Change Your Image
hfkraken
Reviews
Prometheus (2012)
A Ridley Scott film, no more no less...
One element that keeps coming out in reviews throughout the world is that "the character of Noomie Rapace is the only fully developed character and everybody else is a cardboard cut-out", or words to that effect. In true form, this is correct, but it's not that simple. Noomie is the main character in a way that no other "person" even coming close (stiff competition would be from Michael Fassbender's David, with emphasis on stiff and "person"). Ridley Scott sure knows what to do with an Android and he makes a non-living entity into a compelling character in this film. Again.
One the one hand, it helps the story that certain characters remain mysterious throughout (Vickers and David especially) and the story doesn't suffer much by the lack of depth in other characters. Here's why: after spending over 2 years in hyper sleep, this group of technicians, pilots, medical staff, etc. are greeted by a very cold and aloof Vickers who tells them what they're there for. They have a mission, and chatting and fraternising isn't part of the plan. Not all members share her muted enthusiasm though and some are more vocal and sarcastic about their mission. There are "relationships" which were there before the story picks up (the captain of the ship and his navigators; Elizabeth and Charlie) or developed through the story (Elizabeth and David), but in the time constrains of a film like this in which pacing is crucial (it's already 2 hours long), dragging down the plot with chatter about minor characters' origins and intentions would muddle the story unnecessarily. Believe me, you won't be left wondering about their character arcs with everything else going on.
Elizabeth Shaw is with us pretty much from the get-go, and while everybody else seems to have an agenda in this story, she's the one who takes us by the hand and shares our excitement, confusion, bewilderment, shock and horror. One thing I really liked about the film in this character is that she's a believing Christian who has her faith tested, but she chooses to maintain her faith when events and persons around her start questioning it. She soldiers on until the end, knowing that the very fact that their mission took them to that planet was, itself, an act of faith. Unlike some Hollywood tripe out there (like "Paul"), this film doesn't trample on the faith of a believing Christian like the character Shaw is, and neither does it "pimp for Jesus". it's just a character trait that is fundamental in understanding the motivations that drove this person through the story.
What do I mean by the Ridley Scott film no more no less? I'm thinking about his other masterpieces, Alien and Bladerunner (curiously - or not - also sci-fi films). Any other director would probably put too much drama in the dialogue, perhaps a lot more explaining about the engineers and their intentions, their origins, etc. But if Scott knows one thing, it's what works in science-fiction: the secret is not explaining everything. I like that I watched this film and was amazed, not only at the sublime visuals, but also at the possibilities, all the threads that he left hanging. That, for me, is what separates a great film from a Michael Bay film. It keeps your mind churning long after the credits have rolled. People still argue today on whether Deckard was a Replicant or not and that's a good sign for me. It's not a film I'm likely to forget.
When the film ends, your mind is aching with the possible story arcs it offers: the planet of the Engineers, the other planets where the Engineers have staged these bio-engineering facilities, what else would we find in the other ships on the same planet, what are we to the Engineers, with what intent do they create these species (to populate planets, to exterminate life on planets or something else). I didn't miss the xenomorphs, so there's no point to bitch about that. It would be like spending too much time studying the ants in a savanna when there are other things out there!
No, it isn't in any way a prequel to Alien, although it inhabits the same cognitive universe of the other films: LV designated planets, the Engineers (formerly known as the Space Jockeys), the C shaped ships of the Engineers, cargo holds filled with thousands of cannisters or eggs, the control room with intricate and utterly alien devices, the impending threat to Mankind, scheming androids, creatures with acid-for-blood, etc. It sets things in a way that you could "kinda" see how the xenomorphs came about, but it has the good taste of not going down that rotten path.
One thing I found a bit annoying was the irrationality of certain decisions and stupidity of a few lines of dialogue (the 2 first victims come to mind). Also, if the planet didn't have an oxygen based atmosphere, how could that flamer thing work? And why was the atmosphere inside the ship breathable, when clearly the Engineers had no need for it - actually, this is one of those questions I don't mind not having an answer to.
This is the beginning of something new and we can only hope it stays out of the hands Jeunet, Krause bros. or Paul Anderson for many years to come, thank you very much. Maybe James Cameron could make something interesting out of this if he could get his head out of Pandora, 'cause that film was horrible story wise. We don't need more "Dances with Wolves" meets "the Smurfs" in space.
They Live (1988)
Hollywood, Hollywood...
Yes, this is one of my favourite Carpenter films. I really like the story, even for its simplicity and unexplored arcs. I love its cheesiness, its in-your-face posture, tongue-in-cheek immaturity. I love the characters, paper-thin and two dimensional as they come. But it's a classic, an 80's gem. It's a film that brings entertainment in spades and this is what makes me watch films.
As for political and social commentary, there's a lot to say about that. But once again Hollywood is not the honest player. This came out in an era when America was doing quite well, economically and militarily. Hollywood pretends to serve revolution, but instead serves us "Revolution(TM)". The film is largely a class struggle metaphor, taking the inhumanity of the rich to the extreme that they are actually not human. This in an era during which there was more political stability than the US has known in quite a few years. But if this was an attempt at moral and cultural outrage... I just wish they would show their indignation without resorting to the corporate products. Seriously, "consume", "this is your god", "sleep", these ARE boilerplate Hollywood rhetorical at its core. Corporations using the products of corporations to attack corporations? Beware of consumerism? Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it. Quite the rebels you guys are! I wonder if the producers really aimed at that level of "social commentary".
It's a sickening cliché when films depict corporations as "evil": Weyland-Yutani, Tyrrel Corp, Umbrella, UAC, etc. Their purpose is to play gods and enslave mankind... I thought corporations depended on a good service to be profitable, so they can survive and not "Oh my god, the corporations are coming, run for the hills!" If anybody wants to protest against the corporate world, please don't do it writing on your PC or Apple Mac, while sitting in a Starbucks sipping a latte, and sending your posts through AT&T lines, onto YouTube or Google Servers, using Hitachi hard drives... the moral outrage gets lost somewhere along the corporate chain, don't you think?
So, if like me you enjoyed this film, it's probably because you didn't take it very seriously. The kind of film that elicits this reaction from people: "Wow, that was great fun! OK, what are we having for dinner?"
The Final (2010)
Promises, promises
I had high hopes for this film, and that's saying a lot for a "b" film. I saw the trailer, read a few reviews and thought "I just have to see this". I was a geeky guy at school and although I was never humiliated and systematically attacked like the main actors, I had some sort of empathy for them. I mean, this is presented as "getting even", a "payback" story about high school humiliation.
The first act was OK. It set the movie premise, it makes you empathise with the "geeks" and hate the "jocks", the "jackasses" and the "midriffs". So far so good. There was a terrific build up of tension between both groups. Things get sinister when you look at the geek's individual lives and their obvious commitment to violence. But I was enjoying it because the "bad guys" were depicted as so irredeemably evil, that no compromise was possible.
The script is not brilliant by any measure: the bad guys are pretty much paper-thin school bully stereotypes, one dimensional and as clichéd as possible. The geeks are also see-through predictable, little more than real-life "Kennys" or meat-piñatas. But the direction was still holding it together. Somehow. Somewhat.
And then, disaster struck. On second thought, consequence struck. Because that was bound to happen with this script. It broke an "omelette to make a few eggs". I was looking forward to the second act, where all the tension built up previously demanded something drastic. But it just fizzed out like a balloon.
To begin with, the setting. We see the geeks preparing things, we know they thought and prepared things maybe for months and the execution is so lame, so "you gotta be kidding me" stupid.
After the black guy escapes (why would they leave the front door unlocked in the first place) through the really "WTF" ineptitude of his captors, we see him being chased down the forest by 3 geeks on ATVs... problem is, we had just seen one of those geeks being KILLED (the clown geek). I thought "OK, maybe it's just a continuity problem, what the heck"... wish it were! The guy somehow escapes as his captors seem to have lost interest in him (hey if you can think of a better explanation, let me know!).
In the meantime, things go from bad to worse. Back in the house, the plot completely breaks down. Any hope I had for catharses is dashed by an idiotic script, stupefying dialogue... what a mess! Still I persevered. I should give myself a couple of stars for it.
The revenge the geeks visit on the jocks is not gory, dare I say it not voyeurisitc. Torture porn this is not, perhaps the only saving grace about it. But it's cruel. The payback wears really thin on you, too soon, too short. I kept thinking "OK, they got the point". It's the kind of cruelty that becomes self destructive, that you would expect from the average middle Eastern dictator.
But the clincher was the final act; how many guys were dressed as Nazis again? Was it only one? If so, why was that guy killed and a minute later we see him again back at the house without any pretence for continuity? And the way the killers are finally put down? Insulting doesn't even begin to describe it.
The director just slept his way through 2 thirds of this vacuum of a film. If only he would have taken his thumb out of his butt. People should be payed to watch this, not pay to suffer it. It had a great premise of morality, revenge and storybuilding but it was just a mess. Even a corpse would do a better job.
It's not even "Z film" quality, or "so bad that it is good" fare. It's just that bad, pathetic, incompetently executed and excruciatingly insulting to watch. Debbie Schlussel would rate this with "4 bin Ladens".
Avoid it like the plague.
Rachel Getting Married (2008)
What were they thinking?
Somebody else has mentioned calling a spade a spade. I second that, but seconding someone else's opinion is not review material.
Where to begin? What drew me to this film was Anne Hathaway, one of my favourite actresses out there and one which does not have a questionable reputation among movie geeks, but one of dramatic depth and sobriety. But what was she thinking? Probably what everybody else was: this is a Jonathan Demme film and that alone is a credential. I'll be adding this guy to my "hit list" in the future: the directors whose work I will no longer take for granted!
The movie is really a character study when it comes down to it as you go deeper than what you'd like to (and would be tasteful) with this troubled family's life. In fact the plot is so basic than it could have been taken wholesale out of a porno film, but for the "pee pee parts": a family comes together for a wedding and one of the siblings has a troubled drug addiction history. There! Now what in that "plot" gives this thing a licence to stretch into this no - light - at - the - end - of - the - tunnel - pointless - waste - of - nearly - two - hours - of - your - life - camera - jiggling debacle? If there was an excuse (and there isn't), it really would be the character study element of it. Problem is there really aren't any likable characters here, except perhaps for the groom. The poor guy seems to have parachuted into this charade. Not that his performance is bad, but because everybody else seems to have come out of a "please hate me the most" contest. The film therefore fails completely to connect with the audience.
Actually the whole groom's family is likable, but I suspect that it's because they were not as fleshed out in the script and appear more two-dimensional than "Rachel's" family. Given time and a chance, I'm sure the writer would have ruined their roles as well! I therefore give this film one star for trying!
I've rarely, if ever, seen a movie that struggles so hard to run the full spectrum of the Politically Correct gamut. The whole thing seems like a "who's who" of liberal clichés:
"Asian" styled wedding - check
the troubled pot-head out of rehab - check
the tragedy in the family - check
the divorced parents - check
Wow! I bet they are so proud for this celebration of "diversity", albeit a diversity that accepts anything but a more conservative family life. What a multicultural nullity this is.
Anne's character seems too eager to overplay her victim mentality on others. A more appropriate title would be "Kym goes to her sister's wedding". Sheesh, even her "sister (Rachel)" points that out during the film; they actually landed on a very important issue there, but then (like pretty much everything else in this film) dropped the ball and didn't develop it any further. On second thought, thank God for that!
But most annoying of all is that stupid shaking camera and the extreme close-ups. Argh! That kind of cheap directional stunt may work in the likes of "the Office", which is meant to be a "mockumentary" anyway, but in here it's just distracting, infantile and utterly pointless. The directing was the proverbial "hammer that treats every problem like a nail". A mediocre (non-)effort!
Entirely forgettable!
Miral (2010)
ahem...
This is this generation's "Jud Süß", hammered together for this side of History. For those of you who understand what that is, you probably feel disgusted at why I gave this thing 1 star. It deserves none but alas, that's the way the scale works around here. I have watched and quite enjoyed "the diving bell and the Butterfly" and found it deep, meaningful, sobering and a well put together effort from a director I had never heard about. It was one of those films that was recommended to me because it had "that guy from 'Munich'"... or so I was told.
But I digress.
This is the kind of thing that can really ruin a movie experience to me. A film that tries so hard to send out a message of a real World conflict, described with such inanity, ineptitude and so completely divorced from the reality it purports to represent... reminds me of "Kingdom of Heaven".
If you are looking for an honest look at the Middle Eastern conflict, please look elsewhere. This film will do you a disservice. And the irony that it came out on the very same day that that the Fogel family "made" (local) headlines just adds insult to injury! Pun intended!