: **** out of 4.

THE EXORCIST is still one of the best horror movies ever made, not because it's still "The Scariest Movie Ever" made as its now famous tagline suggests, but because it expresses the horror not present in most genre efforts today. Horror nowadays is misinterpreted as mere shock and scares, but some of the best horror movies out there are really about far greater horrors: The horrors of life, be it guilt, grief, or the simple study of fear.

Despite the film's success, its director William Friedkin felt that the movie was misunderstood because he didn't really intend the movie to be an outright horror outing. He wanted to make a movie about faith; about the belief not just in God and The Devil but in what good and evil really is. Today, more open-minded moviegoers will look at the film as much more than a scare show or as a movie that turned pea soup into the most disgusting and horrifying special effect ever. Many will audiences will focus more on the story of its lead characters than its roller-coaster ride of gruesome special effects (although that was one of the reasons why the movie was memorable). The story of Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn, in an exceptional performance) in trying to restore her faith when her daughter Regan (Linda Blair, in the role that made her a star) goes out of the ordinary in her behaviour. Doctors throw in their theories of mental illness while a priest named Damien Karras (Jason Miller) believes that the Devil is within her.

This is an even more intriguing film about the battle between good and evil and about faith in both than it is an outright horror movie. The performances are terrific, especially by Max von Sydow who only appears briefly on screen but is able to show his importance to the story. The creepy voice provided by Mercedes McCambridge (which was probably the one that got the Oscar's attention, but in the end actress Linda Blair got the nomination for her "physical" performance of Regan) is memorable. Even some the film's shock effects have more potent power than the usual shock-for-shock-sakes moments in most recent horror movies. Now THIS is how horror movies are done.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Theothervip

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed