Change Your Image
alex703
Reviews
Indie Game: The Movie (2012)
Interesting and Awkward Documentary
First of all, I would like to say that this movie is a fascinating look into the lives of people who are putting everything on the line for the purpose of developing a game, and it gives due respect to a craft that really gets none from the average person. "Indie Game" displays the passion that these developers have - on more than one occasion, more than one of them contemplates suicide, with Phil Fish coming off as particularly passionate and psychotic.
One problem that I have, though, is that the movie follows three games to begin with: "Super Meat Boy" (Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes), "Fez" (Phil Fish ), and "Braid" (Jonathan Blow), but since "Braid" had already been released, it is basically dropped from the second half of the movie as it focuses more on the deadline pressures of the other two games. Having recently read a fascinating interview with Jonathan Blow, the themes and tropes in this games are incredibly interesting, and the movie makes no effort to discuss them in anyway (though, funnily, it does display his frustration at the fact that nobody understood "Braid" upon release). Mr. Blow also has an interesting take on the video game industry, and I would have liked to see his, as well as the other developers' opinions on it, further than "Call of Duty sucks".
Still a good movie that video-game lovers will eat up and that non-video game fans should watch to get a little insight into how games are made, the pressures that are felt, etc.
The Road (2009)
Frustratingly Close to Great
John Hillcoat's The Road, adapted from a novel by Cormac McCarthy is a gritty survival tale that chronicles the journey of a father and son traveling south (the purpose is unclear) in a world where there are few humans left and most of them are "bad guys". This setting leads to many dramatic encounters but also allows the relationship between the two to evolve.
The way that this story is told is one of the most fascinating parts of the film. The viewer is not told what caused this to happen, what the world was like before it happened, or what the main character's lives were like before they happened. From a series of flashbacks, we ascertain that Viggo Mortensen (whose character's name is never given) was VERY happy with his wife (Charlize Theron), as displayed by the rich colors and close up shots that contrast so well with the endless landscapes of gray that dominate the rest of the film, and that their son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) was born after the "apocalypse" happened. These flashbacks work well to give the viewer a bit of context, but do not reveal too much, and end relatively early on.
In the "present" timeline, Hillcoat does a fantastic job of alternating between the bonding between father and son and genuinely thrilling chase scenes where their lives are threatened. The main symbol here is fire, representing the spirit to go on living and shown almost every time Mortensen and Smit-McPhee are together. The point was belabored a bit too much in the dialogue, overstating a meaning that was already apparent, but it was not too bothersome. Slightly more bothersome, however, was the narration occasionally used throughout the film by Mortensen, which told the viewer everything he already could perceive and gave a slightly forced sentimental edge to a movie that did not need it. On the positive side, the numerous wide-angle and overhead shots gave the viewer the idea that it was just these two, father and son, together against a vast and uncompromising world.
As the movie continues, the dynamic between them continues to develop. Mortensen is teaching his son the harsh realities of this world that spares no one, but is he losing his compassion and humanity along the way? Early on, he assures Smit-McPhee that they are and will always be the "good guys", but both the boy and the viewer are left doubtful when he forces a man to give him all of his clothes at gunpoint, and then just walks away. There is always the counterbalance of hope, however, with the son discovering a beetle as they near the coast, a sign that there is still new life to be found.
Mortensen's acting does a good job of lending some gravitas to this movie that could have gone wrong in many ways. He is serious about his role (as a father and human), but he is not overly grave or foreboding and is willing to show love towards his son despite the difficult circumstances. Smit-McPhee is relatively believable, if not great, although he does not necessarily grow with his character throughout the film. The rest of the cast is solid, with Charlize Theron standing out with her grittiness and Robert Duvall giving importance to a character that was not.
There were many good things about this movie, but its ultimate fault was the ending, which was poor, to say the least. After all the lessons that the son has learned, why would he trust this family? Guy Pearce could be lying to him and kill him the second he puts his gun down (a lot of tension could have been created out of this), so why does he give in so easily? Does this family have food for another person? The revelation of the dog leads the viewer to believe that this family has been following Mortensen and son throughout half the movie. If that is true, how come they did not present themselves earlier? There are almost too many logic holes to count in this final scene, and on top of that, it felt rushed and wasted good talent (Guy Pearce, Molly Parker). This scene undid so much of what the viewer learned in the film that it ruined my overall satisfaction. However, it was still a very good film and at times, excellent. Check it out.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
A bit disappointed in Fincher
Coming into "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", I had not read the book nor had I seen any of the Swedish movies. However, I had seen almost all of director David Fincher's movies, and I was excited after his last two, "Zodiac" and "The Social Network" thrilled me.
However, this movie does not quite live up to those standards. The story, a reworking of Steig Larsson's original book, involves Mikael Blomqvist, a journalist who has recently been found guilty of libel (Daniel Craig) and who is looking to escape the public eye and reinvent himself. Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), a sickly old man who lives on an island in northern Sweden, seeks out Mikael's services in an attempt to unravel his family's past and solve a murder.
At the same time, Lisbeth Salander's (Rooney Mara) caretaker has recently had a stroke and she is switched to another one, named Bjurman, who repeatedly takes advantage of her when she asks for money. Don't worry, he gets his come-uppins. Eventually, she teams up with Mikael to solve the mystery and his personal life.
Mara does the character justice for the most part (although there were times where I thought her tenacity did not match that of the acts she was performing), but I take issue with how her character was presented. Without knowing more about her background, I had trouble caring when bad things happened to her. In addition, the viewer never doubts that she is going to succeed eventually in everything Salander undertakes, and so does not care all that much when bad things happen to her before those successes.
I greatly enjoyed Craig portraying a decadent, down-and-out Mikael. His use of deadpan, self-depreciating humor is excellent, although he is occasionally made to look a bit too incompetent in the scenes he shares with Salander. All of Craig's actions, from his incessant coffee-making to the way he sucks on his cigarettes, help create an image of Mikael that the viewer sympathizes with and wants to help. Well done.
The main problem with "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", then is the story. Fincher does his best to gussy it up, with some fantastic shots of Sweden making it seem as if something or someone is always lurking around the corner. Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor do a brilliant job as well, and the use of sound was by far my favorite part of the film. However, neither of these details stops the story from being clunky and a bit bland. After getting almost nowhere for about half the movie, the second Mikael teams up with Salander, suddenly everything seems to fall into place, her incredible Google-search skills teaming with his ability to ask questions leading them to the villain relatively quickly.
It would have been quicker, however, if they didn't stop to have sex every two scenes. I have nothing against sex scenes, but this one is so out of the blue and against what Salander's ethical makeup had been up until that point, that the viewer almost feels deceived. It felt as if the movie had to fulfill some sort of heterosexual sex quota, character development and plot be damned!
Mikael finds the killer (well, sort of), Martin Vanger (an excellent Stellan Skarsgard), who, in typical bad guy fashion, talks to Mikael instead of murdering him, giving a speech that actually would have been brilliant if he had followed through afterwards. However, the speech gives Salander enough time to solve the mystery on her own and save the day. Woo.
Anyway, there is much to like about this movie. The acting is quite good, and there are the usual Fincher-ian touches that make it more than just the average thriller. However, it hits so many pit-falls, both in terms of plot and in terms of characterization, that it is just barely more (than average).
The Artist (2011)
Absolutely Splendid
I don't think I have seen a single negative thing written about this film, so going into the theater, it is fair to say that I had high expectations.
"The Artist" fulfilled all of them. The acting is fantastic, reminding us that body movements and twitches can convey a great deal of emotion. George Valentin's (Jean Dujardin) expression and posture slowly change as his life falls apart, helping the viewer feel what he is going through viscerally. Pippyy Miller's (Bérénice Bejo) smile conveys spunk and charm in a way that many actors cannot with large chunks of dialogue at their disposal. John Goodman portrays an incredibly stereotypical business-oriented Hollywood director brilliantly, his comical frustrations supplying much of the comedy present in this movie.
From a cinematographic point of view, "The Artist" is stunning as well. Memorable shot after memorable shot showed up on the screen, whether it be a couple of fictional native Indians appearing on a bar counter to harass our protagonist, a suit fitting a reflection of him wonderfully, or a screen separating our destined tap dancers. The director, Michael Hazanavicius, also plays with sound wonderfully, with a lovely soundtrack providing plenty of audio-stimulation. However, in the climactic scene, there is absolute silence, actually provoking surprisingly strong emotions in the viewer. The last scene is absolutely brilliant on a number of levels, but I will not mention it here because it is worth experiencing without being told what happens.
But as well done as these two elements are, it is conceptually where this movie excels. "The Artist" tells the story of the change from silent films to "talkies", and the difficulties it could cause to some of Hollywood's past stars. It's key message seems to be: "Go with the flow". Pride and vanity will leave you by the wayside, and in the case of our principal character, suicidal. It is ironic (and certainly not accidental) that this is a silent movie about the transition to ones with talking, and it uses a great mix of 1920's style scenes with ones that are undoubtedly modern and current, showing that the movie itself is not afraid to do what is new or unexpected (and then, of course, it is funny that a black and white silent movie is totally out of the mainstream now).
My only gripe would be that the all-knowing dog is relied upon too much. I understand that it is an exaggerated character designed to emulate similar plot devices from the time period, but although it works greatly as a sidekick, when it takes over the action, its charm wears off.
This was a pretty poorly conceived review, but it includes all of my basic ideas about "The Artist". Go see it for yourself!
A Dangerous Method (2011)
Wish it had been more "Dangerous"
I must first say that I am unfamiliar with the works of Freud and Jung and am simply judging this based on its merit as a movie. I hope that doesn't affect my review too much.
To me, this movie was split into to halves. The first was ambitious, attempting to tackle the question of how far psychotherapy could and should go, about repressing one's desires, about professionalism and love. It failed in many ways to do this.
First of all, Keira Knightly's sub-par performance as Carl Jung's first patient with whom he uses the new "method" is distracting to the point of being a detriment to the story. Not only did Knightly sound like she was struggling with the accent, but she seemed to reduce acting to a series of strained facial expressions. In addition, the temporal spacing of the movie was choppy, and the fact that there was no process to "curing" her shown left the viewer not caring when she and Fassbender got into their dalliance later.
However, there were some good things, with the notable Vincent Cassel doing in 10 minutes what the movie was struggling to do for the first 40. He effectively brings a fresh perspective to psychoanalysis while still being more than a bit crazy himself, causing Jung to question himself and his beliefs. However, Cassel's exit was abrupt and unwelcome.
The second half of the movie took a much simpler route, choosing to show the frustration that Jung feels at Freud, played smarmily by Viggo Mortensen. In many ways this succeeds.
The narrative comes together at this point, and with Knightly no longer acting crazy, there was less of a distraction. The divide between the two great psychoanalysts widens, stories are revealed, drama ensues. This portion of the movie is handled fine, but it is much more conventional and has lower aims.
Overall, I feel that Cronenberg and co. felt that they needed more of a narrative to keep the drama go, but I wish they had continued to pursue the more existential questions that it appeared they were going to. There is a distinct lack of self-reflection from Fassbender in the second half of the movie, the part where he is supposed to be questioning himself and his beliefs. His conflict with Freud also seemed a bit trite, with the dialogue coming off a bit contrived.
The movie also tries to portray Freud as this grand master of psychoanalysis who is now unwilling to pass the torch, but never really presents any of his discoveries. from the beginning, he makes race an issue and talks about his "enemies" more than his theories, so there is really no good quality to latch onto. It would have been harrowing to have seen the bird falling from its perch; instead, we just want the dick, who is a dick throughout to movie, not to get his way.
Anyway, it is a fun movie which asks some real questions, at least for a bit. Greatly flawed, but still greatly intriguing. Go see it.
Koroshiya 1 (2001)
Highly Entertaining if Poor Movie
Ichi the Killer is a disjointed story about a man (Jiji) who pits two Yakuza gangs, who have a tentative allegiance, against each other, while at the same time training Ichi, a shy and borderline dysfunctional man to "fight back" against the "bullies". It eventually builds up to a climactic rooftop scene where Ichi, who does not want to hurt anyone, has to fight the "villain" Kakihari, who wants someone to inflict pain on him. It features a quasi-surrealist ending (which I will get back to in a second).
The main disappointment of this movie was how the story was told. Instead of showing the growth of Ichi and Kakihari side by side, director Takashi Miike decided to have most of the first half dedicated to Kakihari and the gangs, and most of the second half dedicated to Ichi, completely changing the pace of the movie and throwing the viewer for a loop. Characters that seemed important at first disappear, and ones that seemed totally minor suddenly become vital.
In addition, after the movie, the viewer is left wondering what is the point. Miike does nothing to actually make you care about any of the characters, and so you could care less whether Ichi kills Kakihari or vice versa. The ending, where Kakihari apparently imagines Ichi killing him and jumps off a roof is such a cop-out that it will have you shaking your head. Showing an older Takahashi (the son of an oft-ridiculed Yakuza member) walking away from a tree where Jiji is hanging with a group of school kids is even sillier.
It's almost as if Miike couldn't decide whether Ichi the Killer would be a bloody drama or a black comedy. He presents it as the former, but the ridiculous torture and bloodshed, as well as the strained dialogue and confusing "flashbacks", make it impossible not to be laughing out loud half the time. The viewer feels no sympathy for Ichi, laughing at him instead, and the scenes with the randomly English-speaking women were absolutely ridiculous. It just leaves one with the feeling of "Who cares?" Not all is bleak, however, as there were some positive elements here. The characters, of which there were many, were all distinctive and easy to tell apart, a feat considering how the story is told. I specifically enjoyed the two detectives, who often moved in sync and had a very quirky approach towards their jobs (to say the least). In addition, there was some nice cinematography at times. For example, the scene where Kakihari is kicked out of his gang and he decides to take over the Anjo gang is very well shot. The soundtrack works perfectly as well.
Overall, you will probably laugh a lot at this movie, and you will certainly be entertained, but it is not a "good" film.
American History X (1998)
Powerful and Disturbing Movie
American History X is a fantastic, disturbing, and moving film about Derek, the leader (or co-leader) of a white supremacist group in Venice Beach, CA. But moving beyond that, it is a movie about equality, about what is fair, about what is right (yeah this review is preachy).
The story is well-told, revealing itself little by little with flashbacks that explain Derek's journey from a promising youth to a white supremacist, and a convict on top of that.
But most people know the good elements of this movie, so I am going to focus mainly on the problems I had with it: 1) Danny's narrator voice. His character wasn't bad, but when he was narrating, I just couldn't help but roll my eyes. It told what the rest of the movie already implied, and that spoiled it a bit.
2) The explanation for Derek becoming racist is too blunt and obvious. It is explained in one flashback to his father telling him not to put up with "nigger bullshit". This is a detail that doesn't need to be explained and creates too simple a cause/effect situation when in reality the issue appeared much more complex throughout the movie.
3) After Derek leaves the white supremacist group, we never hear from them again. They are such a powerful force in the first half of the movie that it is odd that they just completely disappear.
However, do not let these criticisms deter you from watching this powerful film. The acting (especially by Edward Norton and, in a smaller role, Elliot Gould) was brilliant, and the ending will leave you with your hand over your mouth in rage and horror. This movie has a clear message: it is not a specific race or ethnicity that is evil, but instead the hate between the races. American History X delivers it, for the most part, superbly.
Scream 2 (1997)
Good if Flawed
I had heard that this was an excellent sequel to the first Scream, and going in, I was expecting something good. And this delivered. It takes are the criticisms and satire of the first Scream to another level, questioning whether movies influence people's actions (in an ironic way), and railing on college life in general. It also brilliant in the way it references the first Scream, especially during the scene where Randy and Dewey are trying to find suspects, and they use "sequel logic" to narrow down the list. In other moments, the movie makes fun of itself in a similar way.
This movie is extremely well written (Kevin Williamson), with many memorable lines that manage to develop plot and have a greater significance. There is also an almost surrealist element in two scenes: When Jada Pinkett dies in the movie theater the mood goes from funny to incredibly disturbing in a two second twist and the scene where Neve Campbell is playing Cassandra in a rehearsal for her school play is probably the scariest in the movie, and I wish Wes Craven would have played up that image more.
The one thing that truly held me back from loving this movie, however, was the end. I would have liked it fine if the "Micky" twist had stood, but the one that follows it is ridiculous, and even though it is explained, unbelievable within the context of the story.
Overall though, it is a worthy sequel to an already excellent horror movie.
-Alex B.
Cube Zero (2004)
Interesting Elements, Ultimately a Failure
To be fair, this movie was miles better than Cube 2: Hypercube, which was an absolute atrocity. From the first scene, we can see that the production values are higher, and a legitimate cinematographer helped out the feel of this movie greatly. The shots of the towering file cabinets gave an ominous feel, and the fact that the main characters play chess could have been interesting (although it ultimately went nowhere).
However, almost everything else in this movie failed. The acting and screenplay were awful, and much like the platter that served them their "food" (another detail never explained, although this one wasn't necessary), every twist was made completely obvious by a piece of dialogue.
In addition, nothing about the company that performed these operations was ever explained. I can understand why, in the first Cube, that fact was omitted. It was meant to isolate the people and keep the viewer guessing. But this is a prequel, and one that goes outside the cube, and a reason has to be presented as to why they are implanting chips in people's brains to make them forget everything.
Overall, it's a movie with good feel, and if you like the Cube series, I see no reason why not to watch it. It's still not a good movie though.