|
|
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." -- James A. Baldwin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We don't get a lot of fantasy flicks these days, let alone good ones. Yeah, there's always "Lord of the Rings", but you can't deny that that the fantasy genre is much poorer than most film genres. That is not without reason, however, since you usually need a big budget in order to deliver a good fantasy movie. Locations, costumes and even some CGI are a must in the fantasy domain. Not many dare dwell in this genre, since it is rather risky business, but when a fantasy film does finally come along, it is indeed reason to celebrate for its devoted audience. Again, one must not forget "Lord of the Rings", a trilogy which hopefully inspired and gave filmmakers hope for future fantasy projects.
One such project is "Solomon Kane", a film based on Robert E. Howard's pulp fiction character, which ready to revitalize the fantasy genre yet again. It may as well succeed, judging it from the outside. Written and directed by rising director Michael J. Bassett (some of his past projects include horror flicks "Deathwatch" and "Wilderness") and starring James Purefoy (played Mark Anthony in the historical television series "Rome") as lead character Solomon Kane, the movie looks decent enough. The only thing left is the budget problem, but "Solomon Kane" boasts a good enough sum of money to make it a potential success (40 million dollars, according to sources).
The movie itself tells the tale of how Solomon Kane became the puritan avenger of the source material; thus it is an origin story. It's also supposed to be the first part of a trilogy, though I'm guessing that depends on how well it performs. The film opens with a battle taking place somewhere in North Africa during the very end of the 16th century and follows British mercenary Solomon Kane and the crew of his ship as they fight their way past the enemies and towards a supposed treasure hidden inside the fortress. Things don't go as smooth as planned after Solomon and his crew encounter a group of demons. Most of Solomon's crew gets killed, but the fearless warrior makes his way into the throne room nevertheless. There he encounters the Devil's Reaper, who tells Solomon that his soul is now destined for Hell due to all the evil deeds he has committed throughout his life.
Scarred by the encounter with the Devil's Reaper and finally realizing the things he has done, Solomon seeks sanctuary in an English monastery, but he is soon cast out for fear that he will bring darkness to the sacred place. Thus begins Solomon's journey and his path towards redemption. A pretty long overview, but that's only the beginning of the story. Aside from a few minor flaws, "Solomon Kane" is a beautiful-looking movie. Everything from the design to the locations and costumes look as good as possible, and the visuals are really a marvel to look at. CGI-wise, the movie isn't as proficient as expected. I'm not gonna give anything away, but there's a certain demon that pops up in the final battle which looks very poor in terms of design and creativity. It's not as bad as I make it out to be, and the special effects are decent enough not to damage the film's overall impact.
The most impressive thing about this film is definitely James Purefoy's acting. He really is the perfect match for his character and his on-screen power does not disappoint. He portrays Solomon Kane perfectly, from the time where he is a merciless killer to his moments of redemption and clarity. Taking a look at some of the weak points of the movie, I cannot help but mention the film's script, which is downright disappointing and filled with fantasy clichés. No actual explanations are ever given to what is going on and the only thing that is clear enough to follow is Solomon Kane's purpose and journey. I wonder how the movie would have turned out, had it been based on a stronger and more original screenplay.
There are lots of things to complain about in "Solomon Kane", but also a variety of elements worth admiring it for. The film is good enough to offer an entertaining and relatively exciting ride from start to finish, and James Purefoy portrays Solomon Kane better than anyone could have expected from him. The movie's dark look and impressive design works well and definitely makes the film all the more watchable and enjoyable. All in all, "Solomon Kane" is far from being a perfect fantasy flick, but it has enough good in it to make room for improvement in the future. Considering the lack of fantasy films these days, I wholeheartedly welcome "Solomon Kane" and look forward to a possible sequel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you." - Carl Sandburg
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Video games turned movies have always disappointed, for the most part, but we keep on hoping that a time will come when video game adaptations will be made the right way and will make watching them a delight. Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer give us "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" with hopes that it will finally break the ice and deliver us a good video game adaptation, and possibly a "Pirates of the Caribbean" wanna-be franchise. So what exactly makes "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" a possible success and a different video game adaptation that what we've encountered before? The most important difference would be that this movie has tries to create its own individual story, going head to head with the video game rather than directly following its footsteps.
Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney are, of course, in charge of this promising project and go alongside director Mike Newell and lead actors Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton to deliver the goods to the fans (and the newcomers as well). Taking a look at both the movie and the games it is based on, you can easily see that the film follows a different plot and only relies on the game as a source of inspiration. You would think that would be rather insulting to the fans, but the game itself doesn't focus much on the story, which only serves as a structure to keep the flow of the game going. Members of the movie project keep mentioning how they're only taking cool elements of the game and using them to craft a new story, but it feels as if they were actually forced to do that, because transforming the actual game into a movie would have quite probably resulted in a mess, much like many other video game adaptations.
"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" follows the adventures of Persian prince Dastan and Princess Tamina as they try to protect a mystical weapon from falling into the wrong hands. The film basically starts with the Persian army led by Tus alongside his two brothers Dastan and Garsiv assaulting and taking over the sacred city of Alamut after being informed that Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Dastan comes across a mysterious dagger while battling the forces of Alamut and soon learns that it has the power to turn back time with use of the sand sealed within it. After an unfortunate event Dastan and Tamina are forced to escape from the city of Alamut and must stop an evil mastermind from getting ahold of the dangerous dagger.
Even with its whole based-on-a-video-game thing going on, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" looks, feels and plays out exactly like every other summer blockbuster. You get the courageous, mighty protagonist fighting off the forces of evil, the beautiful female lead that serves as the romantic interest for our hero and even the perilous quest with all its predictable little twists and turns and the dramatic climax is there. The film definitely doesn't offer anything new and you've surely encountered tons of similar stories before if you've watched a few other big budget adventure movies. Even so, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is highly enjoyable and if you can get past its clichés and faults, there's surely lots of entertainment to be had. Visually, the movie looks spectacular and it actually captures that oriental, adventurous feel quite well.
Many have expressed negativity towards Jake Gyllenhaal playing the lead, and even though he may not be the most suitable actor to play the role of Dastan, he definitely makes the most of it and handles the job surprisingly well. There are lots of scenes where Gyallenhaal's screen presence improves the overall feeling and he has tons of interesting interactions with different characters to keep his status as a protagonist feel fresh and balanced. Dastan is not your typical hero, either, and he shows a good deal of character flaws and doesn't always take the right path, which makes him a very interesting protagonist. Gemma Arterton plays the female lead quite well and even though there's nothing impressive about her acting, she definitely succeeds in giving Tamina the necessary edge to keep her an intriguing romance interest. I feel the need to also mention Ben Kingsley, but he doesn't shine too much in this movie since his character is very stereotypical and shallow.
The best part about "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is the intriguing relationship between Dastan and Tamina, which is done surprisingly well and feels quite authentic. I feel it is rather unfortunate that the film didn't try to do more with the whole turning-back-time idea, which could have improved its overall quite a lot, but alas, not many would risk meddling with something like that on such a high profile movie. I still don't know if I should call this the best video game adaptation yet, but it is indeed an above average effort, even with all its flaws. It might be worth checking out just for some mindless fun with no strings attached, but you will most certainly be disappointed if you expect more from it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"Film lovers are sick people." -- Francois Truffaut
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most people go to the movies in order to watch the protagonist defeat the bad guys and get the girl in the end. A happy ending is necessary, of course. That was pretty much the building stone for movies over the years and many have tried evading that situation, but the formula still makes its way into most films to this day. Some think that movies should be in contrast with life, that they should represent the high points of humanity and portray beauty at its finest. Not many want to spend their time on a depressing film that will only dramatize their real life situations even more and it's is only normal to feel that way, but sometimes a realistic movie is exactly what everyone needs, what everyone desires for, even though most of us do not know it.
"Kick-Ass" is not your typical kind of movie. It is a superhero movie to some extent, but its roots go much deeper than that. One would encounter an unnaturally big surprise if one would go into seeing this movie without any knowledge whatsoever of what it is like. Knowing what to expect may not always do the job either, and a lot of viewers will find themselves utterly shocked at all the controversial things that happen throughout the movie. "Kick-Ass" is indeed controversial, but it all depends on the individual as to how striking it actually is. Some may not be able to embrace the movie due to its violent nature and that's totally fine. This film is not for everyone, that's for sure, but the ones who decide to embrace it will find themselves experiencing something very different than what they are used to, something very new.
So what makes "Kick-Ass" such a controversial movie? For all we know, superhero movies are the least controversial because they usually feature one good guy saving the day and teaching the bad guys a lesson. Nothing wrong there. Well, for those who have not heard yet, one of the protagonists (or superheroes, if you may) in "Kick-Ass" is Hit-Girl, an 11-year-old girl. That's right, you'll get to see a mere child killing bad guys (yes, blood will squirt in all directions) and using swear words whenever she gets the chance (including the infamous C word). Oh, she also happens to get shot a couple of times throughout the movie and there's also some strangling involved somewhere. Pretty hardcore, huh? It's not surprising that a lot of people reject this movie due to its immoral nature and everyone else will also have hard time taking in everything "Kick-Ass" throws at them, more or less.
The movie starts off in a rather casual way as we follow the ordinary life of high school student and devoted comic book reader Dave Lizewski as he hangs out with his equally average friends and desperately tries to get noticed by the girls in his school. One day he asks himself a rather interesting question that should have wandered around the viewer's mind as well: why has no one tried to be a superhero in real life? Quite an intriguing question considering that everyone can come up with thousands of arguments, but not one of them would be decisive enough. And so begins Dave's adventure as he struggles to fight crime (more like struggles not to get his butt kicked by crime) dressed in a ridiculous costume and under the not-so-fitting name Kick-Ass. He soon comes across Big Daddy and Hit-Girl, a couple of vigilantes who seem to be practicing his unusual method as well, albeit with bigger weapons and more dangerously.
Matthew Vaughn directs his third film with "Kick-Ass", following his previous work in "Layer Cake" and "Stardust", and his filmmaking skill are really put to the test in this one. He has had quite a difficult goal ahead of him, but he has proven that he knows how to handle action scenes, create impressive visuals and demand quality acting. It's even more impressive once you know that the movie was made with less than $30 million, a rather small budget compared to the money invested in superhero movies these days. What is even more astonishing about "Kick-Ass" is how well it works and how exciting it can become, considering that its subject is much more realistic and grim than most modern feel-good movies.
Giving it a quick look, it seems that "Kick-Ass" has all the right ingredients to make a good movie: it's thoroughly entertaining, the action scenes are really exciting and the acting is surprisingly good. But what makes this movie so special is the increased level of reality present. The action scenes may be awesome, but they aren't perfect like in other superhero movies. They don't like a well-choreographed dance; they look like real fight scenes. The main characters never come out of the fight unharmed while everything is good and dandy. Dave Lizewski shows us how brutal and different real life is compared to all the superheroes in comics from his very first encounter with 'the bad guys,' which also answers the question as to why no one has tried being a superhero in real life before. That's the main feature of this film -- its brilliant use of realistic situations and the gritty feature of our protagonists.
The cast of "Kick-Ass" is mostly comprised of actors of the new generation, but there are a few veterans present as well (Nicolas Cage stars as Big Daddy and Mark Strong plays Frank D'Amico, the 'bad guy'). Aaron Johnson takes on the main role as wannabe superhero Dave Lizewski as he slips into the mask (or overalls, rather) of Kick-Ass. Johnson seems to have no problem leading this movie and he shows potential by displaying a good range of emotions. Let us not forget Chloe Moretz, who plays none other than Hit-Girl, the 11-year-old girl turned into a relentless killing machine by her father, Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage was awesome in this role). Other actors include Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Red Mist and Clark Duke as Marty, one of Dave's closest friends.
There's a lot more I could say about "Kick-Ass", especially considering the various discussions and arguments that it sparked due to the controversy regarding its use of profanity and violence, but I prefer not to get too deep into that. Suffice to say that this movie is guaranteed to shock most of its viewers, and not because the increased accent on violence (come on, we've all seen plenty of more violent and graphic movies). It will shock because it does what not many movies have dared to do before with underage actors and it does so without any mercy, without any compromise. Some will love it for its courage while others will hate it even more. It all depends on the individual viewer for the end result, but it's safe to say that "Kick-Ass" did leave a mark on us, on all of us.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living." -- Omar N. Bradley
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A film adaptation of Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore's comic book "Watchmen" has been in discussion ever since 20th Century Fox acquired the rights to making one back in 1986. The project went through a lot of changes during the years, ranging from the script being rewritten several times to the whole thing getting transferred to Warner Bros. due to a turnaround. Various directors and actors were assigned to the movie but many of the dropped out after realizing that the project wasn't going anywhere. Most of the issues that arose and put the production on hold were mainly due to the high budget that was required to actually film the adaptation and the fact that the movie would have to be incredibly long for the story to even begin to make sense to the general public. It was also suggested that a miniseries should be filmed instead of an actual movie, but that idea didn't go too far either.
Warner Bros. approached Zack Snyder in 2005 to direct the adaptation of "Watchmen" after being impressed with his work on "300". From that moment on Snyder was on board for the project and four years later, in 2009, a film adaptation of "Watchmen" would finally make its way to the big screen. Many people doubted that Snyder's movie will remain loyal to the comic books, mostly because of the insane amount of details and the overall length of the story was impossible to reproduce with decent enough accuracy. That may have been true under any other circumstances, yet Zack Snyder not only managed to give the fans what they wanted, but he also created a movie good enough to appeal to the general audience as well.
Coming at a length of around three hours (more or less so depending on which version you're watching), "Watchmen" is one hell of a movie. The best part about it is that it's twice as long as an average film and still as entertaining as it can possibly get. Time flies by pretty quickly when you're watching the movie, but the feeling of immensity remains intact. "Watchmen" may be orientated towards a target audience, but the writers were smart enough to make the story accessible enough to the ones unfamiliar with the comic books as well. I didn't have the slightest idea what "Watchmen" was about (although I kind of expected to see superheroes flying around in rubber suits) and I still understood the plot perfectly well, so you shouldn't encounter any problems with that.
The events in "Watchmen" take place in an alternate reality during the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This alternate world is a grim depiction of a dystopia where violence is as common as any other thing and a nuclear war threatening to wipe out humanity is knocking at the door. Superheroes that were once praised and admired for their efforts in fighting crime and aiding their country are now despised, forsaken and cast out by society. This is not your typical superhero story -- the heroes and villains are more characterized by shades of grey rather than the usual black and white attributed to the good and bad guys. The barrier between light and dark is almost inexistent and one could even confuse the superheroes with villains at times.
The film's introductory credits have quite a creative look and they appear on the screen as a series of carefully designed letters coloured by an intense yellow just like the title of the movie. They are place on seemingly random parts of the screen during which we are given a brief overview of the origin of superheroes and, more importantly, the first league of these masked crime fighters known as the Minutemen. This small introduction is more relevant than just informing us of the cast and crew of the movie -- it takes us through a series of slow-motion segments depicting important events that lead to the actual story which takes place during the middle eighties. The moody tune of "The Times They Are a-Changin'" by Bob Dylan is played in the background and his voice coupled with the soothing rhythm of the acoustic guitar relates to the plot much more than one would think.
"Watchmen" begins with the murder of one Edward Blake, a government agent who turns out to be the Comedian, a retired superhero and former member of the Crimebusters, who were a group of vigilantes before disbanding in the late seventies after the government forbade "costumed adventuring." Rorschach, one of the last Crimebusters to remain active, discovers Blake's true identity following some "investigations" of his own. He believes that someone plans on eliminating the superheroes (the Comedian was not the first one to get killed) and proceeds to warn his former teammates, specifically Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre. Little do any of them know that they are about to uncover a threat bigger than anyone could imagine.
The look of "Watchmen" paints a dark picture and certain elements of the noir genre appear throughout the movie and strongly influence the sinister and gloomy night-time in the city during which most of the film takes place. The moral values and the duality between the heroic and malevolent deeds of the central characters further accentuate this feeling. Perhaps the character most focused on in the film would be Dr. Manhattan. Previously known as Jon Osterman, he found himself possessing near god-like powers ranging from superhuman strength and telekinesis to teleportation after a nuclear physics experiment goes wrong. His evolution is more exemplified than that of any other main character and Zack Snyder takes his time in showing us how he came to be so emotionless and indifferent towards the human race from the ambitious and optimistic young scientist he once was. Even though Dr. Manhattan has the most interesting powers and appearance, he fails to become really interesting and remains a neutral character during the whole movie.
Rorschach is by far the most intriguing character in the movie and his development is quite impressive. We are given a swift look into his past through a series of flashbacks, much like the ones involving Dr. Manhattan. Rorschach has an extremely severe moral attitude and views the world as having a clear borderline between good and evil, and therefore he seeks to destroy evil by all means necessary. He often uses violence and intimidation to get what he wants and doesn't mind eliminating anyone who stands in his way, which is another example of his antisocial personality and his habit of alienating himself from society. Rorschach is a fine portrait of the antihero and even though his actions are a mix of right and wrong like every other character in the film, he remains interesting and his time on the screen is gripping and fascinating.
Most of the actors deliver fairly good performances, but it is Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley that stand out from the crowd. Morgan's charisma and appearance works perfectly well with his character, the Comedian, and that can be easily seen. Billy Crudup played his part as Dr. Manhattan quite well, and even though his character keeps a straight face throughout the majority of the film, Crudup delivers a marvellous display of emotion every time he gets the chance. Jackie Earle Haley is as equally impressive as the other two, and he shows the audience that he is the perfect man to play the part of Rorschach. He delivers his lines with unprecedented accuracy and his devotion to his character is fascinating. Other notable actors include Patrick Wilson as the second Nite Owl and Malin Akerman as Laurie Jupiter (or Silk Spectre II, if you will). Patrick Wilson failed to impress me, but this may have something to do with his character, which lacks development -- it seems as though the writer didn't care as much for this one. Malin Akerman's performance was pretty average, but she did well enough so as not to interrupt or disturb the overall progress of the story. Matthew Goode appears in the movie as well, playing superhero Ozymandias, a former member of the Crimebusters and considered the smartest man on Earth.
It is not certain whether Zack Snyder managed to satisfy the fans or attract newcomers to the movie. Some praise the movie, others criticise it harshly for failing to deliver the promised goods. I am unable to compare it to the comic book as I have not been familiar with it when I watched the movie, but taking a look just at the film I can easily say that it succeeded in keeping me glued to the screen for no less than three whole hours, a feat which few movies have ever obtained. "Watchmen" is not only an excellent superhero movie, but it also tackles sensitive issues and lets us take a deeper look into the minds of heroes and villains while altogether maintaining an interesting image and an engaging, entertaining plot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"Sports do not build character. They reveal it." -- Heywood Broun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A great deal of actors have turned to directing at some point during their career, but few have actually managed to take on the responsibilities of a director and even fewer succeeded in crafting a good movie (sure, there's Clint Eastwood... but that's Clint Eastwood). Drew Barrymore takes a shot and launches her directorial debut with the movie "Whip It".
So what's this movie all about? Well, "Whip It" is a comedy chick flick revolving around roller derby, a contact sport based on roller skating around an oval track, with players scoring points as they lap members of an opposing team. Even though this sport is rather unknown, there are plenty of leagues and genuine teams in real life to back it up. It's still a difficulty to come across roller derby games, though, since most leagues are independent and remain (mostly) local.
Ellen Page plays Bliss Cavendar, a teenage misfit living in the small town of Bodeen, Texas. Her strict mother keeps pushing her into entering beauty pageants, even though she has no interest in that particular area. Bliss seems to have found a passion for roller derbies after she and her friend Pash attend to such an event in Austin. Everything changes when the Hurl Scouts ask her to try out for the team.
Looking at "Whip It" as a whole, it doesn't seem very different than any other sport movie. You've got pretty much every cliché in this one, from the newcomer taking the team to victory to the disapproving parents and the jealous rival that will do anything to win. The thing that makes "Whip It" a good movie is the originality of the idea and the way it is injected throughout the film. There's plenty of humour to keep it entertaining and enough drama for it to remain a serious flick.
Drew Barrymore picked a smart cast and Ellen Page plays her role as Bliss impressively. The most remarkable thing about Page's performance is her ability to play such a different persona than what she's used to. She portrays her character Bliss with sincere emotion and enough weirdness and awkwardness to make her unique. Other notable actors include Alia Shawkat as Bliss' best friend, Juliette Lewis as leader of the rival team and Andrew Wilson (brother of Owen and Luke Wilson) as the coach of the Hurl Scouts and one of the funniest characters in the film. Zoë Bell and Jimmy Fallon appear in the movie as well as minor characters and even Drew Barrymore has a small role in the film.
There's no denying that Drew Barrymore started her career in directing on the right foot with "Whip It", which is a great flick despite its clichéd plot. Humour and originality turn this film into a notable movie and keeps it entertaining throughout. The ending is quite suitable and pleasant enough to offer the closure that is needed. "Whip It" is worth a look and provides enough entertainment and fun to satisfy the viewer.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Many horror films have made attempts at humour and satire, but few have actually succeeded. It is indeed difficult to create a film where a matter as serious as death can coexist along with laughter, but when such a movie comes along and it is truly good, it connects with us horror fans in a spectacular way. "I Sell the Dead" is one of those movies, and it is also one of the most memorable low-budget flicks to come along in the last couple of years.
Written and directed by Glenn McQuaid, "I Sell the Dead" is not only the feature film debut of this promising filmmaker, but also one of the best horror comedies since "Shaun of the Dead" took over the world. This delicious little horror flick revolves around the adventures of two grave robbers, Arthur Blake and Willie Grimes, during the 19th century, as narrated by Arthur in the last few hours before his execution. It seems as though these two notorious criminals have been set up and now face the death penalty. Father Duffy is a priest unusually interested in grave robbing, who proceeds to persuade Arthur with a bottle of whiskey in order to find out more about this particular subject, especially of his encounters with the living dead.
What makes this movie work is the interesting and engaging plot, as written by Glenn McQuaid. Grave robbing itself is quite an intriguing topic, but McQuaid turns it into something unique and original. Never before have I watched with such great pleasure and excitement as a couple of lowlifes dig up graves in the dead of the night. Something like that would normally not work, but a good amount of comic relief makes the film a fun ride. Add to that a bunch of overused fog effects and a few "things that go bump in the night" and you've got yourself one hell of a movie.
For a movie relying on such a small budget, "I Sell the Dead" has got quite an impressive cast. Dominic Monaghan plays Arthur Blake, a poor young fellow who has turned to a life of crime together with Willie Grimes, who has served as his mentor in the arts of "grave robbing" during his first few years on the job. Willie Grimes is a rather nutty and shameless criminal who has lived his whole life snatching bodies and robbing graves. His character, together with a small dose of grumpiness, is played with excellence and charisma by Larry Fessenden. Ron Pearlman delivers another one of his stunning performances as the whiskey-swilling priest with an unusual interest in the occult.
The creepy and chilling atmosphere created in "I Sell the Dead" is really special. The night looks particularly eerie and the constant fog around the graveyards is put to good use, even if it appears a bit too much throughout the movie. The costumes and sets are incredibly well done and really take the viewer back to the Victorian era when the movie takes place. Even the dialogue is typical of that period of time, and it remains clever and witty throughout the whole movie, with characters delivering a couple of brilliant lines every now and then.
I've been waiting for a movie like "I Sell the Dead" for a really long time, and I'm glad that the search is over. This movie delivered everything I was hoping for: I laughed out loud a couple of times and some scenes even made me jump (unintentionally?). The actors did a really good job and the script is brilliant. Glenn McQuaid really nailed this one -- what a way to start a career! If you're into low budget horror flicks with style and originality, then you'll surely love this one. Not only that, but you'll also learn the valuable lesson of never trusting a corpse. And what a lesson that is!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"For death is no more than a turning of us over from time to eternity." -- William Penn
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christopher Smith delivers yet another promising horror movie in 2009. After "Creep" and "Severance", two relatively praised films, comes "Triangle". The movies themselves have no connection, but you can feel how Smith's directing and writing keeps getting better in each one of them. While "Creep" and "Severance" had a more direct approach to the story and packed a bit more action, "Triangle" focuses more on the mystery element and remains (more or less) calm throughout.
The movie starts with a melancholic, yet soothing tune played over the piano as the cast and crew are being introduced over a bunch of simple, but effectively designed credits. We are also being informed that the film has been funded by the UK Film Council through money from the National Lottery, which I was very thankful for by the end of the movie. As a matter of fact, anyone involved in the production of this film deserves a big fat "thank you," because "Triangle" is one of the best horror movies of the year.
This is one of those movies where it's best not to know anything about before watching it, so I'll try to keep the synopsis to a minimum: Jess (played by Melissa George) is a single mother who goes sailing on a yacht with a group of friends. Things start to take a wrong turn when their boat hits a storm and they are forced to board an ocean liner who just so happens to be passing nearby. The group realizes that something isn't right when they discover that the ship is completely devoid of passengers. Furthermore, Jess has a feeling that she's been here before. That's all I'm gonna say -- I wouldn't want to spoil the fun.
"Triangle" is a unique film. I've seen plenty of movies of the same type, but none of them seem to be similar to this one. This gives the movie quite an advantage and it's interesting to see the whole plot unfold, not knowing what the movie will throw at you next. "Triangle" has been categorized as a horror film, which is more or less true. It's got some "slasher" elements, but they come in small doses and hardly intervene with the mysterious and calm atmosphere of the movie. The film comes in contact with the horror genre mostly through the feeling of despair and panic it creates.
The acting is quite average, but Melissa George delivers an impressive performance. She displays her character's emotions with remarkable flair and devotion. At first I was a bit doubtful of her performance, but she kept getting better and better. I can confidently say that this movie wouldn't have been as effective without her. The characters in the movie don't seem to be any smarter than in every other horror movie, which may annoy some, but it's ultimately a rather small flaw.
It took a long time for Christopher Smith to write the script for "Triangle", but it all paid off in the end. It takes a really long time to process this film and understand it -- I don't think I'll ever be able to completely answer all the questions in my head, no matter how many times I rewatch it. "Triangle" is filled with twists and even though some can be seen from miles away, you never fully understand why. Some may consider that the movie has some plotholes or that it makes no sense, but looking further into it will get most, if not all of your questions answered. There are actually tons of forum threads devoted to explaining the whole story and coming up with various theories and whatnot.
"Triangle" is not just some horror movie -- it's a special film filled with an amazing atmosphere and it's more complicated than you would think. I totally recommend this flick, just be prepared when you watch it because it demands a lot of thought and attention. I've never seen the open sea look so creepy before.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"Let him who would enjoy a good future waste none of his present." - Roger Babson
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The top 3 sci-fi contenders of 2009 are definitely "Avatar", "District 9" and "Star Trek" -- these movies got the most buzz, and rightly so. While "Avatar" gave a new definition to "epic" and revolutionized 3D movies, "District 9" was a refreshing look at the way we see aliens. But what exactly makes "Star Trek" so special?
"Entertainment" would be the one word that could define "Star Trek". Outer space could never have been more fun. Director J. J. Abrams knew what he was doing and he clearly understood what the audience needed. This film is actually a reboot of the franchise, so you don't need to know much about the universe of Star Trek in order to understand the movie. Actually, the less you know the better -- it seems the a few fans didn't enjoy this movie as much as everyone else.
"Star Trek" takes place in an alternate world where a Romulan ship changes the course of events after it arrives from the future and destroys the Federation starship Kelvin, together with George Kirk, James' father. This ultimately changes the future of Star Trek as it was known for over 40 years. Some people felt that rebooting the franchise was a bad decision, but that's irrelevant. This movie is the Star Trek of the new generation, and while it may receive some negative feedback, most believe that J. J. Abrams successfully crafted his own vision of Star Trek.
What's so great about this movie? There's a lot of things that make "Star Trek" work. First off, the visuals are incredible. This film offers tons of awesome special effects, while at the same time not turning the movie into a senseless mess. It's incredibly difficult to turn a movie into a visual delight and not overshadow the story. Fortunately, "Star Trek" manages to keep the rest of the important elements in check and never forgets that this movie isn't just about special effects.
I mentioned before that the key word to "Star Trek" is "entertainment". It doesn't matter if you are not into the franchise or aren't as excited about sci-fi as others. Watch this movie anyway, because it is one of the most entertaining films of the year. Never have two hours flown by as fast as in this movie. "Star Trek" gets straight into action from the first minutes and never stops until the very end.
The acting in the movie was great as well. Chris Pine offers a fun and versatile side to James Kirk and he definitely feels like the right choice for the role. Zachary Quinto is by far the main attraction of this movie. He plays Spock with excellent chemistry and he delivers an amazing performance. Other notable actors include Eric Bana as the villain Nero and Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard McCoy, James' somewhat skeptical friend and a member of the starship Enterprise.
"Star Trek" may be a great and fun movie, but it is not flawless. Beyond that wall of entertainment and special effects lies a cliché plot. The movie suffers from being slightly predictable and quite clichéd, which the serious audience will not take lightly. It is however, a small price to pay for such a well made and fun movie. The thing that I didn't appreciate in the movie was Nero, the Romulan villain. The character comes off as extremely shallow and weak, and his actions make less sense than they should. There appears to be no exact reason for doing the "bad" stuff that he does, and he seems to have been shoved into the story just for the sake of having him around to cause trouble.
I'll give you my final verdict: I had a lot of fun with "Star Trek", even though I never watched a Star Trek episode or film in my life. Sure, there are plenty of clichés I could complain about, but what's the point? The movie is great with or without its flaws. "Star Trek" is fun and entertaining, and there's nothing else to it. I don't regret one bit seeing it and despite the heavy luggage it brings with itself, it's still one of my favourite movies of 2009. I recommend you watch it, because honestly, there's no better way to spend two hours in front of a screen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
"Keep true to the dreams of thy youth." -- Friedrich von Schiller
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There's nothing better than watching a movie you were sure would be bad turn into an entertaining and enjoyable experience. It seems as though you just can't trust the film industry anymore. The biggest and most awaited movies turn out to be disappointing while some films you barely ever heard of can surprise you in ways you never expected. Often I find myself avoiding the big names and simply going for the rather ignored movies. Sure, that doesn't always work, but you'll know it's worth it when it does.
I was sure that "Bandslam" was gonna suck. An American high school, the typical clichéd theme and Vanessa Hudgens holding a Gibson Flying V guitar looks like the perfect recipe for disaster. Then again, appearances can be deceiving, and there's no better example than this movie.
Let's get a look at the plot: Will Burton is a lonely teenager who moves with his mother to New Jersey in order to escape a troubled past. Opportunity strikes when he finds out that the new high school he's attending is participating in Bandslam, which is sort of a yearly event where bands compete for a record deal. This means quite a lot for Will, since he's a passionate music lover. He soon befriends two girls: Sa5m (apparently the "5" is silent... I still don't get it), who is rather a loner herself, and Charlotte, who wants Will to be her band's manager. All these things open up a new path for Will, where he will learn the value of friendship, success and love.
The story may seem a little cliché as a whole, but the characters and the dialogue keep the movie interesting and unpredictable. The script is remarkably well-written, which gives way to some clever dialogue and keeps the typical coming-of-age story hidden underneath engaging and unique situations.
The three central characters Will, Charlotte and Sa5m (played by Gaelan Connell, Alyson Michalka and Vanessa Hudgens respectively) are definitely the best thing in the movie. They are written quite well and tend to become more complex as the story progresses. Sa5m is probably the most intriguing character, but at the same time she is also the most flawed one. It looks as though the writers didn't give her as much attention as the other ones and she also has less screentime than expected. I almost forgot to mention that Lisa Kudrow plays appears in the movie as well -- she plays Karen, Will's mother. Her role is rather unnecessary, though, and she gets a little too much screentime for such a small part.
I can't say much about the acting except that it was better than I expected. It wasn't exactly Oscar material, but most of the actors did well. Vanessa Hudgens' performance wasn't bad at all, but it wasn't great either. That may be because of her character being underwritten, so I'll just leave it at that. My favourite performance was that of Alyson Michalka, which seemed to become really good near the end. Both Gaelan Connell and Lisa Kudrow did a fairly good job as well.
The music in the movie is quite okay, but it's nothing you won't soon forget. I was pleasantly surprised to hear a few interesting references to events and bands that influenced music (even if not all of them were entirely accurate) -- another fine example that the script was seriously worked on and not just thrown in there for the sake of having one.
I was a little thrown off by the ending, which didn't really seem to fit with the rest of the movie -- it was a bit too typical and I was disappointed to see that the writers decided to play it safe. Nevertheless, the ending doesn't bother much since the rest of the film is good enough to make up for it. "Bandslam" is one of the few good modern teenage movies and, despite its obvious flaws and minor weak points, it is definitely worth giving a look.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
|
|
?Men for the sake of getting a living forget to live.? - Margaret Fuller
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So many unique and valued movies have come out in 2009 that it?s hard not to get carried away. One film stands out from the crowd, though: ?Up in the Air? is considered one of the very best of the year, but what exactly is so interesting about a businessman who travels around firing people for a living? Even after seeing the movie I?m still not sure what?s so intriguing about it, but it certainly charmed me.
?Up in the Air? is Jason Reitman?s newest success, who seems to turn into one of the most respected and trustworthy filmmakers of this generation. The movie seems simple enough: George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a consultant who flies all over the country firing people for companies that don?t want to get their hands dirty. He soon meets his female equivalent and starts a casual fling with her, but things don?t stay good for too long. Ryan is soon forced to take Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) under his wing, a young and ambitious coworker who comes up with a new way of carrying out their job, which doesn?t sit too well him.
It is surprising, yet at the same time remarkable to see such a simple idea turned into a complicated and honest look at life. The most valuable thing in this movie is its script, which keeps the film from turning into a boring and uninteresting ride. Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner came up with one of the best screenplays of the year, which leads to slightly humourous and clever dialogue.
George Clooney, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga (who plays Alex, Ryan?s love interest) couldn?t be more perfect for the roles they?ve been assigned to. George Clooney plays the somewhat bitter and lonely businessman Ryan Bingham flawlessly and delivers a top performance with his devoted and real approach to his character. Vera Farmiga did pretty good job as the mysterious woman who couldn?t reflect Ryan?s lifestyle any better. I was pretty confident that both Vera Farmiga and George Clooney will do well, but I definitely didn?t expect such an impressive performance from Anna Kendrick. She does a terribly good job as the prominent and ambitious Natalie and can easily hold her own ground amongst the other two actors.
Not many movies have made me think about my life and aspirations, but ?Up in the Air? does so with the smallest possible effort. By taking a look into Ryan Bingham?s life we unintentionally take a look into ours, and we feel as if we?ve known this character for long time. That?s the reason ?Up in the Air? works ? that?s the thing which makes the movie so genius.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Andrei S.
|
HERESSSSSSJOHNNY on 7/14/10 at 04:16 PM
I really really want to see this, excellent review.
1 Replies | Report Abuse
Andrei S. on 7/14/10 at 04:18 PM
Thank you, hope you enjoy it!
0 Replies | Report Abuse
CACB on 7/14/10 at 09:25 PM
Great review, I want to see this one. Heard its good
1 Replies | Report Abuse
Andrei S. on 7/14/10 at 09:33 PM
Yep, it's pretty good. Enjoy!
0 Replies | Report Abuse
AndysFilms on 7/15/10 at 10:22 PM
Nice review Andrei! I saw this in a cinema with six other people in there. I enjoyed it though!
1 Replies | Report Abuse
Andrei S. on 7/17/10 at 05:28 PM
Woah... only 6 people? Oh man, this movie deserved a much bigger audience. Too bad it remained relatively unknown, huh?
0 Replies | Report Abuse
ChrisCinephile on 7/17/10 at 02:12 PM
i think ill check this one outexcellent review Andrei!
1 Replies | Report Abuse
Andrei S. on 7/17/10 at 05:28 PM
Hope you enjoy it!
0 Replies | Report Abuse
sam48 m. on 7/19/10 at 09:56 AM
Excellent review Andrei! Keep writing
1 Replies | Report Abuse
Andrei S. on 7/19/10 at 04:23 PM
Thank you Sam, I sure will!
0 Replies | Report Abuse
Halimali on 7/19/10 at 10:32 AM
nice review,. looking forward to it
1 Replies | Report Abuse
Andrei S. on 7/19/10 at 04:23 PM
Thanks, enjoy!
0 Replies | Report Abuse