Change Your Image
andrewlapointe
Reviews
The Brave One (2007)
Jodie Foster saves The Brave One
If it weren't for Jodie Foster, The Brave One, the new film by Neil Jordan (The Crying Game) probably wouldn't have worked as well. Foster plays a talk radio host whose boyfriend (Naveen Andrews) is beaten to death in Central Park by some hoods. After trying to move on with her life, she feels unable to walk the streets until she buys a gun illegally, which leads her to become a female Charles Bronson. A police detective (played very well by Terrence Howard) befriends her and senses it is her behind all the recent shootings of city scumbags.
As you can tell this is nothing new at all, but the saving grace here is Foster's Oscar worthy performance. No matter what film she's in, she's always credible, even if it's a role that's been played over and over (see Sally Field in 1996's Eye For An Eye.) Foster is able to sell the idea that this vulnerable and traumatized woman does have the will power and desire to pick up a gun and kill people. She doesn't trivialize the part at all. In addition, her scenes with Howard are well written and the two actors (one a veteran, the other a rising star) display some good chemistry.
Neil Jordan's direction is sometimes overwrought (an emergency surgery scene inter-cut with love making between Foster and her fiancé is downright silly.) But for the most part it's a visually striking movie with some punchy editing. Another weakness is the almost laughable and too-convenient ending which isn't consistent with the rest of the film.
"The Brave One" isn't a great film but as somewhat of a retread of the Death Wish scenario it has enough effective moments and a better and more believable performance than the material probably deserves.
Halloween (2007)
Rob Zombie's Halloween
Rob Zombie's remake of the classic Halloween has gusto going for it, but it fails in the end due to it's over excess and in-your-face messiness. This style worked very well in The Devil's Rejects but in a remake of a movie that was about subtlety and build up it doesn't work at all.
Zombie also tries to humanize it's monster but does so in such a predictable way that it doesn't add to the horror in a good way. In the original we knew nothing at all about Michael Myers except that he was a quiet psychopath who's only purpose was to kill. His attempts to make him a bullied, neglected kid comes across like a brutal R rated version of an After School Special.
That lack of development the old Michael Myers had made him more mysterious and scary. His family in this movie is made up of foul mouthed, mean spirited white trash who are hard to care about. In fact all the characters are over baked and shrill. Malcolm McDowell (a great actor) plays the role of Dr. Loomis (played with restraint by Donald Pleasance in the original.) McDowell's portrayal is over the top and scene chewing, which I guess is appropriate in this style of a remake but I wonder if he was playing him with the idea of making the character a parody of itself.
Also when we get around to the three young girls, including the Jamie Lee Curtis character of Laurie Strode (played exceptionally here by Scout Taylor Compton) they are underdeveloped and not very likable. They are merely just meat put on screen so that they can be slaughtered in the next scene.
The good points Zombie gets here are for the soundtrack (featuring the ominous John Carpenter score and some 70s classic rock, which Zombie utilized well in The Devil's Rejects.) There are also welcomed cameos by veteran B-actors such as Sid Haig, Dee Wallace, Danny Trejo, Ken Foree, etc.
In the end, Rob Zombie's Halloween is too obvious, rushed, lacking in build up and it's sensationalistic. Hopefully he returns to original material for his next movie because he's much better off with that route.
** out of ****
Grindhouse (2007)
Grindhouse is a damn good time, despite it's flaws
Grindhouse is a real pet project for directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. A throwback to the days of no holds barred, violent, harried exploitation films that played in rundown movie houses, Grindhouse proves to be a very fun and enthralling time at the movies. However, recreating and living up to the classic look and feel of the grindhouse movies of the heyday proves to the biggest challenge for the duo of filmmakers.
The film begins with Rodriguez at the wheel. His trailer for "Machete" is mad fun. Danny Trejo and Jeff Fahey as good guy and bad guy respectively complete with gunfire, bare breasts and Cheech Marin as a gun toting Priest make for a great faux trailer. However, the fact that it's too good and too slick takes it away from the grindhouse aesthetic. Later in the evening, you'll see more trailers: Edgar Wright's "Don't!" a 70s style British scare film, Rob Zombie's "Werewolf Women of the SS" complete with S&M Nazis and Nicholas Cage making a cameo as Fu Manchu. Also, you get Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" a bloody slasher film covering the holiday that the genre previously missed. All the trailers are amusing, but Edgar Wright's and Eli Roth's come off as the most authentic and faithful to the grindhouse style of the 1970's.
The first feature is Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" a fairly standard zombie splatter fest that benefits with good casting and the feisty sexiness of Rose McGowan. The film is too big in scale to be truly grindhouse, but it's never boring and the gore effects prove to be quite creative.
The second film is Tarantino's "Death Proof" which takes the fast car stylings of "Vanishing Point" and "Dirty Mary Crazy Larry" and puts it into the structure of a slasher film. The problem with this film is that Tarantino is so focused on his masterful dialog and tongue in cheek references that he seems to be forgetting that it's supposed to be a grindhouse outing. "Death Proof" has grindhouse ingredients (sexy girls, a retro 70s production design and soundtrack. Even the opening credits are a real hoot.) But it's beautiful widescreen photography and big scope brings it out of it's small inspiration. Grindhouse films were cheap, small, had no movie stars. Both "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" take the grindhouse spirit in great stride, but amplify it to the Hollywood level. This creates a great conflict. Both films are too big and too elaborate to fit in the true grindhouse aesthetic.
But then again, does that really matter? What really matters is that "Grindhouse" is damn bloody wickedness. Both movies have moments that are shocking and transgressive. "Death Proof" has an extended car chase that is the most harrowing I've seen in years. The blood and titillation flow with great shameless glee. It's a rare treat to see two very talented filmmakers go nuts at the movie factory with a devil may care attitude. In the days of overpriced nights at the movies, "Grindhouse" is a cinematic kick in the crotch. Two movies that, despite flaws, are engaging, sexy, unapologetic, sometimes jaw dropping but never dull.
Il cittadino si ribella (1974)
re: Enzo G. Castellari-The Italian Master!
"Street Law" (1974) is one of Italian genre director Enzo G. Castellari's many crime thrillers. Italian superstar Franco Nero plays an ordinary citizen who is temporarily taken hostage and beaten by a group of sadistic bank robbers. He tells his story to the police who blow him off after accusing him of being reckless in fighting back with such dangerous criminals. Good old Nero decides to take the law into his own hands and stage a war with the thugs, against the wishes of his girlfriend (Barbara "Mrs. Ringo Starr" Bach) Director Castellari is credited as being one of the pioneers of the crime/police thriller genre in Italy. He proves to be ingenious in his simple mastery of action sequence staging. His use of Peckinpah-style slow mo is also damn exciting. The editing and cinematography are also very striking! Another plus is the catchy rock score by Guido and Maurizio De Angelis that adds real punch to the great opening credit sequence.
"Street Law" isn't exactly a stand-out or a distinctive piece of cinema in the endless array of action movies from around the world, but Castellari sure as hell is!
Elizabethtown (2005)
re: Elizabethtown succeeds greatly in spite of flaws
Cameron Crowe's new film "Elizabethtown" is another personal story--but this time instead of rock journalism and an ode to 70s rock, it's an ode to his late father and his experiences traveling to Kentucky to lay him to rest. Recent reviews of this movie have mostly been negative, if not downright nasty, which was a letdown since this movie is sincere, sweet, funny and inspired. The fact that it may be lacking or underdeveloped in spots (as some critics have complained) doesn't taint the movie in any major way.
I went to see this film after seeing the remake of "The Fog" (which, needless to say, was terrible)and it provided a perfect contrast between a movie that's void of any imagination, inspiration, daring or vision and a movie that at least takes chances and tries in an honest manner even though it disappointed several people.
It didn't disappoint me at all. In fact, this is a very strong film. It's unapologetic in it's personal storytelling and sentiments. I really do not like romantic comedies or "soft movies" but Crowe takes those tired and touchy feely conventions and adds an inventive sense of storytelling.
It's about a "shoemaker" named Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom) who designs an allegedly innovative shoe which tanks on the market, gets recalled, and costs his company millions of dollars. His philosophical boss (Alec Baldwin) doesn't directly fire him, but instead shames him by walking him through the office building speechifying about how this loss is beyond astronomical.
Above that failure, his girlfriend (Jessica Biel) dumps him, which leaves him to throw all of his possessions out of his apartment for people to walk off with so he can come up with a very creative way to commit suicide. He gets interrupted by a call from his sister (Judy Greer) who informs him that their dad has died of a heart attack. Another letdown: the body is miles away in Kentucky where he will have to fly to retrieve the body and prepare for the funeral. He will also have to get acquainted with his father's side of the family: southern hospitable folks who hold his father high as some sort of local saint.
On his flight, he meets Claire Colburn (Kirsten Dunst) a bubbly flight attendant who talks his ear off during his red eye flight. She leaves him her phone number along with a painstakingly detailed list of directions to his destination. Of course, this leads to the movie's romance, which avoids clichés with Crowe's brilliant dialogue.
"Elizabethtown" has so much whimsy and freewheeling moments in the screenplay that I think it annoyed most critics. The original cut of the film, which played in the festival circuit, was overlong and apparently had a tacked on ending. It was reedited and some felt it had improved, but it still received venom from a lot of reviewers.
The truth is, it's not deserving of such harsh criticism. It's not without flaws (what movies aren't?) but it's so earnest and Crowe is so committed and in love with the material, that it works. The performances are exceptional (although Kirsten Dunst's southern accent is weak and inconsistent, and her character needed more basketry and development.) But the direction is nicely executed, the humor is all there and the story unfolds neatly. What struck me as a nice standout was the editing (the final road trip that Orlando Bloom's character takes has nice editorial touches containing great cultural nuggets along with great music cues that are unpredictable and entertaining.)
Crowe's "Almost Famous" is a modern masterpiece, his follow-up a year later, "Vanilla Sky" was good but nothing as excellent as the former. Now "Elizabethtown" is an entry in his canon that achieves what most fans of his will expect and enjoy. Unfortunately, it's not invulnerable to cynicism, which is something that this film speaks against. Dunst's character philosophizes about failure and how it doesn't kill you but can make you stronger by putting it into perspective. Hopefully, it won't kill Cameron Crowe's unique need to tell his stories in a free spirited way that's audacious.
Wedding Crashers (2005)
Promising then weak
Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson are two very talented and skilled comic actors. Everyone should obviously know this when walking into see "Wedding Crashers". Yet, this movie proves that great actors can make weak movies despite their greatest efforts. The actors try extremely hard and generate a few good laughs, but the screenplay is the biggest problem here.
The concept of two sly men crashing weddings in order to seduce women is funny and worthy material for a feature film. Unfortunately, after a promising setup with Vaughn's trademark deadpan demeanor and Wilson's dependable and likable presence, the script fails them fatally. After the first half of this overlong comedy, we're set into a predictable and tired story of the two crashers arriving at the wedding of a women who is the daughter of the U.S. Treasury Secretary (Christopher Walken) They walk into the wedding sure of themselves, spouting off rules of wedding crashing to each other, and posing as very distant relatives in order to schmooze with the bridesmaids.
Wilson's character meets and quickly falls for Claire (Rachel McAdams) a sweet and smart sister-of-the-bride who is unfortunately dating a total jerk off who only serves the movie as a contrived plot point and an obviously forced obstacle to Wilson getting to her. Vaughn meanwhile meets and immediately has sex with her sister, a naive nymphomaniac who devotes herself completely to him.
The girls invite the two "gentlemen" over to their family's gigantic mansion for a weekend visit proceeding the wedding reception. The bulk of the movie takes place during this crazy weekend (which seems to last forever) where we have the awkward dinner scene, the cute bike ride in the country montage, terrible attempts at sex scenes, gay jokes, potty mouth granny jokes and the like. We even have the make-the-bad-guy-sick-to-his-stomach-by-spiking-his-wine bit.
The movie goes on for about two hours and within the time frame tries too hard to deliver laughs through lazy screen writing and old, corny romantic comedy formulas. Vaughn's performance is pitch perfect. Wilson carries himself very well. McAdams is wonderful and appealing. However, Walken is given such an underwritten and unfunny role that it's a real disappointment.
We do get some real laughs, not because they are well written bits, but because the actors deliver them hilariously. Will Ferrell makes an extended cameo towards the end of the film and it should be a saving grace, but ends up being something that should have dominated the film. It's the funniest thing in the movie, but you have to wait about an hour and forty five minutes for it. More focus is put onto the real lousy jokes, but the golden parts are few and far between.
"Wedding Crashers" is full of real talent we've come to depend on. Vaughn and Wilson make a terrific duo, but their clout as excellent actors is no excuse to saddle them with a lame and inconsistent screenplay.
Land of the Dead (2005)
Re: Here's why it's a masterpiece
A lot of people were obviously disappointed with this movie, but I feel it comes pretty close to being the best DEAD movie and it does rank as a masterpiece in my book. Here are the reasons why: First of all, out of the four films George A. Romero has made in this series, LAND is the most visually beautiful and realized. The opening shot is one *f*ing great opening shot! The editing is top notch and Romero's direction is not only efficient as far as the action material goes, but the characters and zombie development work extremely well. Instead of just action scenes put together, a real story is being told quite wonderfully here.
Yes, many have complained over the character development. But I feel there was plenty of it (for a 93 minute film.) Romero's genius lies in making all of his characters empathetic (even the villains and zombies). Simon Baker (who plays the hero, Riley) is responsible and conscientious. John Leguizamo's character Cholo is the opposite. Yet we know and understand both their motivations. Dennis Hopper's villain is a greedy and backstabbing power holder, yet he's presented in way that his motivations make his actions understandable. He's not really the cartoon character we expect. That's enough character development in my mind.
I think fans of Romero's work have come to expect two hour, patiently paced films from him. The first DEAD films were as such, and LAND is indifferent in the sense that it is a summer season movie with a fast pace. That's not a bad thing, in fact, it's excellent. Yes, it's more action oriented and speedier than the previous films, but it does hammer in great social satire, observations on capitalism, and great symbolism (notice the close up shot of the bird in the cage inside the lobby of Fiddler's Green?) Romero packages his signature intelligent satire into a rollicking hour and a half summer movie. Any director who can do that is amazing. I think the biggest challenge here is making a smart movie with great things to say to the audience within a 93 min. action movie structure. The earlier DEAD movies had 2 hours or more and a slower pace and that's not a bad thing, but this one is more immediate and quick and says so much about greed, social class, human nature, and violence within a short time that it's impressive.
There are two levels in this film, the eye candy (the gore, the action) and the subtext, and they're both put together tightly without pretense.
Finally, I found this film to be the most exciting entry in the series. Not a minute is wasted, no character or plot point is gratuitous, and everything that is promised is delivered. I simply refuse to nitpick on anything in the film. If you wanna see how a very smart and thoughtful gore fest/action pic is made within the confines of a short running time, look here.