Change Your Image
thale05
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Latest Message Board Posts
Reviews
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
A Fascinating, Erotic Film Perhaps Better Than We Give It Credit For
Before the review, I think I should address one important thing: I have never read the book. That being said, you will not read any comparisons or critiques of what was left out or what was done wrong in the adaptation. I went into this movie aware of the subject matter and judged it just like any other movie. Consider this a fair review of "Fifty Shades of Grey".
Honestly, I liked this movie. I know what you're thinking: "This guy just likes seeing people have kinky sex on the big screen." No, I don't. In fact, I think mainstream erotic films offer us more than just artsy porn; they can be a fascinating look into the human subconscious like "Eyes Wide Shut" and they can be pure garbage like "Caligula". I have come to learn that art is not safe whether it's in the horror genre, comedy or especially in the erotic subgenre. Strangely, I found "Fifty Shades of Grey" to be provocative of questions about love, compromise, and passion even if it borders on what most people would consider bad taste.
First off, what is the movie about? Basically it follows the relationship between an inhibited English student named Anastasia Steele (played by Dakota Johnson) and a mysterious, young billionaire named Christian Grey (played by Jamie Dornan). They meet for an interview and begin building an infatuation for one another but Grey keeps insisting he does not want a romance with Ana. Instead he offers her the chance to partake in a BDSM relationship in which he is the dominant and she is the submissive. When I look back, the roles match well with their personalities.
There is no real story I could find in this film; rather it's more about the characters. A lot of great movies focus on their characters more than plot; in this movie, it works out okay. Many of the supporting characters are snubbed for the two main players as if to say they are just there for the sake of some filler. Maybe if others found out about Grey's lifestyle and he was caught in media frenzy, the film would have a substantial plot.
I found Dakota Johnson to be incredibly dull in the first act but gradually she becomes more dynamic and confident as the film progressed. It feels intentional seeing how Ana starts off as a quiet, uninteresting woman only to morph into a more liberal persona. Dakota's character has a lot of those "whomp-whomp-whomp-whooooomp" comedic moments in the beginning which felt so forced and unnecessary to the tone. Jamie Dornan was decent as Christian Grey. Like his character, he feels in control.
The sex scenes are a lot tamer than I had anticipated going into this flick. Like the rest of the movie, they are shot surprisingly crisp and, might I add, nicely-paced.
It sounds like a simple movie but it wasn't until I asked myself one simple question that it all became interesting: Does Grey love Ana? A lot of Grey's actions I see points to yes unless it is part of a ploy to secure a potential submissive. He claims to require a written contract before ever touching Ana but blows off this condition to passionately kiss her. And once they get to the contract, they discuss their intimate limitations in an amusing, business-like setting. Ana objects to certain practices which Grey seems to willingly extract from their relationship kind of like a compromise in any other relationship.
One of my favorite parts is when Ana confesses her virginity to Grey after revealing his secret life. Even though he maintains he doesn't have normal sexual relations in the bedroom, Grey breaks this code to be with Ana. One might argue it is a selfish act to gain her trust so she may serve as his victim; I see it as Grey finding an opportunity to be with someone he could briefly connect with, someone untouched, someone he sees as good. In fact, at one point, he voices his concern of Ana changing his outlook on life and sounds scared of this prospect. Grey feels constrained by his past which shaped his present only to feel the need to constrain others to his level, literally.
Who knows? Maybe I'm overthinking too much. Some people might be turned off, some might get turned on, some might think little about it, and some might find something special in "Fifty Shades of Grey". I only know what I saw and felt.
My Rating: 7/10
American Sniper (2014)
Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper Masterfully Take Sight on Iraq
Not only do we get to know Chris Kyle, his life, and service but we also get to see the most grounded and mature movie made about the Iraq War even better than "The Hurt Locker". Like Vietnam in "Full Metal Jacket", there are no winners or losers in Iraq, only the reality of a war that changed us all forever. This is what makes some of the best war movies the best and this is why "American Sniper" will stand as one of the best movies about the Iraq War for a long time to come.
You probably would like to know how accurate this movie was of the real Chris Kyle, right? Yes, Hollywood has a tendency to make up and exaggerate the lives of people in the real world but I have done some research and can say nothing has been exploited in this picture. I believe this is a respectful portrayal of its subject with some material dramatized with good intention. I found 85% of what was depicted in "American Sniper" to be factually true; then again I am not a professional investigator so you decide.
Chris Kyle (played by Bradley Cooper) was, indeed, a Texan cowboy who believed in God, country, and guns but most importantly, he saw himself as a guardian of the weak and defenseless, a virtue he held onto since childhood. He joins the Navy pre-9/11 and trains as a SEAL sniper before being deployed to Iraq. There he served four tours of duty returning to his family in between but only to grow more passive and distant every time. And every time his friends are killed or injured, he feels obligated to take up his rifle and hunt his enemy even if there is a bounty placed on him.
A lot of people have been praising and slamming this movie as pro-war, neoconservative propaganda; I think those people are misguided. First of all, war is terrible whether you believe in some cause or not so calling something "pro-war" is pretty careless on your part. And secondly, the director Clint Eastwood is as anti-war as they come; don't let his support of Republicans fool you, he opposes the idea of America serving as the world police. Being anti-war does not mean you are not supporting the soldiers who serve our military, in fact, you can argue you're anti- war because you care about our troops and others. Alright, enough with my rant to all the Bill Mahers of the world and that goes to those who praise this movie as well for the same reason.
With all being said, Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Jason Hall really get the Iraq War as an ambiguous conflict. Kyle, as a sniper, is put into strenuous positions where he must make decisions to kill or let someone go. Looking through his scope, we are pressured into the same conflict he is in. Our emotions battle with our instinct as ferocious as our hero's and climax as soon as he pulls the trigger or relieves it. That, my friends, is great filmmaking.
"American Sniper" does not justify nor condemns a controversial war, it gives us a picture of what it has done to our veterans and what they had to endure (and still are to this day). Most war movies these days are either so blatantly anti-war or supportive of the war effort (not that it is necessarily wrong to do either) but movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "American Sniper" are smarter in how they portray sacrifice and consequence. But most importantly, they focus on the people who are in the war and what it does to them: the soldiers, their enemies, and the innocent civilians in between.
Bradley Cooper put 120% effort into his role as Chris Kyle and it will go down as the performance of a lifetime. Beefed up in muscle and touting a Texan accent, Cooper achieves a heroic image with a stoic grace only he and Eastwood could have accomplished. But beneath the façade of quiet strength is a battle from which Kyle risks compromising his family for his duty. And let us not forget about the lady of the family Taya Kyle (played by Sienna Miller). I cannot remember the last war movie in which the spouse of a veteran is given a significant amount of focus. Through Sienna's chemistry with her costar and through her pain over her husband's safety and sanity, I could feel how much Taya loved and supported her man. It takes a special kind of sacrifice for a woman to bear the burden of a SEAL sniper. Both actors deserve award recognition for their roles.
Of all the subjects touched in "American Sniper", I believe the most important is our veterans. They are still coping with life in the home and often do not show they need our help. Chris Kyle spends the remainder of the film dedicating his time and energy to give strength and hope to his fellow veterans. After watching this movie, I hope you feel the same way.
My Rating: 10/10
Unbroken (2014)
Consider Yourself Unbroken If You Endure Watching This Movie
I'll go out and say this movie was hard to watch in both a good and bad way. While Angelina Jolie tells us this remarkable, painful story of endurance and triumph, it feels as if she left out so many things I wanted to know more about Louie Zamperini. You should expect to see a great movie from Legendary Pictures with contributions done by the legendary Coen brothers but you instead get a traditional survival movie with characters with absent character and clichéd dialogue. It is, to say the least, underwhelming.
So who is Louie Zamperini? And with that simple question comes the biggest problem of this movie. We really are not given an idea of what our protagonist is like, what kind of personality he has, and barely what motivates him to do what he does. I think a lot of people found the same problem with Superman in "Man of Steel" though I could tell our hero was conflicted, I could tell he had trouble relating with others, I was given a sufficient connection to him though he had the bare minimum of a personality. In "Unbroken", the only connection I could make with Louie was his tremendous experience WWII, as a serviceman. Speaking of "Man of Steel", this movie also has a non-chronological narrative in the first thirty minutes to give some backstory of Louie: only two instances of his life before his service. So what do we learn from these flashbacks? Well, as a kid, Louie got picked on, got in trouble, and got into track because his brother encouraged him to do so. Eventually he would attend the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany and that's it. The rest of the movie recounts his incredible ordeal during wartime.
By incredible, I do not say lightly. What this man goes through and how he pulls through is fascinating and deserves to be told. It begins when his aircraft goes down over the Pacific, leaving Louie and two other survivors stranded on two lifeboats. For 47 days, the three men are hunted by sharks, beaten down by exposure, and go to great lengths to get food. All of this could have been an entire movie by itself but our protagonist is capture by the Japanese to be held captive.
There's this really strange scene where Louie is questioned by an Imperial officer and his lines put into subtitles only to have a soldier translate everything he just said in English. What gives? Did the editor think we could not read the subtitles so he had someone else read for us? Trust is not a virtue in this flick, indeed.
The acting is nothing special. If anything, I found a lot of the actors wooden but given this film did not have empathetic script to begin with, it is excusable. Louie is played by Jack O'Connell who passes off with an okay performance. The one actor who stood out for me was Miyavi (that's his stage name) who plays a spoiled, Japanese officer known as the Bird who takes his disdain of his position out on his captives. He serves as the antagonist and combats Louie in a psychological war of endurance and suffering. Sure, the Bird's character is thinly written but interesting enough to make a good villain.
The second act centers on Louie during his time as a POW; this is where the movie becomes hard to watch. Our hero is beaten mercilessly with belts and sticks in needlessly prolonged sequences. The Bird even makes each prisoner punch poor Louie in the head. I am surprised this movie held onto a PG-13 rating. You'd wonder if Mel Gibson was behind the camera at this point.
The credits were rolling and I was baffled to see the Coen brothers listed under "Written By" with two other talented writers. Just look up the work these four men have done and tell me with a straight face you are not surprised to see them write a rehashed, conventional script for this movie. It feels as if their visions collided in a death match only to have a simple underdog come out on top. At least it never got to sappy territory, it was possible though. There's this one part where the Bird forces Louie to pick up a piece of wood and all the POWs in the camp halt work to watch in silence. Yeah, aren't the Japanese soldiers supposed to be supervising their prisoners?
From all that I have told you, it sounds like I do not like this movie. No, not really. I am disappointed Jolie did not go all out and take reasonable advantage of a great story given to her on a silver platter. With that said, the story itself is worth seeing but you're going to have to deal with one-dimensional characters and brutal torture to appreciate the trials this man had to go though. "Unbroken" is broken and ends up as wasted potential.
My Rating: 4/10
Alexander (2004)
A Disappointment Literally of Epic Proportions
I really don't know where to begin to discuss what went wrong with this movie. Going into it, you would presume "Alexander" was in good hands with Oliver Stone and a sterling ensemble of performers. Before it hit theaters in 2004, the hype surrounding the premise was so overrated it was rumored to be a potential Oscar contender. After my first viewing, I could not comprehend the negative reception; all I came for was some history lesson and battle scenes. I certainly grew wiser about movies over the years since then so I decided to give it another go. Now, I have come to the conclusion "Alexander" is a bloated, lost mess even if superficially striking.
The history of Alexander the Great needs no extensive introduction for his legacy and impact of world conquest lasts to this very day. As I am typing this review, US military forces in Afghanistan look at the same mountains and landscape the young ruler beheld in his life. Because of Alexander, Greek culture reached as far as Persia to India and fostered the beginning of a Hellenistic civilization. The film is a biopic of Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) and his campaigns but I'm befuddled how Stone does not go into depth the effect the man had made in history. Instead he studies Alexander's personal life, something I'm not against. However, I would like films about historical leaders to touch base on the achievements of an individual, the contributions to whatever society is at stake. That being said, this film mentions the influence of Alexander scarcely.
To further elaborate on the protagonist, his intentions and motivations to conquer the known world become vague. At the start, Alexander justifies the Persian conquest as retribution; as he presses onward, he mentions freeing the people he encounters along his journeys. Then the objective becomes more idealistic and set upon glory. There was a point I wondered whether his mother Olympias (played by Angelina Jolie) served as a manipulator for Alexander's journey. The case I'm trying to make is Alexander never gives a clear, concise goal to accomplish and it only makes the audience feel isolated from the story.
One of the more sensitive topics Stone brings up is the alleged bisexuality of Alexander the Great. The implication of the king having an intimate relationship with his best friend Hephaistion (played by Jared Leto) does not bother me; my concern is towards the point of making his sexuality a recurrent topic. Is it a conflict the king struggles with? No, not really. Even when he marries a bride, the subject of his affections is hardly examined; it doesnâ(TM)t warrant having a place in the plot. If a movie continues to remind us of a protagonist's sexuality, it ought to have a significant part.
The performers are given a script with lines akin to a re-election campaign speech of President Obama. Elegant wording yet you've heard it all before, yearning for something new. Remember this is Oliver Stone who has penned fantastic screenplays from "Midnight Express" to "Scarface" to "Platoon". As for the performances themselves, it is a disaster listening to respected actors use varying accents from Colin Farrell's authentic Irish to Angelina Jolie's faux Russian. Jolie has the weirdest role of the cast as the snake fetish mother of Alexander whom she gives the impression of having an Oedipus relationship with. Accents aside, the speeches, monologues, and dialogues are either dull as Anthony Hopkins' narration or plain atrocious as Farrell's "Braveheart" address to his troops.
Apart from all the faults, "Alexander" is, on its surface, pretty. The costumes and set pieces are appropriately exotic in Babylon while the battles fought are both kinetic and brutal. The Indian fight wages men on horses against opponents riding war-equipped elephants, then unknown to the Macedonians. Impaling, hacking, dismemberment, and stomping do not hesitate in this particular battle. While these bloody feuds won't be revered or remembered like the clashes in "Gladiator" or "Lord of the Rings", they will not disappoint the ardent admirers of warfare.
If "Alexander" wasn't the worst movie of 2004, it was the most over-hyped one. Since then, it has undergone different cuts for the home release. I found the movie more disappointing than embarrassing to watch given the credentials of the people on board. The lesson of this review is simple: never prejudge a movie by its credits. Alexander the Great will always be remembered, Oliver Stone's "Alexander"? Not so much.
My Rating: 3/10
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Unnecessary Beginning
Prequels are probably the most risky decisions filmmakers make in a franchise. Some, like "The Godfather Part II", are embraced forever; others, like "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace", are dreaded and hated. With the financial success of Marcus Nispel's remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes couldn't resist the prospect of a follow-up. I don't believe the makers decided to do this solely in hopes of achieving box office success; I really think they were trying to furnish a new franchise. However, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (TTCM: TB)" gave moviegoers only two things: 1) A director who has become a rising star, and 2) A cheap explanation of how a character from the first movie ended up losing a body part. As an unashamed cinephile, I dare say this lackluster movie is useless and pointless.
Although not his first movie, "TTCM: TB" jump-started Jonathan Liebesman's career into Hollywood blockbusters beyond expectations. He has gone on to direct "Battle: Los Angeles", "Wrath of the Titans", and was even considered as director for Nolan's Superman reboot. Currently, he's working on another Bay project: A reboot of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I think Liebesman has great visionary potential but ends up with lousy scripts. Let's return to this film. The cinematography is brighter than Nispel's movie; it looks pretty when outdoors except when the sun shines into the camera to momentarily blind you. It doesn't help the horror be as atmospheric as the previous installment. The period props and grimy sets continue to look great; they still are my favorite aspects of the series. My biggest technical complaint is for the excessively messy chase sequences. The camera is too close to the pursuer and the pursued; it also shakes more vigorously than any war movie you've ever seen. If the blood doesn't nauseate you, test your mental durability when Leatherface hunts for his prey.
Some people pay to see the bloodshed and torture which is completely fine but not as cutting or thrilling as the works of Eli Roth or Alexandre Aja. I give the violence factor in "TTCM: TB" a satisfactory gore score. One particular scene I admire is when an unfortunate bastard is held facedown onto the ground underneath a chainsaw so the blade is pulled upwards from the belly, severing the spine, splitting him into two. For the gore hounds, this film won't hold back but like most Platinum Dunes productions, it has the jump scare curse. I have no problem with the technique; I have a problem with a movie using a useless jump after useless jump until it is finally appropriate. By the time you get there, you're already annoyed. If there was a terrifying, unpredictable environment like the caverns in "The Descent", this one-trick pony wouldn't have been as bothering as it was.
The plot does the movie no justice in compensating for the terror tactics. All we learn about the origins of Thomas "Leatherface" Hewitt (played by Andrew Bryniarski) is how he was rescued by a degenerate Texan family after being left to die as a newborn in a dumpster. The rest is described in a title sequence. As he grows, his physical deformities become apparent and I guess he thought self-mutilating his face would help. The rest is the recycled serial killer formula: bullied in school and slicing up animals. So guess what spurs his spree in July 1969? Because his town declares financial bankruptcy, Thomas is fired from his job at a meat factory. Without a word or reason, he complains to his superior by bludgeoning the bejesus out of him. With the town remote, broke, and empty, the Hewitt family takes the opportunity to control it. For this slasher, two brothers headed to Vietnam and accompanied by their girlfriends on a road trip are the flies caught in the web.
The searing flaw of "TTCM: TB" is its failure to explain the character motivations. It is as if the Hewitt family aggressively acts on impulse rather than on emotion like the case of Leatherface and his boss. After the dispute, he discovers and possesses a random chainsaw. Why? What did he like about it? There are some motivations in a movie requiring explanations to help the audience connect to what they are watching. I admit the teenage victims were more interesting than the typical ensemble in a slasher. One brother wants to return to Vietnam but the other is reluctant. It could have been used as a clever allegory for a divided era of American history but, in the end, they are bags of meat and blood. What is most disappointing is how there is no exploration of the Hewitt origins to connect to the Nispel film. All it shows is how one character lost his legs and how the other lost his teeth to explain why they're missing to begin with.
The victims in the movie aren't bad actors; the problem is the absence of sufficient character development rather than talking about having children or being scared of going to Vietnam. All we anticipate is their turn to die, nothing else save for the guys eyeing Diora Baird in skimpy attire. The star is R. Lee Emery who returns as Leatherface's uncle and does what he does best: acting as an authority figure with a drill sergeant persona. His bullying cruelty speaks for his character and actions almost perfectly. Sure, the hulky Leatherface is intimidating but I feel as if Emery plays the main antagonist since he runs the family and town.
For a family resorting to cannibalism, you would think they could pillage any food in the deserted area or slay the livestock at the meat factory. That's funny. I think I gave the "How It Should Have Ended" people on YouTube an idea. And speaking of ending, don't expect a good conclusion; it's a prequel and inevitable. Like I said, prequels are a risky business.
My Rating: 3/10
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The Dark Knight Rises and Delivers a Momentous Achievement in Superhero Cinema
The wait for Christopher Nolan's final Batman movie is finally over. The hype surrounding the release has immensely intensified beyond expectation, specifically in politics. Indeed, "The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR)".
Eight years have passed since the events of "The Dark Knight (TDK)" and Batman is virtually gone from Gotham City. Bruce Wayne (played by Christian Bale) himself avoids the spotlight and is rarely seen in public. His hibernation is broken when ally Commissioner Gordon (played by Gary Oldman) informs him of a new threat. The culprit is Bane (played by Tom Hardy), a former member of Ra's al Ghul's League of Shadows who leads a group of anarchist terrorists to complete what his master failed to do: obliterate Gotham and its occupants. But Wayne faces two more conflicts. Through the course of this film, he isolates his closest allies who fear for his well-being but gains new ones including Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway). The other challenge is a test of his strength and character to rise above all doubt and fear.
The story begins confusing but as in all smart mysteries, the fog will clear quickly, I assure you. It's satisfying to know how dedicated the director and writers stay committed to fulfilling the Batman trilogy without selling their souls to commercialism like "Star Wars" or "Transformers". Instead, the focus is on the protagonist and the outcome of his endeavors. What makes the third movie exceptional is the premise of Bruce Wayne being tested by ominous forces to see whether or not he can rediscover the strength, will, and character of his alter ego. In "TDK", Wayne sacrificed Batman's popularity in order to preserve the order of Gotham but ever since then, the reclusive billionaire has gradually doubted his significance. Even after pushed into becoming Batman again, he feels as if he's not fighting for something tremendous though he dons the same cape, costume, and mask. It isn't until Bane traps the Caped Crusader into a deep pit when our hero must learn overcome his personal fears and doubts so he can save his city. This is a crisis created to connect the audience. Christian Bale continues to let us embrace his character and root for him to the end as the protagonist should.
Bane accomplishes more than the Joker could ever dream of. Although the Joker stimulated anarchy in "TDK", Bane fulfills the vision by influencing the masses into turning against one another. Whereas the Joker would love to sit at the sidelines while Gotham destroys itself, Bane becomes the manipulative elite. The traits of Bane make him the more intriguing. Although incredibly rough and bulky, his brute force rivals his cunning mind spoken through a soft-sounding yet menacing mask. Tom Hardy delivers audiences the Bane they've been waiting for. Now, lots of people have been worried about the voice comprehension of the mask; therefore, I will put you at ease by saying you will not miss the important instances and you'll probably understand most of the time.
Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, is an anti-hero in the finest sense of the word, a criminal with a compassionate conscience. I initially raised an eyebrow with the thought of the sweet Anne Hathaway playing as a sly, thieving deviant; however, I commend Hathaway for her slick, sexy, and insidious performance. Although anticipating the coming of class warfare, Selina's purpose in pillaging is to adapt and survive, not to create disorder. She's the type who will cross any treacherous foe; if that's not enough, her shoes armed with knife-like heels will make short work. The rest of the cast ensemble performed exceptionally well such as Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Marion Cotillard but I feel as if Joseph Gordon-Levitt deserves a special shout-out for his role of a dutiful yet stubborn police officer who becomes a loyal ally and emotional support for Batman.
The central theme of "TDKR" will be debated for a good period of time, mostly the political implications. For the most part, the debate has backfired on both the left and the right. I do doubt Nolan's denial of political intentions for his movie since the similarities to current events couldn't be more striking. For background's sake, I was in Pittsburgh in July 2011 and I can attest for the production of the film in the city at the time. The Occupy protests did not start until two months later. What I'm trying to say is this: it's a possibility the makers decided to build on the protests as inspiration for the whole rich versus poor situation in Gotham. Whether or not the makers sympathize with the movement can be questioned; however, the movie gives the impression of repulsion toward the anarchic manipulation of Occupy. Bane ultimately drives Gotham's citizens into class warfare between the wealthy and the poor to secure control of the chaotic city and allow his true intentions to proceed. If not a critique of a failed movement, "TDKR" could also be interpreted as the withering desolation of Western civilization. Think about it when you listen to the creepiest "Star-Spangled Banner" ever heard before Bane executes the next step of his plot. As we witness the decadence of Gotham, it becomes clear the true enemy of the people is themselves.
As much as I highly praise "TDKR", I did find it underwhelming than expected. I don't think it was dark enough compared to its predecessors. Think of it as the "Call of Duty: MW3"; it is superb, gripping, and gratifying but doesn't quite outperform the marvel of the second. What makes this trilogy so successful and revered is its willingness to bring Batman back into his dark roots as he was meant to. And to end it all, "TDKR" delivers fans an overall thrilling, entertaining, and powerful conclusion to this revolutionary series. The future of Batman may remain unclear but the impact shall last.
My Rating: 9/10
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
I Feel Fingered After Watching This
Tell me the last time you told your mother to be promiscuous or you whacked a horse off. No? Tom Green has already done that so don't even bother with such immoral suggestions. I don't hate shock humor but I detest attempts to use a feeble story to justify irrelevant acts of bestiality, child violence, and Tom Green stunts suitable for MTV reality shows. I excuse "Jackass" for their mind-boggling antics being that it is their careers to pull stunts like shooting fireworks near their butts. No story needed. But there comes a point in time when you must ask yourself during a movie "What's the fu**ing point?"
Gord Brody (played by Tom Green) has goals of being a cartoon animator but the best job he can get is a job at a Hollywood cheese sandwich factory. Unsatisfied with his job and failed ambitions, Gord moves back to his parent's Portland home to continue his already annoying behavior. Very unbecoming of his antagonistic father (played by Rip Torn), who is the only character I could sympathize with for dealing with a black sheep. To our astonishment, Gord manages to score with a rocket scientist (played by Marisa Coughlan) who is wheelchair-bound and orgasms when having her legs whacked. So there you go, the basic points in this movie, the rest is about Tom Green performing unnatural, random crap.
Oh, you want to know the meaning of the title? Fine. At some point, Gord decides to exact revenge on his dad for breaking one of his possessions. How? By falsely accusing him of sexually molesting Freddy (played by Eddie Kaye Thomas), Gord's younger adult brother. He's a full-grown man and he's sent to an institute for sexually-abused children. Do you want to know the sad part? The subject doesn't come up again.
I'll make a couple of confessions in this review. First, I want to admit I love hating this movie so much. Second, just because I may laugh at some scenes doesn't mean I like, admire, or enjoy what I'm seeing. The only thing I genuinely laughed at was when Rip Torn cracked a cripple joke. I feel ashamed for it too. One last confession: this is a movie which made me so mad I impulsively blurted "F**k you" near the end. I know you'll understand why after seeing the elephant.
None of the stunts in Green's movie make logical sense to his character's objectives. Instead, we see the sporadic actions of an animal-abusing, spoiled, socially and mentally-retarded moron. God, I sound like Keith Olbermann but bear with me, please. Should I rig my fingers with sausages on strings while playing keyboard music to be more creative in this review? What may work for Gord may not work for me. From showering with scuba gear to swinging newborns by their umbilical cords, Gord's sickness doesn't deserve any pity and can only isolate viewers from rooting for him.
If you think I'm going to be merely offended by broken teeth and animal masturbation, you got another thing coming. The cast generally has mean, heartless roles to support the dismal, annoying performance of Tom Green. His performance serves only one purpose: it challenges us to deal with his immaturity for an hour-and-a-half. I honestly cannot name one performance that wasn't awkward, annoying, or embarrassing. And don't even go there with Rip Torn; you're more likely to laugh at him than with him.
Even Green's direction sucks. Don't believe me? Look at the trailer of Gord in the factory with a "cheese-helmet" and you'll notice that the movie doesn't even show his stunt until we see him with a zoomed out shot of it on the conveyor belt. Instead, the scene plays out during the rolling credits. That's how lousy and inept this movie is. I'm impressed how the status of Green's movie has changed over time but it still won't affect my opinion. An awful movie is an awful movie. I really don't care if this movie has obtained a cult status or people understood Green was deliberately intent on destroying art, "Freddy Got Fingered" is the ultimate shame of comedic cinema if not one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
My Rating: 1/10
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
You Can Forgive Bay for Revenge of the Fallen
I came out of the theater, after watching "Transformers: Dark of the Moon (DOTM)" in 3D, feeling torn between the greatness and badness of the movie. This third installment outdoes "Revenge of the Fallen (ROTF)" but it never surpasses the grandness of the first "Transformers". It ends Michael Bay's successful series on an assuring note, leaving no potential possibility of a sequel; rather, it leaves a sense of satisfaction for wrapping up any loose ends.
The plot is much simpler than "ROTF" but it is still complex to follow compared to "Transformers". The background centers on the American-Soviet race to the moon. The American government, unbeknownst to the public, sends Apollo 11 to investigate alien wreckage on the dark side of the moon which turns out to be a ship from the robot planet Cybertron. In the present day, the Autobots learn of the secret mission and discover that the ship holds pieces to a weapon used to teleport matter between two points through a space bridge. The U.S. National Intelligence Director (played by Frances McDormand) fears its use as a means to invade Earth and the Autobots feel betrayed by humans who promised to share information so a mutual distrust ensues. Elsewhere, the Decepticons collaborate with certain humans to eliminate individuals involved in the space program and plot to invade Earth again. As all of this continues, we periodically follow Sam Witwicky (played by Shia LaBeouf) struggling with two things: a relationship with a new girl (played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and the search for a job. But, once again, he is going to be part of this war and fight for the survival of his planet.
In an interview with USA Today, Michael Bay promised to trim the "dorky comedy" including the twin ghetto robots (Mudflap and Skids) and make the third film darker. He keeps his word, for the most part, by showing more death and destruction than his previous works combined. Bay has the power to make his scenes emotional when he gives it his all yet he gives "DOTM" too little dosage of that power. There is enough to get people caring but not to the point where they succumb to grief and despair over hurt or loss like in "The Rock" shower room sequence. The slapstick nature that haunted "ROTF" has been cut massively in "DOTM" in favor of Bay's routine commercial comedy. I have to confess something; while a lot of people say Bay's sense of humor is overdone or foolish, I find it strangely entertaining. The comedy pays off with funny (even if goofy) dialogue and surprise cameos; however, all pale in comparison to the secret weapon: Ken Jeong. The man has officially become a sensation and now he serves as the secondary comic relief. He delivers the bulk of the commercial comedy and is gut-wrenchingly hysterical. I say "Kudos" to Bay and writer Ehren Kruger for being more certain of this movie's direction than in "ROTF".
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is a 3D visual fiesta for the audience and I think they will get their money's worth with the glasses. Debris, people, and robots fly through the third dimension for an experience unfelt since "Avatar". The action scenes, patched with slow-motion instances, still command the screen with awesome spectacle even if they don't quite take the breath away the way "Transformers" did. The transformations are fun to watch while Bay's explosions are less wild than before. Cinematography and sound are at the top of their game; it wouldn't surprise me if they, along with the visual effects, are nominated for Oscars.
The robots are treated with more respect this time around: Optimus Prime has a bigger role, Megatron reveals his fears and dismay, the miniature Wheelie and his new partner Brains are not mere merchandise for kids, and there are no gargantuan robot balls clanking anywhere. Several new robots make their debut such as Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy), a bird-like cyborg called Laserbeak who serves Megatron, and the Decepticon Shockwave who controls a snake-like machine for transportation and decimation. As the robots have become leaner, the fighting, especially in the long climax, has become more brutal and violent. The robots are definitely revamped although one of the main problems of "DOTM" is its lag from peculiar human characters.
Acting was never a great strength in the "Transformers" trilogy and it is not significantly good in "DOTM". Shia LaBeouf gives one of the most weird, bipolar performances of his career. In some scenes, he angrily freaks out, an unusual mood swing from his likable, humble side; it's a strange case of role reversal. On a more positive note, Ehren Kruger's script gives Shia's character into his doubts and troubles, enough to create a substantial protagonist. Newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a terrible actress and I abhor saying it. Of all the actresses out there, she is the one selected to replace Megan Fox. Although Fox may have underperformed her role in the first two movies, she is much more realistic and alive than Rosie. Almost all of the supporting actors behave childishly from John Malkovich to John Turturro with a few exceptions including Frances McDormand and Patrick Dempsey. Sadly, both of these fine actors failed to give ideal characteristics to their roles: Dempsey should have had a more tough personality whereas McDormand could have hinted a slight fragility in her strong character like she did in "Fargo".
Do not let my final rating discourage you from seeing "DOTM"; it is only my individual opinion of the entire movie as a whole. Nevertheless, "DOTM" is destined to be a mega hit in the box office and a standout summer blockbuster. If you wish to see jaw-dropping action, you found the right film. If you prepare in advance to follow a hard story, you will probably have an even greater time. If you want to have fun, simply have fun! My Rating: 5/10
The Amityville Horror (1979)
A Been-There-Done-That Haunted House Movie Kind of Worth Watching
Sometimes it's inevitable to show mercy towards the clichés in haunted house movies. The story lines tend to follow the same pattern: (1) A group of people buy a house, (2) Strange things happen in the house, (3) The residents try to figure it out, (4) The people finally get out after all the time they wasted beforehand. But I look for both old and new content to see what filmmakers can make out of their movies and how they set them in motion. Director Stuart Rosenberg does not develop much originality in "The Amityville Horror" which drags with an unstable story, bullet-ridden by plot-holes. Yet the horror in the movie should keep you from walking away.
In 1974, a gunman executes his family in his Amityville home during the dead of night (3:15 am to be exact), supposedly motivated by the will of demons. One year later, the house is purchased by the Lutzes, a normal family starting a new life. They are aware of the history of their new residence but believe "houses don't have memories." After moving in, the residents experience paranormal activity and are threatened by hostile spirits during the course of their stay. Much of the Lutzes' testimony has been called to question and is still debated to this day. Watching this movie will create doubts for most viewers but the Lutzes have claimed that much of the events in the film are fictionally altered from their version. I'm a sucker for ghost stories but I also ask questions.
The patriarch of the Lutz family, George, is played by a desolate and distant James Brolin. When he's not building fires and acting as inhuman as possible, he's scaring loved ones with his frequent mood swings. If that's not enough for you to start worrying, George regularly wakes up at 3:15 am. Is this the doing of evil spirits or just the problems of an insecure man? Well, according to George, nothing is wrong even if he and his family get hurt. Margot Kidder is cast as Kathy Lutz, George's wife, to provide a sympathizing character for us. She is the only voice of reason in the family yet remains supportive of her husband. But Brolin and Kidder fail to develop the chemistry of a relationship since there are minimal moments when they have the chance to build it. Nevertheless, Kidder pulls off with a decent performance and shrill screams.
What wounds the direction of the story is the distracting focus on unnecessary supporting characters. The detective of Amityville (played by Val Avery) has no real purpose in the film; he's just a bystander of the events yet he is treated as if he might be a part of the story. But I think it's the through-the-roof acting and behavior that helps the supporting cast wreck their roles especially the one for Rod Steiger. He plays as a Catholic priest who is the first visitor to experience the horrors of the house and is the most followed character outside the Lutz family. Steiger's rambunctious yelling topped with his manic, complaining demeanor doesn't give us any reason to take him seriously. His performance makes him look psychotic more than angry and passionate.
The logic in "The Amityville Horror" lacks a deal of common sense and, in turn, damages the storytelling. For instance, the spirits of the house attack guests more than the homeowners. Shouldn't they be terrorizing the people who live in the house and not those who merely visit it? But it is more baffling that some of the visitors would not even bother telling the Lutzes of their suspicions. It also seems odd that the spirits continue to inflict harm upon former visitors when they are nowhere near the house. I guess the dead are easy to offend and hold a strong grudge against the living.
Despite its persistent shortcomings in cast and story, "The Amityville Horror" offers settings and scenery which are impressive for an independent, low-budget film. We see places where darkness cannot lurk such as a bright, lush sanctuary and then we enter the Lutz home. There, the evil finds refuge and interior shadows serve as decorative boundaries during the night. Moods of the settings are effectively reinforced by the music of Lalo Schifrin which swings back and forth from a childlike tune to a more ominous tone. The most iconic image in the movie is the back-end of the house. The design of the back resembles a half-finished Jack-o-lantern with a pair of semi-circular windows for the glaring eyes. Sometimes a red shot of this form gives the house a more sinister look. I would rather live in an apartment in Downtown Los Angeles than a house with a menacing stare.
I would normally rate a movie such as "The Amityville Horror" with a 4/10 but, this time, I'll award it a 5/10 for the scare tactics. The horror, as a whole, relies on an unpredictable environment. Quiet moments are followed by enormous bursts of noise guaranteeing a jump or two. There are times when mere people or animals startle you in the most unlikely of places but when the spirits are roused (particularly the ending), you will be ambushed by many frightening sequences that can stick to you like flypaper.
My Rating: 5/10
Sucker Punch (2011)
A Visually Vivid but Underwhelming Fetish Film
Human imagination is a boundless and valuable thing. "Sucker Punch" manages to prove that fact while it fumbles with a complicated storyline. It's a film where beauty prevails but material is needed. To understand "Sucker Punch", be aware of the three forms of narrative: one takes place in reality, another is a fantasized stage of that reality, and the other is a complete dream world.
Emily Browning stars as Baby Doll, a 20-year-old girl who is committed to a mental asylum and sentenced to be lobotomized in five days. This is a reality she copes with by creating her own world where the institution becomes a brothel run by chief orderly and sleaze bucket Blue Jones (played by Oscar Isaac). Baby Doll becomes acquainted with her fellow peers and they urge her to take special dance lessons from their teacher (played by Carla Gugino). As she dances, Baby Doll envisions a parallel dream world where physical laws and other rules are naught. With the help of her friends and newfound powers, she plans to escape the facility.
The dream world settings are visually spellbinding in color and design. The exhilarating hues light up the screen to effectively awe the audience and it a grand sight to behold. Every time Baby Doll enters this mystical realm, there are different landscapes with new enemies. It's like watching a live-action kill-them-all video game with orcs, dragons, killer droids, undead German soldiers from WWI, and giant samurai. To fight their opponents, the girls use everything from katana swords to submachine guns. There is a lot of anachronism like the machine guns handled in the WWI trenches but remember, we are beyond reality at this point. The brawls are superbly choreographed so that major blows are stressed while the less-effective hits are kept at a fast pace.
As far as directing goes, "Sucker Punch" is Zack Snyder's most mediocre undertaking. He enacts his trademark slow-motion action sequences with proficiency and it's highly commendable. Snyder also tries out new techniques such as the split focus shot (a pet peeve of mine) which is employed in a way I have never seen before, not even in Brian De Palma's movies. But the good qualities of "Sucker Punch" are countered by a screenplay, among other things, doused with dialogue that is either decent or rotten. I rarely critique a film's soundtrack but in the case of "Sucker Punch", I'll make an exception with a clear purpose. If you look back at Snyder's adaptation of "Watchmen", most of the music reflects the time period the story is set in and the selections work well. Snyder mashes random music genres into his film and I feel they ruin the overall tone in the process.
The acting is generally average, neither great nor horrible, with the exception of Scott Glenn's performance which falls below the line. The five main girls try to give their roles satisfying character but in the long run, there are no special traits or attitudes established to help me understand them better. A woman with the name of Rocket (played by Jena Malone) could have a hot-headed demeanor; all I get is a small backstory and no real personality. None of the other girls live up to their nicknames and it's pretty disappointing.
"Sucker Punch" is fantastic to look at even if it lacks the sufficient pieces to build an inspiring story with vivid characters. Zack Snyder has the talent and knowledge to make a great movie and I do not think this film will haunt him. Yet it might serve as a scar left to remind him of the mistakes he needs to avoid. Now that I think of it, some people are proud of their scars and tend not to make the same blunders again.
My Rating: 5/10